NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • September 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct
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

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

30 September 2008

Supplying Raw Materials for GM-free Animal Products
Understanding the detailed buyer needs when serving European feed compounders producing for "GM-free" claims

TraceConsult, Geneva, 30 September 2008. By Jochen Koester.

[Download this article as a printer-friendly PDF file]

Ever since the implementation of the EU "GMO labeling" Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 EU law has left operators unsure of how to make positive claims such as "GM-free" or "non-GM" on consumer products. Only a small number of EU Member States have legislation in place that strictly regulate such claims.

Austria and Germany are two of these countries who recently decided to facilitate the way their legislations had regulated how food manufacturers can make claims indicating to private consumers that a given product is made without involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In order to make such claims, particularly on animal products, retailers and brand owners in Germany, the larger of the two countries, must be able to rely on the specifications of their raw material supply chains. Market observation reveals that feed millers, distributors and importers of raw materials, such as soy meal, still encounter difficulties in understanding what criteria in raw materials are really needed to support an intended "GM-free" claim on a final consumer product.

The following article focuses on the German situation, but in a broader way it helps understand also the respective issues in Austria and in other EU countries.

---

1st May 2008 is the date from when it became significantly easier for German manufacturers to make a "GM-free" claim, particularly regarding animal products. (The only German term that may legally be used is "ohne Gentechnik", which means "without biotechnology".) After pioneering brand owners and retail chains decided to make use of this new legal opportunity, the need for accurate implementation has also reached the raw materials trade as well as the animal nutrition industry, albeit with a delay that was to be expected.

Early observations show that in some aspects, the German statutes and the declarations of local authorities often do not quite provide industry experts with sufficient security; security in the sense of what is required to support, for instance, poultry or dairy products with a "GM- free" claim to the private consumer.

Old historical issues were revived by the possibility to make a "GM-free" claim on animal products provided the animals were not raised on feed labeled under EU Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003. According to this regulation, compound feed products do not have to be labeled if the GM content is below 0.9 % and, as an additional prerequisite, provided this content could be demonstrated to be either adventitious or technically unavoidable. The judgment whether this prerequisite is actually met in a given case (and whether the "GM-free" claim of the animal product was actually justified) provokes strong feelings of uncertainty in some industry circles.

Guidance is offered here by a document of SCoFAH, the EU Commission's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health which states in item 7 (Miscellaneous) of the Summary Record of its meeting held on 16 June 2008:

Implementation of the labelling rules with respect to the requirement of technically and unavoidable presence of GM material

[W]hen operators have taken contractual precautions in order to strictly limit the risks of the presence of GM material, i.e. by an identity preservation scheme, the possible presence of such material should be considered as adventitious or technically unavoidable and products have not to be labelled in accordance with Articles 13 and 25 [EU Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003, JK] if this presence is below 0.9 %. This approach is valid for both products produced in the EU or imported from third countries.

Lawyers find this wording has sufficient clarity but for decision makers in the respective industries this is not necessarily the case. If then one local authority's interpretation varies from that of another it becomes challenging for any practitioner to reach reliable decisions independently that are both convincing and unambiguous.

Interpretation recently provided by the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMELV) is particularly helpful, especially because it leads to the following step-by-step explanation. (The BMELV emphasizes that among Member States national interpretations rarely differ. What may differ is the stringency of monitoring and enforcement between Member States)

In an assumed hypothetical case that a feed manufacturer supplies a product enabling a "GM-free" claim on the final animal product the feed manufacturer will have to determine to what maximum GMO content he has to abide by.

1.

1. At the very beginning it must be stated that GMO content in animal feed of up to 0.9% is without any consequences for animal production - but only with certain prerequisites.

2.

In the event GM contamination of the feed product can be demonstrated to be "adventitious" or "technically unavoidable" the animal product may still be marketed with a "GM-free" claim.

3.

In order to produce evidence to support this, an operator must "have taken contractual precautions in order to strictly limit the risks of the presence of GM material". "Strictly limiting a risk", however, is equivalent to excluding it; this view is also explicitly supported by the BMELV. This means that the contract or frame agreement based on which an operator procures his raw materials must state by what measures any GM content is excluded at the supplier's level. Consequently, an operator must have reached an agreement with his supplier on how to limit any GM content according to German (and EU) regulations. The example used by the SCoFAH for such a regime is the establishment of an IP system (= identity preservation). Such systems are central to prevent GM contamination at the raw materials processor and in the logistics chain.

4.

According to the wording of the German "GM-free" regulation and the opinion of the BMELV, "strictly limit" means no GMO contamination. Therefore, a contract must at first stipulate the supply of material free of GMOs at 0.0%. However, scientifically speaking, the detection of 0.0% is not possible and as a result today the term "max. 0.1%" prevails in the EU and also in the international commodity trade because authorities generally accept this limit as the analytical detection limit of quantification.

5.

Both European as well as German legislators are aware that even with extreme care adventitious contamination with GMOs cannot always be avoided. In such cases, where a "waterproof and GM-free" system among contractual partners that have made an effort from the beginning to remain GM-free does show an adventitious or technically unavoidable contamination it is considered harmless up to a threshold of 0.9%. And the BMELV has confirmed that a chicken raised on such material may still receive a "GM-free" claim. By the same token, the animal nutrition product will of course not require labeling according to EU Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003.

6.

According to the BMELV, adventitious can mean, for instance, that despite the existence of a raw materials system aiming for GM-free processing accidental contamination may be detected. The repeated occurrence of such accidents is possible or even an optimized IP system may not be able to exclude entirely technically unavoidable contamination. But the intention of the initial system must demonstrably aim for a total absence of GMOs. Batch-related certification programs offered in the market are a welcome tool to achieve this objective. It is important to note that the mere indication that running such an IP system is "difficult" will not validate a claim for technical unavoidability. Brazil alone processes and confidently ships several million tonnes annually of soy products through established and mature IP systems to Europe - all GM-free at below detection limit.

The BMELV is in regular communication with the monitoring authorities of the German L”nder (states) to ensure uniform interpretation of laws and regulations issued by the Federal Government as well as direct EU Regulations. It should be desirable that the interpretation and implementation of respective regulations would be facilitated more for commercial operators through clearer and more detailed communication. It is, after all, feed mills and distributors who import raw materials with a potential GM content from overseas and it is up to them to influence their contractual partners abroad to implement certain principles and procedures.

Terms coined by the trade such as "hard IP" or "soft IP" are neither useful nor helpful and, more often than not, misleading. It would, in light of the above, be preferable that supply contracts guarantee "max. 0.1% GMO content" or even "GM-free at detection limit". Currently, in contracts with that kind of guarantee, a buyer retains the right to reject shipments with higher GMO contaminations. The proposed clause would eliminate this right of rejection up to a certain threshold (e.g., 0.5% or even the maximum possible 0.9%), provided the contamination occurred adventitiously. - The introduction of such a contractual clause should cause many industry operators to manage the entire non-GM issue in a much more relaxed fashion and possibly even lead to slightly lower non-GMO premia that reflect the lower rejection risk.1

In closing, and to help eliminate an industry urban legend, a remark should be included that the entire issue of "zero tolerance" of GMOs has got nothing to do with the topics dealt with above. The tolerance issue is about a zero percent acceptance based on EU regulations addressing GMO varieties that have not been approved in the EU.

The author may be contacted at jk@traceconsult.ch

Notes

1. The author is available for discussion of such a commercial contract clause to be included in raw materials contracts.

New Soya Standards for the UK Food Industry

Food Ingredients First, 30 September 2008.

Both the Non-GM Module and the Responsible Procurement modules were initiated at the request of British Retail Consortium members and the development process was overseen by the UK Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC).

In response to the challenge of addressing consumer concerns for ethical and environmental soya production, two new soya standards have been developed to cover Non-GM Soya and Responsibly Produced Soya. The new standards are certified by PAI, one of Europe's leading approved certifiers of food products, food authenticity, labelling claims and food chain traceability.

Paul Wright, Managing Director of PAI explains: "The audits involve our assessors checking right along the supply chain from field to export terminal and covering several thousand miles in the process. Compliance with the FEMAS Responsible Procurement Module involves the close monitoring of all farms involved in the growing of soya to ensure they do not harm natural forest. Our assessors verify controls, including satellite imagery, and reports of field staff are used to confirm that no breaches of protocols occur. Verification also confirms that soybeans entering the certified supply chain only come from identified and approved farms."

Both the Non-GM Module and the Responsible Procurement modules were initiated at the request of British Retail Consortium members and the development process was overseen by the UK Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC).

Tim Oliver of the FEMAS Working Group concludes: "FEMAS is concerned to ensure that the products it certifies meet the criteria agreed between supplier and customer. FEMAS utilises a risk-based methodology to evaluate the controls needed to meet these criteria. This means unnecessary costs are avoided where risks are low but the required controls are present where risks are higher. This approach has been welcomed by all participants in a supply chain where cost control is always an important issue but where confidence in the assurance provided is paramount."

US Hopeful Of Agreement Over GM Crops - US Ambassador To EU

Dow Jones Newswires, 30 September 2008. By Matthew Dalton.

BRUSSELS -- U.S. hopes to come to an agreement with the European Union over genetically modified crops, without the need to involve the World Trade Organization, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union said Tuesday.

In an interview with Dow Jones, U.S. Ambassador Kristen Silverberg said the US "continue to try to resolve" a dispute between the U.S. and the E.U. over Europe's rules on genetically modified organisms without filing a complaint at the WTO and that there were "ongoing conversations."

The WTO has previously said the E.U.'s restrictions on genetically modified crops violate trade rules.

The E.U.'s strict regulations on genetically modified crops severely limit the import of some crops such as new biotech soybeans likely to be planted in the U.S.

EU fails to approve GM soybean, ministers to decide

Reuters, 30 September 2008. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS - European Union biotech experts clashed on Monday on whether to authorize imports of a genetically modified soybean made by Monsanto, leaving the final decision to EU farm ministers, the EU executive said.

The soybean, a second-generation GM product known by its code number MON 89788, is designed to resist glyphosate Roundup Ready herbicides and also produce increased yields for farmers.

Monsanto's application for EU approval is for use in food and feed, not for cultivation in Europe's fields.

Europe's livestock and feed manufacturing industries have a keen interest in the EU authorizing more soybean imports since they depend heavily on shipments of soy products -- beans, meal -- as a source of protein-rich and high-quality feed.

EU countries only produce a minimal amount of soybeans in terms of overall EU consumption, so imports are crucial. Soybean meal is the primary source of protein for the EU animal feed market, representing more than 60 percent of vegetable protein.

Rapeseed meal is the second source of raw material for feedmakers but its protein content is much lower, between 30 and 35 percent. However, it has the advantage of mainly being produced in Europe.

After Monday's inconclusive vote by the national EU experts, the application will now be sent to ministers for discussion.

However, if the ministers disagree after three months and fail to muster enough consensus under the EU's weighted voting system either to approve or reject the application, the European Commission -- the EU executive -- will issue a default approval.

"As a result of today's inconclusive vote, the Commission will now transmit the dossier to the Council (of EU farm ministers) for a decision," the Commission said in a statement.

"If the Council does not reach a position within three months, the proposal will be sent back to the Commission for final adoption," it said.

Diplomats said 12 states voted in favor: Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Czech Republic. Six were against: Greece, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria and Poland.

The rest, apart from absentees Lithuania and Malta, abstained in the vote.

EU law allows for rubberstamp GMO authorizations 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.

That happened earlier this month with another modified soybean, developed and marketed by Bayer CropScience and known by its codenumber A2704-12

While the EU has now approved a string of GM products by default rubberstamp, it does not yet allow the presence of any other GMO on EU territory, even in tiny amounts, until the EU approval for that specific GM product is granted.

(Editing by Michael Roddy)

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The agri-biotech industry propaganda machine has convinced gullible Irish farmers, animal feed importers and feed compounders that they have no choice but to accept more and more GM animal feed. They are also being told that the EU's "zero tolerance" policy for unnapproved GM ingredients must be scrapped to prevent a shortage of animal feed.

Nothing could be futher from the truth.

Ireland is the EU's biggest importer of GM animal feed, widely used to produce non-organic meat, poultry and dairy produce (sold without a GM label). The industrial mass-production of the two main feed crops, GM soya and maize, requires large-scale monocultures and increased use of toxic weedkillers, pesticides and fungicides, with devastating agronomic, health, environmental, economic and social consequences at the far end of the food chain. In South America, soy production for EU livestock has caused the destruction of 21 million hectares of forest in Brazil, 14 million in Argentina, and two million in Paraguay. The Irish cattle, sheep, pig and poultry sectors are eating up the Amazon!

But in 2007, a million citizens of EU member states signed a petition demanding mandatory labelling of GM-fed meat, poultry and dairy produce, based on the fundamental right to information for consumer choice. In 2008, leading EU retailers began extending their existing GM food bans to exclude such produce. 43 European Regions have since adopted Quality Agriculture non-GM strategies to add value to their meat and dairy produce, which may now carry a GM-free label in Germany. The good news is that Ireland's mostly grass-fed beef and sheep consume less GM feed than many of their EU competitors. This gives our farmers a valuable head start in the transition to a GM-free food chain.

Teagasc, the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Grain and Feed Association - and their friends in government, academia and the media ó must stop spreading the agri-biotech industry lie that non-GM animal feed is unavailable or unaffordable. European maize is abundant and 99% GM-free; Brazil can supply the entire EU market for soy meal from certified sustainable non-GM sources. And peak oil will soon favour local production of feed crops over expensive imports.

Five steps are required for Ireland to kick the GM habit:

•

Animal feed importers must stop witholding non-GM feed available to other EU farmers;

•

Security of supply requires regional coordination and forward planning;

•

A non-GM certification scheme is needed for meat, poultry & dairy produce;

•

Our food security requires local self-reliance for food and feed production;

•

The Government should require mandatory labelling for meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed.

•

Consumers can take the lead by supporting GM-free farmers and food producers.

Instead of competing in a race to the bottom against cheap GM-fed meat imports, Ireland can become the EU market leader for quality GM-free meat and dairy produce: a unique sellling point for our food, farm and tourism sectors!

The second international Non-GMO soy summit

Irish farmers, feed importers and compounders and food processors seeking certified Non-GMO soya products should participate in the 2nd International Non-GMO Soy Summit which will take place in Brussels on 7 - 9 October 2008.

The event provides an interactive platform for industry members to develop new strategies and alliances to meet the growing demand for non-GMO soy and derivatives and also select the winner of the Summit Development Grant for 2008.

For more information and registration: http://www.nongmosoysummit.com

A report on the 2007 Soy Summit can be downloaded from:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/GMFI-GM-free-Soya-conf.pdf

The free market preachers have long practised state welfare for the rich

The Guardian, 30 September 2008. By George Monbiot.

Bailing out banks seems unprecedented, but the US government's form in subsidising big business is well established.

According to Senator Jim Bunning, the proposal to purchase $700bn of dodgy debt by the US government was "financial socialism, it is un-American". The economics professor Nouriel Roubini called George Bush, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke "a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the United Socialist State Republic of America". Bill Perkins, the venture capitalist who took out an ad in the New York Times attacking the plan, called it "trickle-down communism".

They are wrong. Any subsidies eventually given to the monster banks of Wall Street will be as American as apple pie and obesity. The sums demanded may be unprecedented, but there is nothing new about the principle: corporate welfare is a consistent feature of advanced capitalism. Only one thing has changed: Congress has been forced to confront its contradictions.

One of the best studies of corporate welfare in the US is published by my old enemies at the Cato Institute. Its report, by Stephen Slivinski, estimates that in 2006 the federal government spent $92bn subsidising business. Much of it went to major corporations such as Boeing, IBM and General Electric.

The biggest money crop - $21bn - is harvested by Big Farmer. Slivinski shows that the richest 10% of subsidised farmers took 66% of the payouts. Every few years, Congress or the administration promises to stop this swindle, then hands even more state money to agribusiness. The farm bill passed by Congress in May guarantees farmers a minimum of 90% of the income they've received over the past two years, which happen to be among the most profitable they've ever had. The middlemen do even better, especially the companies spreading starvation by turning maize into ethanol, which are guzzling billions of dollars' worth of tax credits.

Slivinski shows how the federal government's Advanced Technology Program, which was supposed to support the development of technologies that are "pre-competitive" or "high risk", has instead been captured by big businesses flogging proven products. Since 1991, companies such as IBM, General Electric, Dow Chemical, Caterpillar, Ford, DuPont, General Motors, Chevron and Monsanto have extracted hundreds of millions from this programme. Big business is also underwritten by the Export-Import Bank: in 2006, for example, Boeing alone received $4.5bn in loan guarantees.

The government runs something called the Foreign Military Financing programme, which gives money to other countries to purchase weaponry from US corporations. It doles out grants to airports for building runways and to fishing companies to help them wipe out endangered stocks.

But the Cato Institute's report has exposed only part of the corporate welfare scandal. A new paper by the US Institute for Policy Studies shows that, through a series of cunning tax and accounting loopholes, the US spends $20bn a year subsidising executive pay. By disguising their professional fees as capital gains rather than income, for example, the managers of hedge funds and private equity companies pay lower rates of tax than the people who clean their offices. A year ago, the House of Representatives tried to close this loophole, but the bill was blocked in the Senate after a lobbying campaign by some of the richest men in America.

Another report, by a group called Good Jobs First, reveals that Wal-Mart has received at least $1bn of public money. Over 90% of its distribution centres and many of its retail outlets have been subsidised by county and local governments. They give the chain free land, they pay for the roads, water and sewerage required to make that land usable, and they grant it property tax breaks and subsidies (called tax increment financing) originally intended to regenerate depressed communities. Sometimes state governments give the firm straight cash as well: in Virginia, for example, Wal-Mart's distribution centres receive handouts from the Governor's Opportunity Fund.

Corporate welfare is arguably the core business of some government departments. Many of the Pentagon's programmes deliver benefits only to its contractors. Ballistic missile defence, for example, which has no obvious strategic purpose and is unlikely ever to work, has already cost the US between $120bn and $150bn. The US is unique among major donors in insisting that the food it offers in aid is produced on its own soil, rather than in the regions it is meant to be helping. USAid used to boast on its website that "the principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States. Close to 80% of the USAid's contracts and grants go directly to American firms." There is not and has never been a free market in the US.

Why not? Because the congressmen and women now railing against financial socialism depend for their re-election on the companies they subsidise. The legal bribes paid by these businesses deliver two short-term benefits for them. The first is that they prevent proper regulation, allowing them to make spectacular profits and to generate disasters of the kind Congress is now confronting. The second is that public money that should be used to help the poorest is instead diverted into the pockets of the rich.

A report published last week by the advocacy group Common Cause shows how bankers and brokers stopped legislators banning unsustainable lending. Over the past financial year, the big banks spent $49m on lobbying and $7m in direct campaign contributions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent $180m in lobbying and campaign finance over the past eight years. Much of this was thrown at members of the House financial services committee and the Senate banking committee.

Whenever congressmen tried to rein in the banks and mortgage lenders they were blocked by the banks' money. Dick Durbin's 2005 amendment seeking to stop predatory mortgage lending, for example, was defeated in the Senate by 58 to 40. The former representative Jim Leach proposed re-regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their lobbyists, he recalls, managed in "less than 48 hours to orchestrate both parties' leadership" to crush his amendments.

The money these firms spend buys the socialisation of financial risk. The $700bn the government was looking for was just one of the public costs of its repeated failure to regulate. Even now the lobbying power of the banks has been making itself felt: on Saturday the Democrats watered down their demand that the money earned by executives of companies rescued by the government be capped. Campaign finance is the best investment a corporation can make. You give a million dollars to the right man and reap a billion dollars' worth of state protection, tax breaks and subsidies. When the same thing happens in Africa we call it corruption.

European governments are no better. The free market economics they proclaim are a con: they intervene repeatedly on behalf of the rich, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves. Just as in the US, the bosses of farm companies, oil drillers, supermarkets and banks capture the funds extracted by government from the pockets of people much poorer than themselves. Taxpayers everywhere should be asking the same question: why the hell should we be supporting them?

Drop in genetically modified crops grown in EU

[Comment by GM Watch:

Beautiful example of spin. Following the news that BASF are likely to cut and run from Europe because its such a dire market for their GM products (item 1), comes news that the area of European farmland sown with GMOs declined in 2008 thanks to a ban in France, previously the EU's second-largest producer of GM maize, the only GM crop allowed in the EU.

But the following article (item 2) - largely based on a press release from the GM industry PR body Europabio - is written as if the downturn is a mere blip in an otherwise relentless story of GM success in Europe!

Spurred on by Europabio's press release, pro-GM sources went still further and actually headlined news of Europe's shrinking GM crop acreage as, "More GM crops being grown across Europe" (Farmers Gaurdian) and "Cultivation of GMOs rises in many European countries" (GMO Compass)
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/379.docu.html
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/12476/54/]

---

1. Cutting edge

The Guardian (Eco Soundings), September 24 2008. By John Vidal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/24/1

The huge German chemical company BASF has been nominated as No 1 in the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index - which means that it's the top corporate emission cutter. It gets the Eco Soundings cut-and-run award, too. In a barely noticed statement last month, it said it would cut all research into GM crops for the European market should it fail to get permission for its genetically engineered Amflora potato. "Europe is not mission critical," says J¸rgen Logemann, a vice-president at BASF's plant science division. "If Europe doesn't work, we will do this without Europe."

---

2. Drop in genetically modified crops grown in EU

European Voice, 30 September 2008. By Zoe Casey.

The area of European farmland sown with genetically modified (GM) crops declined by just over 2% in 2008, but this decrease was largely due to a ban introduced in France last year due to public opposition.

A report published on 29 September by EuropaBio, an association for biotech industries, said that GM maize was grown on a total of 107,719 hectares in seven EU states, down from 110,007 in 2007.

In 2007, France was the EU's second-largest producer of GM maize, the one GM crop allowed in the EU.

Spain remains by far the largest producer of GM crops in the EU, accounting for some 74% of the total.

The year saw big increases in the area sown with GM maize in a number of countries: in Poland and Romania the increase was ten-fold, in Slovakia the area doubled and in the Czech Republic there was a 68% increase. The Czech Republic is the second-largest cultivator of GM crops in the EU.

Currently, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is Bt Maize, a crop that was authorised ten years ago. A further 19 GM crops are awaiting EU approval.

While large agricultural producers such the US, Argentina and Brazil grow large quantities of GM crops, Europeans continue to debate their benefit. In September, the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission's in-house research body, said that GM crops themselves do not affect human health. However, a study published by Friends of the Earth Europe in January 2008 found that GM crops lead to an increase in pesticide use by encouraging the development of pesticide-resistant weeds, thereby increasing human exposure to chemicals in food.

Open Letter to Monsanto

Mr Hugh Grant
President and Chief Executive Officer
Monsanto
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St Louis, USA

Dear Mr Grant,

In 1961, three years after you were born, U.S. forces began their ten-year use of Agent Orange in South Vietnam. Over those years Eighty Million litres of the chemical was sprayed destroying forests, poisoning the rivers, lakes and the land. An even greater crime was the many thousands of Vietnamese people that died from the chemical and the hundreds of thousands that were crippled.

1981, six years after the American War on Vietnam ended; you joined the company that, along with others, was responsible for the manufacture of Agent Orange. Today in Vietnam there are 3.5 million people from new born babies to veterans suffering from the effects of the chemical your company made. Not to forget the many U.S. veterans also affected, like the Vietnamese many have died and are dying.

You were Mr Grant, at the time you joined Monsanto, fully aware of the effects that Agent Orange had had, you certainly knew when you became the company's president and its chief executive. Yet Mr Grant you failed to take any steps to alleviate the consequences of Monsanto's manufacture of Agent Orange. Indeed, not one word of regret to the Vietnamese victims has come from your lips despite facing lawsuit after lawsuit by victims from Vietnam, U.S. and South Korea.

Monsanto is, as you well know, the leading company involved with Genetic Modified (GM) crops. Your company has gone from creating one poison to another, both have and are still killing many thousands of people. Where does it end Mr Grant?

How can you live with the knowledge that you, and Monsanto through the use of Agent Orange and GM seeds etc are responsible for the deaths and physically crippling millions of people in the countries that your products were used and are sold?

I regret that here in my country Monsanto has also left a legacy, by its disposal of tonnes of chemical waste in a number of municipal sites. A particular site, Brofiscin Quarry in Wales, is causing acute concern by your chemical waste leaking into the water supply and into the atmosphere. Farmers nearby have reported abnormal births among their animals. Despite questions to government ministers it would appear that they, like Monsanto, are not concerned.

In August a junior minister Phil Woolas, MP from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), on the instructions of the Prime Minister, met with a group of companies that included Monsanto, Dow Chemical (one of your partners in the Agent Orange crime) to discuss introducing GM crops in the UK. This meeting and proposed policy has met with great hostility from people and organisations anxious about our food being poisoned by genetic engineering.

Thankfully, people here and in other countries are becoming more aware of the products of Monsanto and the danger they hold for the people. They are also becoming aware of the lawsuit brought by the Vietnamese people against your company and others in the U.S. Courts, and know that documents are being prepared to be placed before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking Justice for the crimes that Monsanto, Dow Chemical etc committed on the Vietnamese people.

Mr Grant, there is still time for you and your company to make amends for these crimes. Accept your responsibility for the manufacture of Agent Orange and its use on Vietnam. Make financial compensation to the victims, and their families. For many thousands of Vietnamese it is too late, they have died, their suffering is at an end, but for the present 3.5 million, their suffering continues.

Yours sincerely

Len Aldis
Secretary: Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society

Agent Orange victims' delegation arrives in New York

http://www.nhandan.com.vn/english/life/300908/life_ag.htm

A group of Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange (AO)/Dioxin arrived in New York on September 28, beginning a tour to raise the US public's awareness of the aftermath of Agent Orange sprayed by the US army in Vietnam during the war.

The delegation includes 72-year-old Dang Hong Nhut, who was directly exposed to AO and Tran Thi Hoan, a representative of the 2nd generation of AO victims in the country. Hoan was born with only one arm and without any legs.

Speaking to a Vietnam News Agency correspondent in New York, Nhut, who saw miscarriage for three times, had a stillborn baby and has been suffering from cancer because of AO, said that she wants to explain to the US people the harmful effects of AO on the people and environment in Vietnam, and how victims, both who experienced the war and younger generations, are suffering from the toxic substance.

According to Merle Ratner, co-ordinator of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief Responsibility Campaign (VAORRC), four US mass organisations fund the victims' tour with donations contributed by volunteers.

She affirmed that VAORRC supports Vietnamese AO victims and their lawsuit against US chemical companies, demanding these chemical companies pay compensation to the AO victims and calling on the US government to take responsibility towards those victims.

Ratner said her organisation also takes part in building up solidarity among American and Vietnamese AO victims.

During their first day in New York, the Vietnamese AO victims have a busy schedule with meetings with media workers and talks with American students.

Agent Orange Vietnam Victims to USA

Prensa Latina, September 12 2008

Hanoi - Millions of Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange, spread by US Air Force during the war against this country, will bring a lawsuit against the manufacturers of the toxic substance before the US Supreme Court of Justice.

According to reports of the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA), the lawsuit will be officially presented on October 6 against the companies that manufactured the lethal chemical substance used by the United States to back its troops in that war.

VAVA represents almost four million children and adults that are now suffering the ravages of being exposed to this dioxin, the cause of illnesses and congenital malformations more than three decades after the military conflict.

Several judicial institutions in New York and Washington rejected the accusation against the manufacturers of the substance, such as Monsanto and Dow Jones.

The Association will send a delegation of Agent Orange Victims to Washington, seeking support of justice.

29 September 2008

California's first protections for farmers from threats of genetic engineering become law
Monsanto's intimidation tactics no longer legal

Californians for GE-Free Agriculture press release, 29 September 2008

A landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from liability was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on Sept. 27, 2008. The bill, AB 541 (Huffman, D-Marin/Sonoma), was sponsored by a coalition of agriculture organizations and food businesses, and it is the first bill passed by the California legislature that brings much-needed regulation to genetically engineered (GE) crops.

AB 541 indemnifies California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable - the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of non-GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, most notoriously Monsanto. Further, if their contaminated crops cause harm to other farmers, the environment or consumers, they have not been protected from that liability. AB 541 provides protections for farmers from such liability. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to level the playing field when biotech companies investigate alleged patent or contract violations.

AB 541 was sponsored by a thirteen-member coalition including Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Earthbound Farm, California Certified Organic Farmers, and United Natural Foods Inc. It also had the support of the California Farm Bureau Federation which has traditionally opposed any restrictions or regulations for GE crops.

"AB 541 provides much needed protection for farmers who typically lack the resources to fight lawsuits brought by biotech conglomerates," stated Renata Brillinger, director of the Genetic Engineering Policy Project, the coalition sponsoring AB 541. "This is a good first step towards establishing that Monsanto - not farmers - is legally responsible for the economic, environmental and health harms caused by their patented and uncontrollable products."

Contact:

Renata Brillinger tel + 1 707 874 0316
email: info@gepolicyproject.org

Amazon Destruction Up -- Way Up, Says Brazil's Environment Minister

AP Alert - Agriculture -- 29 September 2008. By Bradley Brooks.

Rio De Janeiro, Brazil -- The Amazon is being deforested more than twice as fast as last year, Brazilian officials said Monday, acknowledging a sharp reversal after three years of declines in the deforestation rate.

Brazilian Environment Minister Carlos Minc said upcoming nationwide elections are partly to blame, with mayors in the Amazon region turning a blind eye to illegal logging in hopes of gaining votes locally.

Nongovernment environmentalists blame the global spike in food prices for encouraging soy farmers and cattle ranchers to clear land for crops and grazing.

Elections no doubt play a part, but "the tendency of deforestation rising is deeply related to the fact that food prices are going up," said Paulo Adario, who coordinates Greenpeace's Amazon campaign.

"When you have elections, the appetite of authorities to enforce laws is reduced," Adario said. "But the federal government has to step in and do its job."

Amazon destruction jumped 228 percent in August when compared to the same month a year ago, according to a report from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research. About 300 square miles (760 square kilometers) of the Amazon was destroyed last month, compared to 90 square miles (230 square kilometers) in August 2007.

The institute, which uses satellite imagery to track illegal logging, said the destruction was likely even worse than its figures show. No information was available for approximately 26 percent of the Amazon because of cloud cover during the month.

Also Monday, Minc released a list of what he said were the 100 individuals or companies responsible for the most deforestation since 2005.

Leading the list was the Brazilian government's own land and agrarian reform agency, Incra.

Greenpeace has accused Incra officials of illegally handing over rainforest to logging companies and creating fake settlements to skirt environmental regulations.

Minc said Incra was responsible for destroying 544,000 acres (220,000 hectares) of the Amazon in the past three years.

But Incra president Rolf Hackbart said all the areas cited by Minc as being deforested by Incra were areas legally settled between 1995 and 2002.

Most of Minc's list comprises Brazilian farmers and ranchers.

28 September 2008

Celtic revolt against Westminster over GM crops

Scottish ministers plan to link up with Wales and Northern Ireland to head off attempts to grow modified food on home soil

The Independent (UK), 28 September 2008. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor.

Ministers are facing an unprecedented Celtic revolt from their Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts as they launch a new campaign to plant GM crops in Britain.

All three devolved governments have declared themselves implacably opposed to any modified crops in their territory, setting the scene for one of their sharpest-ever confrontations with Westminster. And their opposition is likely to have an impact throughout Europe, sapping the UK's hitherto obdurate support for the introduction of the technology throughout the Continent.

No GM crops have yet been cultivated commercially in Britain - despite a drive led by Tony Blair - thanks to public hostility and official trials which found that growing them harmed wildlife. But London-based ministers have privately never given up. For years they have voted consistently in the EU to allow the sale of modified food and animal feeds throughout Europe, giving Britain the strongest pro-GM record in the union. And they have now launched a bid to grow the crops in the UK.

Ian Pearson, the science minister, last week said "a significant majority" of Britons "will want to choose GM" once they learned of its advantages, adding: "We have to show that there are benefits to the consumer of adopting GM technologies."

And earlier this month, Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said opponents now had a year to prove their case. In an apparent reversal of the "precautionary principle" that is supposed to guide government policy, he said: "If you are opposed to GM it is now up to you to provide the evidence that there is harm. Ten years ago it was the other way round."

But their new drive is running into uncompromising resistance from the UK's other governments. Wales last week restated a long-standing policy of taking "the most restrictive approach to GM crop cultivation" consistent with the law, adding that this GM-free stance in all but name has "cross-party support".

Earlier this month Northern Ireland signalled that it would join with the Irish Republic to keep the technology out of the entire island. Michelle Gildernew, the minister for agriculture and rural affairs, told a conference in Waterford: "Once we go down the GM route there is no going back. We need to keep Ireland GM-free."

But the toughest opposition of all is being mounted by Scotland, where the first minister, Alex Salmond, has himself stressed his unequivocal rejection of modified crops. His environment minister, Michael Russell, told The Independent on Sunday: "We are not prepared to have trials of GM crops take place, and we are not interested in GM cultivation."

Mr Russell is planning to form a united front with Wales and Northern Ireland, with whom, he says, "there is a unanimity of view", and is working on a counter-strike against Westminster over its consistent support for the technology in the EU. He believes it is wrong that UK ministers take this position on half of the whole country, when the other three governments hold a diametrically opposite view, adding: "They need to represent both strands of opinion at the European level." He says he will have a meeting "very soon" with Mr Woolas, to talk about "creating a structure in which all have confidence" for deciding the line to take in Brussels. This could involve having a "pre-meeting" of all the governments to work out a joint position before each vote.

This would be likely to mean that Britain's consistent "yes" in favour of GM would turn into an abstention. Helen Holder, of Friends of the Earth, says: "If Britain changed from its systematic support, this would have a big impact on attitudes in Europe."

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that it was "aware of the position of the devolved administrations" and "discusses these issues regularly".

South Africa: GM setback for maize exporters

Sunday Times (South Africa), 28 September 2008. By Bobby Jordan.

The World Food Programme, one of the biggest buyers of South African maize, may have to shop elsewhere due to a growing shortage of non-genetically modified (GM) local mielies.

The move would be a huge blow to grain exporters, some of whom say they have already suffered economic losses due to the country's heavy reliance on GM maize.

"It is becoming more difficult every year to find sufficient quantities of non-GM maize in South Africa," WFP southern Africa spokesman Richard Lee said. "The situation is that the majority of countries that we send maize to from South Africa as food assistance do not want GM maize," Lee said.

South Africa, a key supplier of maize to the WFP, grows mostly GM maize, which is banned in most African countries.

Farmers say it is difficult to separate the GM maize crop from non-GM maize due to cross-pollination. The lack of control could cost the country millions, exporters say.

So far this year WFP has bought 400000 tons of maize from South Africa for distribution in Africa. Lee said the organisation is looking to buy even more due to a surplus local crop and competitive prices. Lee said: "The price is good (in South Africa) and logistically, it's somewhere we can move food from, by road or by sea."

Recent demand for maize had resulted in record maize purchases in Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi, Lee said.

"Given availability (of maize) we will obviously have to look in those countries again."

But exporters want government to ensure a reliable local supply of non-GM maize for the export market. Sharon Cross, from Milling, Supply and Export Services, said she had lost valuable tenders due to the shortfall.

"In the past three months we've secured about 11500 tons, which we had to short tender because of availability of non-GM maize.

"It could have been double that," Cross said. "There should have been (maize) control so that they only allowed GM maize in certain areas to avoid cross- pollination. Now we don't get pure GM- free maize."

She said grain silos and "bins" - where grain is collected and stored before milling - were mostly contaminated with GM so it was difficult to market completely GM- free maize. "It is difficult for South Africa and I think we are losing revenue."

The department of agriculture has authorised other GM crops in recent years, including soya and cotton. The controversy has sparked heated debate recently over the draft Consumer Protection Bill, which governs the labelling of foodstuffs.

Brazil approves GM seeds

Weekly Times, 28 September 2008.

BRAZIL will plant two new varieties of genetically-modified corn seeds.

The National Bio-safety Commission has given the green light for the seeds, which farm experts hope will be a boost the industry.

Brazil now has five types of GM corn seeds approved.

The country plants two corn harvests a year, the first between September and December, the second between December and January.

This season will see six million hectares of corn planted.

Medard Schoemaeckers, head of media relations for Syngenta in Europe, the company that pioneered GM technology for Brazil said the country was behind other countries such as the US and Argentina.

Syngenta expects Brazil's entire range of seeds to be GMO by 2012, despite the issue still being controversial throughout the country.

26 September 2008

UK Environment Minister Phil Woolas and the GM lobby

Wales online, September 26 2008. Comment from Steve Dube.

UK Environment Minister Phil Woolas says the anti GM lobby has just one year to put up its arguments.

No dount it will do so, but it does beg the question: where has he been? The answer, of course, is that he's been sat around a table with representatives of the companies that are trying to sell the stuff. [GMW - This is a refererence to Woolas being briefed by the Agricultural Biotechnology Council before he launched the Government's current pro-GM campaign. The ABC is a lobby group set up by the GM industry and run by Lexington Communications - a PR outfit headed by Labour's former head of communications]

Consumers across Europe are overwhlemingly opposed to GM material in their food, although of course they probably eat it every time them buy anything containing maize, soya or soya lecithin.

Farmers on the other hand don't want to rule out anything that holds the promise of higher crop yields or drought, pest or disease resistance - the very things that the GM seed companies proclaim as the ultimate goal of their science.

Unfortunately none of these are available and there are few signs that any company is developing them. We've already shot down the canard that GM can feed the world: only those with money can afford to eat, whether the food is GM or not.

What about the wider issue? As former EU Farm Commissioner Franz Fischler told delegates attending an international congress of agricultural journalists in Graz earlier this month: "One should distinguish between biotechnology as a concept and the applications that we have seen so far."

So far the GM companies have cynically exploited the technology to build in resistance to their own chemical weedkillers. That might boost sales of Roundup, but why would consumers want to eat food that's been sprayed with even more toxic substances?

However, as Dr Fischler said, it would be "a huge mistake" if we did not invest in research and development in genetic modification.

If GM could increase crop yields - though there's no sign of that yet - and if it could offer drought,pest and disease resistance, it could be useful for biomass or biofuel production even if the necessary research - not yet carried out - shows that it could cause damage to human disgestive systems.

That's a lot of maybes, a lot of ifs and buts. And it's a long way from Phil Wollas's apparent knowledge and understanding of the issue. Time for some homework Mr Woolas - and might we suggest a little less time cosying up to commercial interests.

25 September 2008

Monsanto profiteering condemned by President of the U.N. General Assembly

Opening remarks by H. E. M. Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann,
President of the United Nations General Assembly
at the High-level Event on the Millennium Development Goals
25 September 2008, United Nations, New York.

[Note from GM Watch: see bullet points 9, 11 and 14]

1. I would like to extend a warm welcome to this high-level event which the Secretary-General and I have convened. This event represents a very important opportunity for us to focus our collective efforts, in a spirit of unity and fraternal solidarity, on addressing one of the biggest and most crucial challenges of our time: the eradication of poverty and hunger.

2. In 1995, meeting in Copenhagen at the World Summit for Social Development, Heads of State and Government from all over the world solemnly undertook to end poverty and hunger in the world. They stated very clearly that for the first time in human history this goal had become possible, thanks to the resources, knowledge and technology available in the modern age. The Copenhagen commitments also viewed poverty eradication as a political necessity as well as an ethical and moral imperative, since a global system based upon enormous inequalities was unsustainable.

3. In September 2000, the then 189 States Members of the United Nations, meeting in the United Nations General Assembly, adopted the Millennium Declaration, in which they pledged to "free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty" by 2015. To that end, the eight Millennium Development Goals were subsequently formulated.

4. The Millennium Declaration calls for a coordinated, time-bound strategy that tackles many problems simultaneously on various fronts. Among other commitments, we agreed to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty; but also to solve the problems of hunger, malnutrition and disease, promote gender equality and empower women, and guarantee basic education for all. The Declaration also proposes that wealthier countries should provide direct support to developing countries in the form of aid, trade, debt relief and investment.

5. A significant increase in international assistance for the world's poorest countries is essential for global development. While all donor countries undertook in Monterrey to allocate 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic product to development cooperation, very few have lived up to this commitment. For every dollar that the developed countries spend on international assistance, they invest $10 in military budgets.

6. It is calculated that the amount spent so far on the Iraq war could have paid for a full course of primary schooling for all of the world's children and youth who are not in school. The price of a single missile is enough to build about 100 schools in any country in Africa, Asia or Latin America.

7. Furthermore, unfair trade practices also delay development, as poor countries are shut out of markets and deprived of trade opportunities. The high tariffs that rich countries impose on poor countries' products amount to a "perverse tax" that deprives developing countries of funds for health care and education.

8. Thus far, the progress made towards the Millennium Development Goals has, with few exceptions, been limited. Many countries have fallen behind and are unlikely to achieve the Goals by the target date. It is therefore worthwhile for us to learn from those that have made significant progress and to help each other so that all of us can move forward.

9. It is clear that the world food crisis is increasing social tensions and bringing about a significant rise in extreme poverty. World hunger has its roots in the inequitable distribution of purchasing power both between and within countries. Thus, our efforts should focus primarily on reducing inequities in our global system of food production. My brothers and sisters,

10. We have the technical and productive capacity to do this. It is incumbent on this Assembly to garner the strong sense of solidarity that will awaken the necessary political will to turn this crisis into an opportunity to transform a world system that denies the poor a right as basic as the right to food.

11. The World Bank has concluded that 75 per cent of the increase in food prices stems from the production of biofuels and factors related to rapidly growing demand for biofuels.

12. The developed countries' lavish agricultural subsidies have weakened agriculture in developing countries. At the same time, only a fraction of international aid is earmarked for improving agricultural productivity. Aid for agriculture has shrunk from 17 per cent of total development assistance, the high point reached in 1996, to 3 per cent today. Now some international donors are demanding an end to fertilizer subsidies. Faced with today's world food crisis we must speak out on behalf of our brothers and sisters and say "This is not right". It is not just to keep in place agricultural and energy policies that give rise to these kinds of distortions. Now is the time to help the poorest countries to boost their food prod agricultural products at the prices imposed on them and have undermined the ir ability to compete by heavily subsidizing the production and export of these products. Together these factors have shaped a food production system that puts private economic interests ahead of people's basic dietary needs.

13. Food shortages are a consequence of these misguided policies, which have forced poor countries to import

14. The essential purpose of food, which is to nourish people, has been subordinated to the economic aims of a handful of multinational corporations that monopolize all aspects of food production, from seeds to major distribution chains, and they have been the prime beneficiaries of the world crisis. A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals market, saw their profits increase by 45 and 60 per cent, respectively; the leading chemical fertilizer companies such as Mosaic Corporation, a subsidiary of Cargill, doubled their profits in a single year.

15. At the same time, in response to the financial crisis, major hedge funds have shifted millions of dollars into agricultural products. These funds control 60 per cent of the supply of wheat and other basic grains. Most of these crops are purchased as "futures". In other words, speculators have been increasingly active in food-related financial markets.

Friends,

16. Eight years after we adopted the Millennium Declaration, global inequality remains exactly the same or has even deteriorated since 2000, and the planet is at serious risk of not meeting the basic needs of the poorest of the poor. If current trends continue, it will be difficult even to prevent a further widening of the gap between the MDG targets and the results achieved; between the have's and the have not's of our world.

17. Today, 3 billion 140 million people live on less than $2.50 a day. Of these, about 44 per cent survive on less than $1.25 a day, according to a new World Bank report issued on 2 September 2008. Every day, more than 30,000 people die of malnutrition, avoidable diseases and hunger. Some 85 per cent of them are children under the age of 5.

18. The top 10 per cent of the world's people possess 84 per cent of the world's wealth, while the rest are left with the remaining 16 per cent. Yet we have the technical and productive capacity to adequately feed the whole planet. It is a matter of reorienting our priorities. We must now muster the resolve to feed the world's hungry.

19. Neoliberal economic restructuring worldwide has affected the supply and access to three of life's basic necessities: food, water and fuel. In recent years, the prices of these three variables have risen at the global level, with devastating economic and social consequences. Today these three basic necessities are controlled by a small group of global corporations and financial institutions.

20. All of these processes put at risk are ability to reach our development targets related to health. The poor performance in reducing maternal mortality is a telling sign of the magnitude of the problem. The current rate of more than 500,000 pregnancy- and childbirth-related maternal deaths each year constitutes a disgrace for humanity. The Secretary-General and I will therefore join forces to strengthen global health through increased support for initiatives in this area.

21. Today the developed countries are feeling the effects of an acute credit crisis. However, the failures or, more accurately, the lack of a viable international economic system has plunged the developed countries of the West, and the world economy as a whole, into a severe crisis.

22. We must all ensure that the current crisis, which was caused in large part by a preference for protectionist policies or special interests at the expense of the common good, is not used as a pretext for failing to honour the commitments undertaken.

23. If we are to achieve the Millennium Goals, which remain modest, we must demonstrate the resolve and take the necessary steps to incorporate fully into this international endeavor our indigenous brothers and sisters as a yardstick for monitoring progress on the Millennium Goals. Their effective inclusion will require a redefinition of development goals to reflect the particular worldview s, perspectives and concepts of development of indigenous peoples. Each and all of us together have much to learn from our indigenous brothers and sisters about respect for and the care of our Mother Earth, water and nature, which are the source and the sustenance of life for all species.

Dear brothers and sisters,

24. This snapshot of the world that I have presented today has a direct impact on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Only through deep reflection and clear, courageous political decisions will we be able to address the structural causes and achieve the Goals that we agreed upon in 2000. I invite you in the dialogues at each of the round tables today to share successful experiences so that all of us will be able to generate effective, sustainable changes that benefit the poorest of the poor.

25. There can be no denying of the fact that these global upheavals have increased the burden of the most vulnerable among us, those brothers and sisters who already bear the yoke of extreme poverty, the uncertainty and uprootedness caused by climate change, and who are the victims of the direct and collateral damage inflicted by wars of aggression or greed.

26. May it be most of all for the benefit of these brothers and sisters that we dedicate our best efforts today.

Thank you.

Australia: Concerns about 'onerous' clauses in GM crop contract

Canberra Times, 25 September 2008. By Oliver Perkins.

Australian farmers signing up to grow genetically modified canola are exposing themselves to "onerous" obligations, an international law expert says.

Duncan Currie says the contract between biotechnolgy firm Monsanto and GM canola growers bars farmers from selling their land to anyone without a Monsanto licensing agreement.

Monsanto described the claim as "ridiculous".

The contract, obtained by The Canberra Times, shows that if the land is sold up to two years after the agreement expires, contractual obligations are passed to the buyer, who could be liable for the former owner's contract breaches.

Monsanto reserves the right to take legal action against any farmers who possess its patented canola without a licensing agreement.

If GM canola is found, the land owner must prove whether its presence was intentional or due to inadvertent contamination.

Under the contract, farmers give Monsanto the right to "inspect, take samples and test all of the grower's owned and/or leased fields and storage bins" and to obtain copies of all operational documents for three years after they buy GM canola.

Mr Currie believes the implications for farmers are dire.

"In general this is a very one-sided agreement," he said.

"[One provision] is particularly onerous [and] includes liability for payment of Monsanto's legal and attorney fees, including expense incurred in enforcing Monsanto's rights and investigation expenses."

Australian National University patent law expert Matthew Rimmer said contracts such as Monsanto's were not new, and many of the company's rights in the contract would be granted under patent law.

He said the contract highlighted the need for patent law reform to deal better with biological inventions.

A Monsanto spokeswoman said claims of contractual bias were "ridiculous".

"We are licensed to sell this product. All the state farm associations and commodity councils, which we work closely with, asked for GM canola [and] all growers undergo accreditation before they can get access to the seed," she said.

"Farmers are very happy with the process ... We haven't had these issues in Australia yet."

NSW and Victorian farmers are now harvesting Australia's first GM canola crops after a moratorium on GM crops was lifted in both states earlier this year.

The crops contain resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in many non-selective herbicides. A member of the Concerned Farmers Network, Donald McFarlane, said canola crops were hard to contain in one location.

"Farmers of canola will know that it's almost impossible to stop the spread of [canola] seed," he said.

"Every year, up to 13 per cent of a crop will escape to end up god knows where."

He was concerned if a farm sold land within three years of planting GM crops, the contract did not ensure the new owner would be trained to prevent crop contamination.

The NSW Farmers Association would not comment on deals between Monsanto and individual farmers.

Its president, Jock Laurie, advised farmers to seek legal advice before signing any contract, GM or otherwise. WAToday.com.au

Ireland: Anti-GM and anti-nuclear advocates need to be challenged

The Irish Times, 25 September 2006. By Dr William Reville.

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: Scientists should be as passionate and determined in debate as anti-GM or anti-nuclear activists

I RECENTLY attended a press conference called by anti-GM (genetically modified) protesters at an agricultural biotechnology scientific conference.

Three people, none of whom are scientists, ran the press conference and each made detailed statements. The audience was a mixture of anti-GM activists, none of whom (to my knowledge) were scientists, and a selection of scientists experienced in the GM field.

I myself have little experience in the GM area. The arguments presented by the amateurs at this press conference were completely at odds with the positions outlined by the experienced scientists. Both sides liberally cited "scientific research" to support their positions. What is the general public to make out of this?

This scene is typical of what happens nowadays, particularly in environmental areas.

As I said, I am no GM expert, but I do have some professional expertise in another environmental area - the effects of low-level ionising radiation. The press conference described above perfectly mirrors many meetings I attended over the years organised by anti-nuclear groups. A main plank of the anti-nuclear argument is that the low-level radiation emitted by nuclear power plants, and ancillary processes, is very dangerous.

Mainline science holds that risk from exposure to radiation is proportional to the dose received and because the leakage of radiation from nuclear power plants under normal circumstances is tiny, the risk to the health of those exposed is correspondingly tiny. Of course, the situation is very different in the event of major accident.

Both sides quote scientific evidence to back their claims. The difference between the sides is that the mainline science position is based on a lot of high quality research published in the best peer-reviewed journals, whereas the anti-nuclear position on low-level radiation is supported by very little research, much of which is not published in high quality peer-reviewed journals.

When pressed on the paucity of their underpinning scientific support, the anti-nuclear people say that all "independent" scientists back their position. But, when you look at the credentials of these few scientists who support the anti-nuclear position it is completely unclear in most cases how they merit the title "independent" any more than most of the scientists who come to opposite conclusions.

Some of the "science" put forward by the anti-nuclear side is farcical. For example, they went through a phase of claiming that risk of ill-health from exposure to low-level radiation is negatively correlated to dose - that is, the less you received, the more dangerous it is. In fact, there is now good evidence to show that exposure to the lowest level of radiation is not dangerous at all but, on the contrary, it is good for you. This is the phenomenon of hormesis, which I described here on September 11th.

So, why was the anti-nuclear argument about low-level radiation not dismissed out of hand in the face of massive contrary evidence from mainline science? Probably the main reason was the timid approach adopted by mainline scientific spokespersons. The anti-nuclear people speak with absolute confidence. They assure the public that every nuclear power plant spreads a deadly cloud of cancers in its vicinity and that they have scientific proof of this. Mainline scientists deny this and say that studies consistently show that risks are small, although not zero. The anti-nuclear people would challenge them with the question, "Can you guarantee the public that nuclear emissions are absolutely safe?"

The mainline scientists reply, "There is no such thing as zero level of risk". This is where the argument is lost with the public. The anti-nuclear people have no problem giving guarantees of danger and cancer, the mainline scientists will not guarantee safety, preferring to talk of low levels of probability.

Of course, in cases like this mainline science should declare a process to be safe. Safe here means safe in the sense understood in everyday life. For example, is it safe to walk down the stairs? The commonsense answer is yes, provided the stairs is sound and you look where you are going. The strict scientific answer will quote you the probability of having a fall.

Another problem is that the media tends to give every voice, amateur and professional, equal weight. This is not fair to the general public. The media has a responsibility to ask tough probing questions of all who seek a platform for their views. When questions can only be answered by science, scientists have an even greater responsibility to stand firm on issues where the scientific evidence is persuasive. Environmental activists who take a position on issues contrary to the evidence of mainline science always speak with confidence and passion and often try to shout down opposing voices. They should be opposed with matching vigour. Only then can science win out.

William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC - www.understandingscience.ucc.ie

The Biosafety Protocol and the Future of Biosafety

Americas Policy Program, Center for International Policy (CIP), 25 September 2008.
By Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero.
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5559

More than a decade after the commercial introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods, the controversy surrounding them only seems to grow, as documented in recent Americas Policy Program reports.1 What are the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of these crops? Are they safe for consumption?

These questions are especially relevant for Latin America, as it is the biggest GM-producing and exporting region in the world after the United States and Canada.2 Argentina and Brazil are, respectively, the second and third biggest producers of GM crops in the world, Paraguay ranks seventh, and Uruguay ninth. Argentina alone accounts for 19% of the world's total acreage planted in genetically modified crops.

What methodological tools exist to assess the risks of this new technology? Such methods, procedures, and lines of research have been gradually developed over the last two decades and are collectively known as "biosafety."

Biosafety – not to be confused with "food safety" or "biosecurity" – is a new and growing field dedicated specifically to addressing safety concerns raised by genetic engineering and GM organisms. It acknowledges that GM organisms are essentially different from their non-GM counterparts and that they therefore present unique and unprecedented hazards that call for appropriate safety assessment.

These concerns are addressed at the international level by the United Nations Biosafety Protocol, known also as the Cartagena Protocol.3 "For the first time in international law, there is an implicit recognition that GMOs are inherently different from naturally occurring organisms, and carry special risks and hazards, hence the need to have a legally binding international instrument," says Lim Li Lin, coordinator of the Third World Network's Biosafety Programme.4 "The Protocol recognizes that GMOs may have biodiversity, human health, and socio-economic impacts, and that these impacts should be risk assessed or taken into account when making decisions on GMOs."

The Protocol, signed by 147 countries as of summer 2008, was adopted in 2000 after years of contentious negotiations and entered into force in September 2003.5 Its ratification was achieved through the efforts of developing country delegations, organized as "the Like-Minded Group."

On the opposing side, the country delegations that did not want a legally binding protocol and were hostile to the very idea of biosafety, was "the Miami Group." This small but powerful group was led by the United States and included Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. None of the Miami Group members have signed the Protocol.6

To sign on to the Protocol, countries must also be members of the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), an international agreement for the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity signed by 191 countries as of summer 2008.7 The Convention was signed into existence at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, which took place in Brazil in 1992. The Untied States has refused to sign either the CBD or the Protocol, but a number of GM crop producers have, including Brazil.8

The Protocol is negotiated regularly in sessions known as the Meeting of Parties (MOP). The MOPs take place right before the bi-annual CBD meeting, known as the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is why both events are known jointly as COP-MOPs. The most recent COP-MOP meetings took place in Curitiba, Brazil (2006) and Bonn, Germany (2008). The next one will be in Nagoya, Japan, in 2010.

The Protocol and the field of biosafety are based on the precautionary principle, a scientific concept that is meant to help with the protection of human health and the environment in the face of factors of risk and uncertainty. The principle holds that when society is weighing risks caused by human activities (such as the introduction of new technologies), lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as an excuse for not taking preventive action to protect human health and the environment.9 This principle is referred to in Article 1 of the Protocol and in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration,10 a consensus document produced at the Earth Summit.

The Protocol puts the burden of proof on the promoters of new technologies rather than on those who express misgivings and warn about dangers. "Within the general use of technology it has been those who claim an existence of yet unproven effects who have had the burden of demonstrating that the activity in question is causing harm to health or the environment," says Anne Ingeborg Myhr of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology.11 "With the employment of the precautionary principle, the burden of proof is shifted to the proponent who now needs to demonstrate that the activity is necessary and that it will not harm health or the environment. This is reflected in the Cartagena Protocol."

However, neither the Rio Declaration nor the Protocol mentions the words "precautionary principle." In both instances the U.S. delegation and its allies (in the case of the Protocol, the Miami Group) succeeded in blocking any mention of it, replacing it instead with the more ambiguous term "precautionary approach."

Thus, Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration reads: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Furthermore, the Miami Group was able to eliminate any reference to genetically modified organisms and substitute them with the more vague term "living modified organisms."

The Protocol's preamble reads: "In accordance with the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Protocol is to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements."

Impasse

However, the Protocol and its enforcement have been bogged down by an impasse on the twin issues of liability and redress. Article 27 of the Protocol provides for "liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified organisms."

According to the Network for a GMO-Free Latin America (RALLT, for its Spanish acronym) this is essential because it prevents the Protocol from becoming a mere text of directives with no legally binding power.12 A binding liability regime implies, among other things, assessing the damages caused by the products of genetic engineering, who will be liable for these damages and losses, how the victims will be compensated, and how the affected environment will be restored.

RALLT holds that the binding clause is essential if the Protocol is to fulfill its stated purpose. The Protocol's text says it aims at "ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements."

"Developing countries had always argued that if GMOs are as safe as industry and the producing countries claimed they were, then they need not have to be concerned about strong liability and redress provisions, which would give more confidence in their products," according to Lim Li Lin.13 "In fact, the inclusion of substantive liability and redress provisions in the Biosafety Protocol was seen as critical to its success, and during the negotiations, many delegates supported the NGO campaign, 'No Liability, No Protocol' and later, 'No Liability, No Biosafety'."

Liability and redress have been contentious issues since the Protocol was conceived in the 1990s. During the negotiations that led to its final version, the Like-Minded Group and the Miami Group were deadlocked on this particular area until the Like-Minded Group agreed to postpone the discussion and return to the issue after the Protocol came into force.14 Article 27 thus states that at the first MOP meeting work would begin toward establishing a mechanism for liability and redress and this work should conclude in four years.

Who's Responsible? Seeking Binding Liability

The first MOP took place in 2004, so a liability and redress regime should have been agreed upon by the time of the 2008 MOP in Bonn. But such was not the case. Going into the Bonn meeting, agreement still seemed unlikely. After the 2004 MOP, a Working Group on Liability and Redress was formed and held five meetings in which no progress was made.

The last meeting, a last ditch attempt to arrive at an agreement, was held in the Colombian city of Cartagena in March 2008, only two months before the Bonn MOP, co-chaired by the chiefs of the Colombian and Dutch delegations. In order to facilitate the negotiation, a group of Friends of the Co-Chairs was formed.

During the Friends meeting, six biotechnology corporations proposed a contractual compensation agreement, which they called a Compact. They claimed it was an alternative to the difficult negotiations, which some observers had begun to think of as doomed.

"The Compact is an agreement among its corporate members to provide recourse for 'actual' damage to biological diversity if their products are the cause," explains Lim Li Lin.15 "The terms and conditions, and its governance are defined by the members of the Compact. States become 'third party beneficiaries' if they consent, and if their claim is allowed."

Many delegates and civil society observers were distressed at this industry initiative. "The Compact is proposing to redefine the roles of States and the corporations," according to Lim Li Lin. "The corporations are attempting to create legal rights and obligations, and States are allowed, as third parties, to attempt to enforce those rights."

The non-governmental organization (NGO) sector roundly condemned the Compact and released a statement to that effect. "The industry would become at the same time defendant and judge of the liability claims for damage," and the privatization of international law would set "a bad precedent within the whole UN system."16 The NGOs called for the Compact to be "dismissed with the contempt that it deserves."

In spite of the efforts of the Friends of the Co-Chairs, the negotiators left Cartagena with no agreement to bring to the Bonn MOP. During the Bonn meeting Malaysia tried to break the stalemate with the formation of a Like-Minded Friends Group. Eventually over 80 countries joined this group, whose compromise proposal tried to reach some sort of legally binding liability regime while also taking in consideration the objections of countries like Japan, that were dead set against liability and blocking the negotiations.

The only countries that would not accept even this proposal were Japan, Peru, Paraguay, and Brazil. At this point in the negotiations the Peruvian delegation said it did not see the need for negotiation since "biotechnology has no risks." According to RALLT, it later turned out that Peru's negotiator was a biotechnology industry representative.17 RALLT also denounced that the Paraguayan delegation was closely advised by Argentina's ministry of agriculture. Argentina, as said before, is a Miami Group Member, a non-party to the Protocol, and the world's second largest producer of GM crops.

There is no doubt that Argentina's government, beholden to the GM crop agroexport model, has played a major role in undermining biosafety and furthering the interests of the biotechnology industry in international negotiations, such as the Bonn COP-MOP. According to the Grupo de Reflexión Rural, an Argentina-based NGO, Moises Burachik, the leader of Argentina's delegation in Bonn, was not a public servant but a corporate lobbyist.18

When the Bonn meeting ended without agreement, participants decided to hold two more negotiating meetings on liability and redress before the next MOP in 2010. Mexico has offered to host one of them.

Whither Biosafety?

"We can't help but see this as a failure, since undoubtedly the message that the (Bonn) MOP sends the biotech industry is that they will enjoy at least for this period, impunity in their actions; and that the strategy of contamination can still be used," said RALLT looking back on Bonn.

The "strategy of contamination" according to NGOs and scientists in several countries (SEE SIDEBAR), consists of planting – legally and illegally – extensive fields of GM crops so that eventually natural biodiversity will be lost to genetic contamination, and the issue of conserving biodiversity will no longer be relevant.

RALLT added that the lack of progress toward biosafety regulation "indicates that governments do not acknowledge the existing evidence of multiple harms derived from the utilization of GMOs, and what's more grave, of the potentiality for even broader consequences in the future ... The industry presence, which in this MOP was evidently stronger than in Curitiba, indicates that the private sector has redoubled its efforts to guarantee the cooptation of the environs of multilateral negotiation."19

According to Ethiopian scientist Tewolde Egziabher, one of the leaders of the Like-Minded Group, "It is not surprising that the process of negotiating (the Protocol) has been very divisive. It is equally not surprising that it satisfies nobody completely. Time will show whether negotiating it has set a good precedent to ensure the safety of emerging new technologies."20

"The Protocol is just a start of the long and difficult road to effective international regulation of genetic engineering," says Lim Li Lin. "Much more needs to be done, and countries must act to ensure that real biosafety becomes a reality."21

SIDEBAR:

Are Genetically Modified Products Safe or Not?

In spite of the assurances of the biotechnology industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to this day GM foods have not been proven to be safe. The FDA does not carry out its own studies on GM products. All it does is accept studies submitted by the biotech companies about their GM products. Most of these studies are confidential business information, and thus not subject to public scrutiny.

"Consultation with the FDA on GM food safety is a voluntary exercise, in which the agency receives summaries without data and conclusions without foundation," says researcher Jeffrey Smith in his book Genetic Roulette. "If the company claims that its foods are safe, the FDA has no further questions. Thus, GM varieties that have never been fed to animals in rigorous safety studies and probably never fed to humans at all are approved for sale in grocery stores."

The FDA "almost totally relies on voluntary notification by the biotechnology companies that they carried out their own safety assessment of the GM crops they want to release commercially," according to Hungarian scientists Arpad Pusztai and Susan Bardocz. "The FDA has no laboratory of its own and never underwrites the safety of GM crops/foods."

The agency carried out its own tests on GM foods only once. The now declassified documents of this inquiry show that staff scientists were divided over the safety of these products and that some of them openly expressed major misgivings about them. Nevertheless the FDA approved GM foods for consumer use.

The published scientific literature on the human health implications of GM foods consists of hardly more than 20 studies, an alarmingly low number. In a study published in Nutrition and Health [http://www.keine-gentechnik.de/bibliothek/verbraucher/studien/nutrition_risiken_gesundheit_030101.pdf], I. F. Pryme and R. Lembcke observe that studies on GM foods that are not funded by industry tend to find problems with serious human health implications while the industry-funded ones never find any problem. "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods," a report by William Freese and David Schubert (Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 2004) [http://www.foe.org/new/releases/1104gmcrops.html], concludes that the evaluation process for GM foods in the United States is not effective, as it is based on poor research and erroneous assumptions.

The few instances in which safety tests of GM foods carried out by industry have become public have given plenty of reason for concern. An internal Monsanto report leaked in 2005 [http://www.organicexcellence.com/email-newsletters/environmental-issues-in-news-august-2005.php] revealed that rats fed the company's Mon 863 genetically modified corn had major health problems, including abnormally high white blood cell counts, liver necrosis, reduced kidney weight, and high blood sugar.

The genetic engineering issue is further complicated by the fact that its products are living organisms, which can – unlike the products of other technologies – reproduce and spread, in the case of plants by seeds or pollen. This process is known as genetic contamination. In the words of Swiss agricultural biologist Angelika Hilbeck, the "release of self-reproducible biological organisms is potentially irreversible and adds a dimension in complexity to previous technology introductions."

The GMO Contamination Register [http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/], an information service set up by Greenpeace International and Genewatch UK, has reported 142 instances of genetic contamination worldwide since 1996. Brazil is one of nine countries that have reported over five contamination incidents.

The furtive presence of GM corn in Mexico, where it is prohibited by law, was first reported in Nature magazine by University of California scientists Ignacio Chapela and David Quist in 2001. Pro-industry scientists and think tanks undertook a major campaign to discredit the Chapela-Quist findings, but in 2002 a study commissioned by the Mexican government [http://www.scidev.net/en/news/mexico-confirms-gm-maize-contamination.html] found that as many as 95% of the corn fields in the states of Oaxaca and Puebla had GM contamination.

End Notes

1. Ruiz-Marrero, Carmelo, "Latin America: The Downside of the GM Revolution," Americas Policy Program Special Report (Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, December 3, 2007) found at: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4786.

2. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007" (Executive Summary), http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/37/executivesummary/default.html.

3. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety home page: http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/.

4. Lim Li Lin, "Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety," Biosafety First: Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms, Lim Li Ching and Terje Traavik, eds., Tapir Academic Press, 2007.

5. Egziabher, Tewolde B. G., "The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: History, Content, and Implementation from a Developing Country Perspective," Biosafety First, Lim Li Ching and T. Traavik, eds.

6. Egziabher.

7. Convention on Biological Diversity web page: http://www.cbd.int/.

8. Lim Li Lin, "Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety," Biosafety First, Lim Li Ching and T. Traavik, eds.

9. Myhr, Anne Ingeborg, "The Precautionary Principle in GMO Regulations," Biosafety First: Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms, Lim Li Ching and Terje Traavik, eds., Tapir Academic Press, 2007.

10. Text of the Rio Declaration, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.

11. Myhr.

12. RALLT, Bulletin #293, "Un Fracaso a Medias: Dos AÒos M·s Para Completar el RÈgimen de Responsabilidad y Compensación en el Protocolo de Cartagena," 2008, http://www.biodiversidadla.org/layout/set/print/content/view/full/42557.

13. Lim Li Lin, "Progress After Tough Talks on Liability Regime for GMOs," South-North Development Monitor, May 23, 2008, http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=520.

14. Egziabher.

15. Lim Li Lin, "Progress After Tough Talks on Liability Regime for GMOs."

16. Ibid.

17. RALLT.

18. Grupo de Reflexión Rural, "A Propósito de La Reunión de La Mop4 en La Ciudad de Bonn en Alemania," May 25, 2008, http://horizontesurblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/apropsito-de-la-reunin-de-la-mop4-en-la.html.

19. RALLT.

20. Lim Li Lin, "Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety," Biosafety First, Lim Li Ching and T. Traavik, eds.

21. Egziabher.

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero is a Puerto Rican independent environmental journalist and environmental analyst for the Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org), a fellow of the Oakland Institute, a senior fellow of the Environmental Leadership Program, and founder/director of the Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety (bioseguridad.blogspot.com). His bilingual web page (carmeloruiz.blogspot.com) is devoted to global environment and development issues.

To reprint this article, please contact americas@ciponline.org. The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of the CIP Americas Policy Program or the Center for International Policy.

Sources

Chapela, Ignacio & David Quist, "Transgenic DNA Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico," Nature, 2001.

Hilbeck, Angelika, "GMOs and the Environment: What are the Issues?" Presentation at the Institute for Gene Ecology, University of Tromso, Norway, July 31, 2008. Biosafety First: Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms, Lim Li Ching and Terje Traavik, eds., Tapir Academic Press, 2007.

Pusztai, Arpad and Susan Bardocz, "Potential Health Effects of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants – What are the Issues?" Biosafety First, Lim Li Ching and T. Traavik, eds.

Smith, Jeffrey, "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods," Yes! Books, 2007. For More Information

Fueling the Debate: Agrofuels, Biodiversity, and Our Energy Future http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4558

Latin America: The Downside of the GM Revolution http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4786

Synthetic Biology's Role in Agrofuels http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5194

Hawai'i: Council approves GMO ban bill

West Hawaii Today, 25 September 2008. By Jim Quirk.

HILO -- A proposed bill to ban genetically modified taro and coffee was approved by the Hawaii County Council Wednesday in a 6-3 vote.

About 50 residents testified on the proposed bill submitted by North Kona Councilman Angel Pilago, and about half of them favored it while the other half were against it.

Many who testified against the bill had issues with banning testing of genetically modified coffee.

Hamakua Councilman Dominic Yagong categorized the issue as "convoluted," in that it may be "written in a way that's not very clear."

Because members of organizations such as the state Coffee Association indicated they support testing on genetically modified coffee in laboratories, he said the council should consider that concept.

Although Yagong said he doesn't have an issue with banning genetically modified taro on the Big Island, he does have a problem with coffee because of the concerns raised by some that testing in labs should be allowed.

South Kona Councilwoman Brenda Ford, who grows Kona coffee, disagrees with Yagong.

"If you have any doubts about the safety of something, don't do it," she said.

Ka'u Councilman Bob Jacobson said it is difficult to trust the scientific community because it ruined organic papayas on the island.

Hilo Councilman J Yoshimoto said he would favor a proposal from Yagong to bifurcate the bill in order to allow at least lab testing of genetically modified coffee but that he couldn't support the bill as presented. Yoshimoto, while he favors banning genetically modified taro, has issues with an outright ban on genetically modified coffee.

Hilo Councilman Stacy Higa said when half the residents who testify on a subject are in favor of it and the other half are against, "we as a government need to be very careful."

Ford and Council Chairman Pete Hoffmann, Kohala, said the council is not banning genetic testing of coffee on other islands. "We just don't want it here," Ford said.

She said there are two reasons why more coffee growers didn't testify during the meeting -- they were busy working in their orchards, and "a lot of coffee farmers are from a culture who don't come out and speak."

"They are reserved," Ford said. "They don't come out and pound on tables."

She said many of the people who testified against the bill "are coming in here from off-island."

"We're not trying to shut down research in this state at all," Ford said. "Only on this island."

Jacobson said genetically modified organisms would "wreck" the coffee market on the island.

"It's really foolish to bring GMOs to this island," he said.

Yagong said he doesn't agree with Jacobson's assertion that everyone who favors GMOs are "nasty or ill-intended."

Pilago, Ford, Jacobson, Hoffmann, Yagong and Naeole voted in favor of the bill, while Higa, Ikeda and Yoshimoto voted against it.

Yagong said he may present a proposed amendment to the bill on its second reading to bifurcate the coffee portion.

Consumer rights recognised: GM foods will be labelled in South Africa

Eat In, 25 September 2008.

History was made yesterday when the Department of Trade and Industry handed down a ruling for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.

The decision came after a clause to this effect, which had been removed from the draft Consumer Protection Bill last year, was reinstated. Charmaine Treherne, National Co-ordinator of SAFeAGE, a consumer GMO watchdog that has been lobbying for two years to have this clause reinstated said, "The GMO Act does not protect consumers, it is rather a permitting system that welcomes untested, unlabelled and irresponsible genetic modification to run rife in our country. Consumers will finally have the right to choose once this Bill is implemented".

Parliament's Trade and Industry committee also withdrew a clause from the original Bill that rendered GMOs exempt from liability for damage caused by them. "Why should food that has been spliced with virus, anti-biotic resistant and herbicide genes be exempt from liability," questioned Treherne. "These foods should be subject to more stringent labelling, not exemption."

The Department of Trade and Industry's labelling laws have not gone unopposed. Both the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health have opposed mandatory labelling saying it would send out a confusing signal to consumers. However, spokesperson for the Safe Food Coalition, Andrew Taynton said that "the Department of Trade and Industry should be congratulated for this bold move. Current GM labelling laws in South Africa are so flawed that they do not label any of the GM foods currently on the market."

Mariam Mayet of the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) commented that "government has embarked upon the first step towards regulating agribusiness involved with GMOs. Not only have consumers been given a choice to reject GM foods, now, GM food can also be tracked from farm to fork in order to hold Monsanto and others liable when we discover that something has gone wrong."

"We are very proud of the DTI, said Traherne, and we will closely monitor the remainder of the process until it actually gets signed."

Monsanto, Wall Street and the regulators

GM Watch, 25 September 2008.

The current U.S.-led financial crisis has implications that go way beyond Wall Street, financial speculators and investment banking.

Marie Robin's film The World According to Monsanto contains chilling footage of George Bush Senior's visit to Monsanto's HQ, when he was U.S. Vice President. Bush tells the folk at Monsanto that if they run into any problems steering their new genetically engineered products past U.S. regulators, "Call me. We're in the 'de-reg' business. Maybe we can help."

It is, of course, "the 'de-reg' business" that ultimately lies behind recent market meltdowns. As Brent Blackwelder of Friends of the Earth USA points out: "This financial crisis has exposed the right-wing's anti-regulation philosophy as an abject failure. Their hands-off approach... has resulted in greedy corporate titans getting rich on the backs of working people... and is causing irreparable harm to the planet. And now we face a trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded bailout. Enough is enough. We oppose the Bush administration's... blank-check bailout... What is needed is truly fundamental reform, not this no-strings-attached proposal. The government must impose oversight and re-regulation... The days of the fox guarding the henhouse, with corporate lobbyists writing the laws that regulate their industries, must end." http://action.foe.org/pressRelease.jsp?press_release_KEY=418

And nowhere in the U.S. has the fox been guarding the henhouse more than with biotechnology.

[See the following article for details:]

The Monsanto Files
Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators

The Ecologist, September - October 1998. By Jennifer Ferrara.

[This edition of the magazine was trashed by the printing office after threats from Monsanto
(footnotes are missing) http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm]

Traditionally, key figures at the FDA in particular have either held important positions at Monsanto, or are destined to do so in the future. Is it surprising therefore that Monsanto gets clearance frr its often dangerous products?

Though the evolution of genetic engineering from a laboratory science to a method of creating commercial products happened very fast - within a decade - the US government saw the commercialization of biotechnology coming and deliberately chose a path that has amounted to nonregulation.

Genetic engineering broke through natural barriers of reproduction and sped up plant and animal breeding processes, but agribusiness corporations were wary that burdensome regulations would hinder new discoveries and therefore the commercial development of the technology. The federal government took up industry's cause. Instead of establishing strict, precautionary regulations that gave priority to public and environmental health, the government patched together an inadequate regulatory system that relied on risk assessment, industry science, and corporate volunteerism.

The US was in the heat of a high-tech economic race with Japan, and, as far as agriculture was concerned, lawmakers saw genetic engineering as the new technology that would allow the US to maintain its position as the world's agricultural "leader". The federal government would erect no law that might reduce America's competitiveness in the future world market for bioengineered products.

The first government body to establish guidelines for biotechnology research was the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1976.[1] Since the NIH is an advisory and not a regulatory body, it could formulate guidelines, but it had no power to enforce them. From the beginning, the NIH guidelines relied on the scientific community's and industry's self-regulation, starting a trend that continues today. As corporations became more involved in genetic engineering, NIH guidelines made accommodations for field tests and mass production of genetically engineered organisms. In 1977 and 1978, 16 bills to regulate genetic research were introduced in the US Congress. None was passed, and the NIH guidelines - which dealt primarily with medical and pharmaceutical research and did not take a precautionary approach - remained the sole regulatory mechanism for biotechnology research.

In the early 1980s, agribusiness corporations were developing genetically engineered plants, animal drugs, and livestock, but no system was in place to regulate the development, sale, or use of these products.[2] This was the era of the deregulatory Reagan/Bush administration, which developed the framework by which bioengineered products, including food, are "regulated" today. Industrial profit, not public safety, was the administration's top priority. Government officials in the Office of Management and Budget, the Departments of State and Commerce, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy wanted to ensure that the administration did not do anything to "stifle" the dev[3] The Bush-era President's Council on Competitiveness, chaired by Vice-President Dan Quayle, joined the biotechnology industry in opposing strong regulations and close oversight by federal agencies.[4]

The result was a 1986 "biotechnology regulatory framework".[5] The policy was founded on the corporate-generated assertion that bioengineering was just an extension of traditional plant and animal breeding, and that bioengineered products did not differ fundamentally from non-engineered organisms.[6] The administration determined that existing federal agencies could regulate bioengineered products sufficiently and gave them overlapping regulatory authority.[7] For instance, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would regulate bio-engineered organisms in food and drugs. The United States Department of Agriculture would regulate genetically engineered crop plants and animals. The Environmental Protection Agency would regulate genetically engineered organisms released into the environment for pest control. And the NIH would look at organisms that could affect public health. In determining that existing agencies could do the job of regulating bioengineered products, the administration avoided passing new, more stringent federal laws or establishing a new regulatory agency devoted to the task.

The policy left gaping communication gaps between agencies, plenty of regulatory ground uncovered, and confusion over who would regulate what.[8,9] But most importantly, the regulations were founded on the false premise that bioengineered organisms used for food and agricultural products are no different from non-engineered, conventional products.10 In fact, to produce genetically engineered foods, researchers take genes from food or non-food organisms and add them to another organism to alter its genetic makeup in ways not possible through sexual reproduction. The process deletes essential proteins or adds entirely new ones, and can modify genetic characteristics in entirely unexpected ways. As long as the new genes come from an approved food source, the government treats new or altered genes in bioengineered foods as natural, not novel, additives. So in most cases regulators are not required to take a precautionary approach when evaluating new genetically engineered food products; products are considered safe until proven otherwise.

As late as 1994, it appeared that the federal government was still playing catch-up in establishing working biotechnology safety regulations. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which monitors the biotechnology industry and the federal regulatory system, was pointing out big holes in the so-called framework." "Fundamentally, it does not contain sufficient statutory authority to oversee all of the products and activities entailed in genetic engineering," wrote UCS in February 1994. "Where authority does exist, there are problems with implementing regulations and policies." For example, a 1992 FDA policy exempted corporations from having to test bioengineered food for safety and get FDA approval before the foods are put on the market.'2 Unless the corporation determined that "sufficient safety questions exist",'3 corporations could undergo voluntary, private "consultations" with the agency before marketing their product.'4

It is not unusual for agribusiness corporations like Monsanto to manipulate the limited safety regulations that exist. To establish safety standards for new products, federal agencies rely on studies performed by the very corporations that are trying to get their products on the market. Studies to determine the long-term health consequences of new products are not always required. Over the years, many corporations have submitted fraudulent test results showing that their products are safe, or they have simply withheld information or studies indicating otherwise. Because the federal government protects corporate safety studies as trade secrets, they are not available for public scrutiny. By sheltering corporations in this way, federal agencies hold corporations' pursuit of profits above the public's right to good health and a safe environment.

The Regulatory Irony

Laws governing biotechnology continue to favour agribusiness and biotechnology corporations, but as the industry has developed, the corporate push for specific types of regulations has taken ironic twists. The initial lack of a cautious regulatory approach enabled small biotechnology companies to develop and market new bioengineered products at a rapid pace. In the meantime, larger agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Ciba-Geigy were buying up these small companies while developing their own expansive in-house biotechnology research and marketing operations. During this time, Monsanto, Ciba-Geigy, and several other agribusiness corporations came virtually to dominate the world market for bioengineered food products, strengthening their hold over much of the world's food supply.

From their position at the top, Monsanto and other corporations have actually favoured some seemingly tight regulations, but, it turns out, only when the regulations serve corporate marketing purposes. Regulations that require corporations to submit a plethora of costly scientific data to regulatory agencies, for example, discourage competition from smaller biotechnology and seed companies while giving the public the illusion that new biotechnology products undergo rigorous safety evaluations and are therefore safe.

In 1995, for example, Monsanto lobbied against a provision in the EPA funding bill that would have prevented the EPA from regulating agricultural plants bioengineered to contain the toxic bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Genetically engineered foods had just hit the market, and Monsanto was fully aware that almost any EPA regulations for Bt plants would publicly sanction the genetically engineered products and defuse resistance from public interest environmental groups. Furthermore, corporations could only get their Bt products to market if they had extensive money and resources to jump through all the regulatory hoops. Big corporations alone can meet data requirements and, once in the system, manipulate and pass the EPA's safety evaluation process. With the competition out of the way, the market is theirs.

FDA Scandals and Revolving Doors

To better understand how genetically engineered foods and the associated safety hazards were unleashed onto the American public, take a look at the story of the first mass-marketed bioengineered food product, the Monsanto corporation's recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). rBGH has been linked to cancer in humans and serious health problems in cows, including udder infections and reproductive problems. rBGH's development and approval was rife with scandal and protest. But the right combination of government backing, corporate science, and heavily-funded corporate public relations schemes paved the way for the first major release of a genetically engineered food into the nation's food supply.

The roles played by the FDA and the Monsanto corporation in the development, safety evaluation, approval, and marketing of rBGH led to the exposure of the American public to the multiple hazards of bioengineered foods. These organizations hid important information about safety concens, masked disturbing conflicts of interest, and stifled those who were asking the "wrong" questions and telling the truth about rBGH.

The FDA declared rBGH-milk safe for human consumption before important information about how rBGH-milk might affect human health was even available.'6 When critical information about how rBGH raised the levels of insulin-like growth factor, IGF-1, in milk'7 and the possible link between IGF-1 and human cancer began to emerge,'8 [See Kingsnorth in this issue] the FDA was already apparently in too deep to change its mind or ask more questions about the drug's effect on human health. Instead, the agency relied almost exclusively on data generated by the Monsanto corporation and highly criticized by independent scientists to justify a decision it had made years Many independent scientists have called for more extensive, long-term studies, which have never been done.

In 1991, a researcher at the University of Vermont (UVM). where Monsanto was spending nearly half a million dollars to fund test trials of rBGH, leaked information about severe health problems affecting rBGH-treated cows, including mastitis and deformed births)1 The scientist heading the research had already made numerous public statements to state lawmakers and the press and released a preliminary report indicating that rBGH-treated cows suffered no abnormal rates of health problems compared with untreated cows.'2 The US General Accounting Office (GAO) investigated. During the investigation, the FDA stalled in providing the GAO with original Monsanto test data.23 and the GAO was unable to obtain critical data from UVM and Monsanto24 The GAO terminated its investigation, concerned that Monsanto had had time to manipulate the questionable data and that any further investigation would be Fruitless. In an effort to dissipate public concern, UVM scientists finally released inform ation showing rBGH's negative effect on cow health, years after the findings had been made."

Even FDA insiders have criticized the agency for its slack review of the drug, but the FDA has dismissed these concerns and fired at least one official who blew the whistle on the organisation's corrupt drug approval process. Veterinarian Dr. Richard Burroughs reviewed animal drug applications at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Sciences from 1979 until he was ; fired in 1989.?6 In 1985, Burroughs headed the FDA's review of t rBGH and remained directly involved in the review process for almost five years. Burroughs wrote the original protocols for animal safety studies and reviewed the data that rBGH developers, including Monsanto, submitted as they carried out safety studies.

A 1991 article in Eating Well magazine quotes Burroughs describing a change in the FDA beginning in the mid-1980s. "There seemed to be a trend in the place toward approval at any price. It went from a university-like setting where there was independent scientific review to an atmosphere of "approve, approve, approve."27 This is the atmosphere in which the FDA carried out its review of rBGH. According to Burroughs, the FDA was totally unprepared to review rBGH, the first bioengineered animal drug to go through the FDA's approval process; rBGH was out of the scope of most FDA employees' knowledge. But rather than admit incompetence, the FDA "decided to cover up inappropriate studies and decisions," and agency officials "suppressed and manipulated data to cover up their own ignorance and incompetence?28

Burroughs himself was faced with corporate representatives who wanted the agency to ease strict safety testing protocols, and he saw corporations drop sick cows from rBGH test trials and manipulate data in other ways to make health and safety problems disappear. According to Burroughs, the raw, untouched data stashed away behind the agency's doors and protected as trade secrets would show otherwise.

Burroughs challenged the agency's lenience and its changing role from guardian of public health to protector of corporate profits. He criticized the FDA and its handling of rBGH in n statements to Congressional investigators, in testimony to state legislatures, and to the press.29 Inside the FDA, he rejected a number of corporate-sponsored safety studies as insufficient and was prevented by his superiors from investigating data submitted by industry revealing possible health problems caused by rBGH. Though Burroughs had a record at the FDA showing eight straight years of good performance, he began receiving poor performance reports, for which he claims he was set up. Finally, in November 1989, he was fired for "incompetence"

Not only did the FDA fail to act upon evidence that rBGH was not safe, the agency actually promoted the Monsanto corporation's product before and after the drug's approval. In doing so, the FDA took on the impossible double role of regulator and promoter of bioengineered foods. Dr. Michael Hansen of Consumers Union notes that the FDA acted as an rBGH advocate by issuing news releases promoting rBGH, making public statements praising the drug, and writing promotional pieces about rBGH in the agency's publication, FDA Consume;:

This dual role also manifested itself in other ways. In an apparent attempt to quell public controversy over rBGH, for example, two FDA researchers published industry and "independent" data in the journal Science in 1990 to show that rBGH was safe for consumers)' Gerald Guest, the director for FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine told Science, "We'd like to get our side of the story out, to show why we're comfortable with the safety. We'd like for people to know that ifs a thoughtful process. and we want it to be open and credible

Guest was apparently doing a lot of wishful thinking. Professor Samuel Epstein criticized the FDA for acting "as a booster or advocate for an animal drug that hasn't yet been approved." Epstein and others faulted the FDA for including only pieces of unpublished studies about rBGH in the Science article. but not making the full studies available for independent review.34

The FDA's pro-rBGH activities make more sense in light of conflicts of interest between the FDA and the Monsanto corporation." Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines. The guidelines, announced in February 1994, virtually prohibited dairy corporations from making any real distinction between products produced with and without rBGH." To keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA announced that labels on non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the naturally occurring hormone. In March 1994,

Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labelling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words. Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug.

Taylor wasn't the only FDA official involved in rBGI-1 policy who had worked for Monsanto. Margaret Miller, deputy director of the FDA's Office of New Animal Drugs was a former Monsanto research scientist who had worked on Monsanto's rBGH safety studies up until 1989. Suzanne Sechen was a primary reviewer for rBGH in the Office of New Animal Drugs between 1988 and 1990. Before coming to the FDA. she had done research for several Monsanto-funded rBGH studies as a graduate student at Cornell University. Her professor was one of Monsanto's university consultants and a known rBGH promoter. Remarkably. the GAO determined in a 1994 investigation that these officials' former association with the Monsanto corporation did not pose a conflict of interest. But for those concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, the revolving door between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies is a serious cause for concern.

24 September 2008

UK: Open Letter to the Royal Society

Professor David Baulcombe
Chair, Working Group
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London
SW1Y 5AG

24 September 2008

Dear Prof. Baulcombe

Biological approaches to enhance food crop production

An Open Letter

We are writing to express our serious concerns about the value of the study on Biological Approaches to Enhance Food Crop Production announced by the Royal Society on 3rd July 2008 and to suggest a fundamental change of approach.

First, there are major overlaps between this study and the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), the reports of which were published in April 2008. We see no reason to justify this duplication of scientific assessment carried out by the IAASTD which extended over 4 years.

As you will know, the IAASTD reports were compiled by a multidisciplinary team of scientists, including specialists from biosciences and social sciences, from all parts of the world. It was based on peer reviewed publications. The drafts of the final reports were in turn peer reviewed to ensure that they accurately reflected the findings of other researchers.

All countries represented in the final plenary accepted the full set of reports. The executive summary of the synthesis report and global summary for decision makers were reviewed line by line at the plenary in Johannesburg in April and were approved by 58 countries including the UK. The majority of signatories were governments from the Global South. Even countries that did not fully approve the final reports (USA, Australia and Canada) accepted the majority of the findings of the Assessment. Disagreements were mainly around the impact of free trade (a non scientific area) and the IAASTD's assessment of the lack of impact of biotechnology, and transgenic crops in particular, on averting hunger (an area of policy which encompasses scientific, social, economic, political and cultural factors).

The IAASTD reports recognise the complexities of the problems facing world agriculture in delivering wholesome safe and affordable food without causing irreparable or long term harm to local communities and the environment in a world facing significant climatic change over the next half century. They emphasise the multifunctionality of agriculture in providing more than food, fibre, raw materials and biomass, for instance ecosystem services and functions, landscapes and cultures. They also acknowledge the key role that the local knowledge of farmers, particularly women, and other small-scale food producers should play in the future in developing technologies and knowledge systems appropriate to their needs. The failures of past technological innovations and trade to benefit poor people and their negative impact on the environment is acknowledged. These outcomes were summarized in 22 Key Findings and 8 themes ranging from bioenergy to women in agriculture.

Secondly, whilst the Royal Society study duplicates some of the work of the IAASTD, it excludes many vital areas. Our concerns about the study can be summarized as follows:

1. It appears to concentrate on increasing individual plant productivity through altering genetic traits, rather than enhancing the sustainability and productivity of farming systems and the agroecosystems within which they operate through increasing the use of locally-controlled technologies that improve the multifunctionality of agriculture.

2. The emphasis on biological sciences and proprietary technologies without comparison with other technological approaches, for instance water harvesting, will limit its value.

3. There is no recognition of the need to include farmers, especially women, from the global south in the process nor any indication of how the contribution of their knowledge, skills and technologies will be assessed and taken into account.

4. There is no overt invitation for contributions about and analysis of the underlying causes of "the global food crisis" including those provided by trade, economic, energy, infrastructure and other politically-influenced policies on the supply of food and current research priorities and development structures and practices.

5. It explicitly excludes biofuels from the study at a time when many analysts have implicated the growth of biofuel crops in the recent food and feed price rises. It also excludes other important areas of production and their positive and negative impacts on agroecosystems, resilience and sustainability including fibre crops, dairy, other livestock, fisheries and aquaculture.

The IAASTD reports show clearly that "business as usual" is not an option given the challenges agriculture now faces. We are very concerned that the underlying assumptions of the Royal Society, and the decoupling of biological aspects of food production from the full range of other factors that make up food production systems, imply a process and approach that are very much business as usual.

In our view the Royal Society study will have very limited value unless its terms of reference are significantly changed. A far more valuable contribution would be for the Royal Society to take the IAASTD findings as a starting point and assess how UK policies, research priorities, and development programmes need to change to ensure that these 22 key findings are implemented/addressed such that the main beneficiaries are poor people and the environment.

We would be pleased to discuss our concerns about the study with you should you wish. We, like the Royal Society, are keen that the use of knowledge, science and technology in agriculture is directed towards environmentally and socially sustainable solutions which mean no one goes hungry, there is increased social equity and the misuse and degradation of the environment can be reversed. Such solutions must be developed alongside social, economic and political changes if there is any chance that they will succeed. A study that does not address these issues will lack relevance and rapidly become out-dated.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Scott
Policy and Programmes Director
Practical Action

On behalf of:

Action Aid UK
Christian Aid
Friends of the Earth International
GM Freeze
Greenpeace UK
Pesticides Action Network international
Third World Network

Patent system 'stifling science'

BBC News, 24 September 2008. By James Morgan, Science reporter.

Life-saving scientific research is being stifled by a "broken" patent system, according to a new report.

"Blocking patents" are delaying advances in cancer medicine and food crops, says the Canada-based Innovation Partnership, a non-profit consultancy.

The full benefits of synthetic biology and nanotechnology will not be realised without urgent reforms to encourage sharing of information, they say.

Their findings will be reported next week to UK policymakers and NGOs.

The report is compiled by the Innovation Partnership's International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property.

It cites examples of medical advances which have been delayed from reaching people in need - in both the developed and developing world.

These include HIV/Aids drugs, cancer screening tests, and rice engineered to contain vitamin A.

The authors offer guidelines for a transition from "Old IP" to "New IP", in which companies, researchers and governments recognise that sharing information is mutually beneficial.

"If we are to turn the atoms of publicly funded discovery into molecules of innovation... we have to make sure research avenues stay open," said the report's lead author, Professor Richard Gold.

"That doesn't mean there will be no patents. It simply means that patents don't become a barrier to early stage research.

"We do not want to end up in the same situation with nanotechnology that we are in with genetics."

Fortress IP

The traditional view is that strong patent protection stimulates innovation, reassuring companies that it is safe to invest in research without fear of being stung by rivals.

Under this "old" model of intellectual property (IP), biotech firms raced to file a "fortress" of patents around newly discovered genes, closing off avenues of research for their competitors.

But this strategy is ultimately counter-productive for both industry and consumers, argues the report, not least because it deters grass roots research in universities.

Work on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that can cause breast cancer has been held up by legal disputes over patents held on the genes by Myriad Genetics, a biotech firm based in Utah, US.

Meanwhile, patients in European countries were denied access to the cancer screening kits, because national health services were unwilling to meet the cost.

The Myriad case is "an anatomy of old IP gone wrong", said Dr Gold, Professor of Intellectual Property Law at McGill University in Montreal.

"Myriad is not the exception - it is the rule. Others are following and will continue to follow, unless we drastically change things."

Golden rice

Another casualty is the "golden rice" strain, genetically engineered to contain vitamin A.

The rice was intended to be freely distributed to farmers in the developing world, where vitamin A deficiency is responsible for more than 1 million deaths and 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness each year.

But even though the strain was created in 2005, farmers have still not reaped the benefits.

Distribution has been held up while its inventors negotiate agreements with dozens of companies holding patents for technologies used to engineer the rice.

"It has taken years just to figure out how many patents there actually are and who owns them. We must address this lack of transparency," said Professor Gold.

To facilitate sharing of information, he believes companies should be encouraged to form "patent pools", allowing them to cross-license their technologies without losing out on royalties.

An example is the pool established by the international partnership Unitaid to provide HIV patients in developing countries with access to affordable anti-retroviral drugs.

Governments should develop public-private partnerships to conduct early stage research, and seek other ways to encourage innovation - via tax credits, for instance.

Meanwhile, patent offices must standardise their information gathering and do more to help firms in developing countries gain access to accurate patent information, the report recommends.

Synthetic biology

Reform now would ensure that society feels the full benefit of new fields such as synthetic biology, a discipline that could lead to cells with novel genomes which perform useful functions, such as making biofuels or absorbing greenhouse gases.

Dr Craig Venter, the man who led the private sector effort to sequence the human genome, has already raised eyebrows by applying to patent the method he plans to use to create a "synthetic organism".

Fears that these patents may be too broad have been raised by the ETC Group, which campaigns for the reform of biotech patenting.

"The patenting system is not functioning. It is more of a barrier than an incentive," said Pat Mooney, the organisation's executive director.

"In pharmacy, we no longer see much discovery - we see firms playing safe and holding onto their turf.

"Meanwhile, in nanotechnology, we have seen some dangerously broad patents, which cut off whole areas of research.

"Patent offices must get up to speed with new areas of science, so they know exactly how much they are giving away."

Comment from GM Watch:

You may have thought that the release of "golden rice" has taken so long because they couldn't get it to deliver enough beta-carotene to be useful.

And its inventor Ingo Potrykus and others in the pro-GM lobby have claimed that the delay is down to opposition by "activists", with Dick Taverne even claiming the resulting delays constituted a "crime against humanity".

But, according to a new report, the real reason golden rice still hasn't been released is down to the patent quagmire created by all the "companies holding patents for technologies used to engineer the rice".

Don't hold your breath while waiting for Taverne & Co's thunderous denunciations.

See related article "The great GM miracle?" by Jonathan Matthews in The Ecologist, 23 January 2008: http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1157

Activists Disrupt Reception for Colombian Prez to Protest Free Trade Agreement

New York City Independent Media Center, 24 September 2008. By TradeJustice NY Metro

Two activists disrupted a reception for Colombian President Alvaro Uribe Velez to denounce Uribe's support for a free trade agreement between the US and Colombia. Activists shouted, "No Free Trade Agreement with Uribe's death squad government! Over 100 union organizers have been killed in the last 2 years in Colombia! Uribe is lying about demobilizing the death squads! The free trade agreement will mean more Afro-Colombian communities displaced for oil palm plantations and more indigenous people displaced for oil pipelines!"

New York, NY - Today at approximately, 1:30 PM, two activists from TradeJustice New York City Metro disrupted a Council of the Americas-sponsored reception for Colombian President Alvaro Uribe Velez to denounce Uribe's support for a free trade agreement between the US and Colombia that critics believe will exacerbate human rights and environmental catastrophes in the war-torn South American nation. Activists entered the reception in the Waldorf-Astoria's Jade Room and shouted, "No Free Trade Agreement with Uribe's death squad government! Over 100 union organizers have been killed in the last 2 years in Colombia! Uribe is lying about demobilizing the death squads! The free trade agreement will mean more Afro-Colombian communities displaced for oil palm plantations and more indigenous people displaced for oil pipelines!" The disruption was supported by a street picket.

The US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement has been widely condemned by human rights groups, labor unions, environmentalists, AIDS activists, animal rights advocates, family farm organizations, peace groups, religious leaders, and advocates of Colombia's Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities.

The agreement will allow US agribusiness to dump genetically engineered, industrially produced, factory farmed, government subsidized crops and animal products onto Colombia's market, displacing family farmers and driving them to coca production for the global cocaine trade. This will fuel US aerial fumigation programs that have poisoned people, wildlife, and the Amazon rainforest.

State-investor provisions in the agreement give corporations the right to sue the US and Colombian governments for unlimited sums in international tribunals for enforcing their environmental and labor laws, despite Colombia's abysmal record on these issues. Colombia has the highest rate of unionist assassinations on the planet, the work of right-wing paramilitary death squads with close ties to the Uribe administration. Despite Uribe's rhetoric of ending impunity towards unionist killings, there have been more killings so far this year than in all of last year.

Colombia's Amazon rainforests and Andean cloudforests have been subject to exploitation by oil corporations, spilling vast amounts of oil into the sensitive Amazon rainforest, creating a conflict flashpoint for the decades long Colombian civil war, and leading to the displacement of Colombia's indigenous communities.

Colombia has the 2nd highest rate of internal displacement on the planet after the Sudan, the result of mass-displacement of Afro-Colombian communities, as terror groups seize lands for lucrative oil palm plantations for the biofuels market. The free trade agreement encourages corporate investment in projects like biofuels, while allowing corporations to circumvent environmental laws through the state-investor provisions.

Intellectual property rules in the agreement will allow corporations to enforce patent protections that will limit access to generic drugs while maintaining prices on brand name drugs that will make the Colombian poor unable to afford life-saving medications.

Free trade agreements have failed to deliver their promised benefits, contributing instead to an increasing concentration of wealth while contributing to unemployment and lower wages for family farmers and working people. A majority of Republican and Democractic voters now oppose NAFTA-style policies. President Uribe is aggressively lobbying the US Congress to pass a free trade agreement in December, when voters will no longer have the power to hold the outgoing Congress accountable for their votes on an unpopular trade agreement.

According to Phil Josselyn, "NAFTA caused massive industrial job flight as corporations saw an opportunity to outsource jobs to unionbusting sweatshops to paying living wages or providing safe working condition. A nation where thousands of trade unionists have been assassinated for demanding rights for workers is paradise for greedy corporations that want cheap labor and will mean more outsourcing and layoffs for US workers."

Uribe's closest allies are implicated in the "Parauribismo" (Uribe paramilitary) scandal, with over 62 members of Congress official suspects. 33 elected officials, including Mario Uribe Escobar, President Uribe's cousin and former President of Congress, were in jail awaiting trial. The scandal revealed close ties between government officials and the right-wing AUC, including accusations that Uribe helped plan a paramilitary massacre in 1997, charges Uribe denies.

TradeJustice New York Metro is a coalition of peace, environmental, labor, human rights, animal rights, AIDS activist, and Colombian and other Latin American community organizations opposed to free trade agreements in the NAFTA model.

USA: Debate continues over genetically modified foods
Some praise the economic benefits while others question health hazards of altered foods

Paige Layer / The Daily, 24 September 2008.

Large numbers of crops today are genetically modified, creating higher yields for consumers but putting pressure on smaller farmers.

Genetic modification is a technique used to alter the genetic makeup of organisms, including plants, according to the Human Genome Project Information Web site.

The concept of genetically modified foods has been around for decades, but is regarded with mixed emotions by scientists and professors.

The debate on genetically modified food encompasses culture, economics and health, said professor Philip Holden-Moses, who teaches a class about food and power in the expository writing program.

Holden-Moses said his problem with genetically modified foods is not the health concerns, but the economic control of farming by larger corporations.

Scientific research is allowing companies to literally rip apart seed banks, insert genes and put everything back together, thus giving them patented rights, Holden-Moses said.

He said such research is not helpful to the public, and in fact is harmful to local farmers because they may not be able to afford the expensive modified seeds.

Seeds are often modified to promote growth in certain climates or regions.

"Elsewhere people farm locally, like we used to do here," Holden-Moses said.

Some intellectuals feel differently about the issue. OU Law Professor Drew L. Kershen said he thinks there are great advantages to cropping genetically modified foods.

Environmental issues are becoming more dominant, and the demand for food is growing, Kershen said. With genetically modified foods, farmers can grow more and increase their yield.

Steve Rhines, Vice President and General Council for the Noble Foundation, also said he notices economical and environmental benefits within genetically modified crops.

Rhines said several government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, are working to ensure the safety of citizens.

"We have to have confidence in these regulatory agencies to approve these technologies before they get on the market," Rhines said.

Research shows there are about 250 million acres of genetically modified foods in the world, and as the crops grow, more of the hungry are fed, Kershen said.

Poor farmers also gain social returns, requiring less labor and allowing children to go to school and learn how to do other things besides farming, Kershen said.

"To not improve this technology is really denying the poor an opportunity to improve their lives," he said.

Although Kershen said he believes genetically modified foods help third-world countries, Holden-Moses said he thinks it is just another way for the United States to "stamp out" other cultures.

Kershen said every country has its own say, and the U.S. is not interfering with cultural farming.

Americans are simply offering the option for other countries, and farmers can decide if genetically modified foods are beneficial for their farms, Kershen said.

"Many farmers have enthusiastically adopted these crops," Kershen said.

Kershen said genetically modified foods are perfectly safe, and there is no reason to treat them differently than other foods.

Holden-Moses said although right now science has found no negative results on people's health, we do not know how manipulated seeds will affect our health in the long run.

"We're scared of not knowing what is manipulated and what it will do to us physically," Holden-Moses said.

He said he just wants people, especially students, to be educated about what it takes to put genes in crops, and the risks associated with it.

"I hope students understand that choices they make locally on an individual basis affects not only their health, but others on a national level," Holden-Moses said.

As more people begin to understand the issue, the impact will become greater, Holden-Moses said.

24 September 2008

Chefs continue to sign up to boycott GM food

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 24 September 2008.

AUSTRALIA - More Australian chefs have signed an agreement to not use genetically modified food, with Canberra chefs the latest to join Greenpeace's national campaign.

It follows a Newspoll study which found 90 per cent of consumers want better labelling of food products.

It is also prompted by the first commercial crops of GM food in Australia, glyphosate tolerant canola which is being grown in NSW and Victoria.

Greenpeace's GM campaigner Michelle Sheather says all food is derived from animals that have been given GM stock feed.

"Well the real issue is there is no research," she says.

"There's no research anywhere on the planet on human health studies and the impacts on the GM food on human health.

"In Australia we have no health studies, on studies of rats over a number of generations because if rats over 3 or 5 generations are fed GM foods the evidence would be much stronger than over a one generation of trial."

Dr TJ Higgins from the CSIRO's Plant Industries disagrees.

He says Greenpeace is picking up on studies that haven't been peer reviewed and the next five years will see the release of drought tolerant GM crops that are safe to eat.

Amid milk scare, China's elite eat all-organic
Government outlet provides safe, special food for the nation's leaders

MSNBC / Associated Press, 24 September 2008.

BEIJING - While China grapples with its latest tainted food crisis, the political elite are served the choicest, safest delicacies. They get hormone-free beef from the grasslands of Inner Mongolia, organic tea from the foothills of Tibet and rice watered by melted mountain snow.

And it's all supplied by a special government outfit that provides all-organic goods from farms working under the strictest guidelines.

That secure food supply stands in stark contrast to the frustrations of ordinary citizens who have faced recurring food scandals – vegetables with harmful pesticide residue, fish tainted with a cancer-causing chemical, eggs colored with industrial dye, fake liquor causing blindness or death, holiday pastries with bacteria-laden filling.

Now that the country's most reputable dairies have been found selling baby formula and other milk products tainted with an industrial chemical that can cause kidney stones and kidney failure, many Chinese don't know what to buy. Tens of thousands of children have been sickened and four babies have died.

Citizens' outrage

Knowing that their leaders do not face these problems has made some people angry.

"Food safety is a high priority for children and families of government officials, so are normal citizens less entitled to safe food?" asked Zhong Lixun, feeding her 7-month-old grandson baby formula after he got checked for kidney stones at Beijing Children's Hospital.

The State Council Central Government Offices Special Food Supply Center is specifically designed to avoid the problems troubling the general population.

"We all know that average production facilities use large quantities of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Antibiotics and hormones are commonly used in raising livestock and poultry. Farmed aquatic products are contaminated by various kinds of water pollution," the center's director, Zhu Yonglan, said in a speech earlier this year.

"It goes without saying that these are harmful when consumed by humans," Zhu told executives at supplier Shandong Ke'er Biological Medical Technology Development Co., which posted it on its Web site.

Zhu's speech has been widely circulated by Chinese Internet users on blogs and forums in recent days, with many expressing outrage that top government officials have a separate – and safer – food supply than the public.

The special food center enforces strict standards on suppliers like Shandong Ke'er, which makes health supplements designed to boost immunity and energy. Foods must be organic, not genetically modified and meet international food standards, said a manager in the center's product department, who only gave her surname, Zhang.

The reason: its A-list clientele of government officials and retirees of vice minister rank or higher.

It's not unusual for China's leadership to have a special food supply; the practice stretches back thousands of years to farms providing ingredients for lavish imperial meals or the greasy, spicy dishes favored by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong.

'Nation A' vs. everyone else

The former Soviet Union's ruling classes also ate food that was unavailable to the masses. In North Korea, where withering famines have seen tens of thousands starve over the past 13 years, leader Kim Jong Il is a gourmet known for his love of lobster, shark's fin soup and sushi. His former private chef has said Kim keeps an extensive collection of vintage French wines.

Set up in 2004, China's Special Food Supply Center is almost as secretive as its high-end clientele, whose precise number is unclear, but includes hundreds of top political leaders, their families and retired cadres. Much of the information on its Web site was removed after media inquiries and interview requests this week.

Goods deemed to meet the highest standards are stamped with the label "Nation A," which stands for "top end, irreplaceable, the best," according to the Web site. Those products are for senior politicians or government offices and not released to the general consumer market, said a customer service agent surnamed Dong.

Rice fed by melted snow from Mt. Changbai, which straddles the China-North Korean border, gets a "Nation A" rating, according to the Web site.

The center scours the country for purveyors in places famous for a particular product, said Zhang, the manager.

These include fish from Hubei province – known traditionally as the "land of fish and rice" – tea from mountainous Yunnan province abutting Tibet, and beef and mutton from the Inner Mongolian steppes, according to Zhu's speech.

As for rice, some comes from the northeast, grown from seeds specially cultivated by experts from the Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, said sales manager Wu Honghua of Chifeng Heiyupaozi Organic Agropastoral Development Co.

It "has a very small output. It tastes very good. And it doesn't involve genetic engineering," said Wu.

Wu said 90 percent of the rice goes to the Beidaihe Sanitorium – a seaside resort for retired party cadres. The remainder is sold on the market, he said, at $4 a pound – a price five times higher than regular organic rice and 15 times more than the price of ordinary rice.

A brand of organic tea supplied to the center sells for $187 a pound. "It's fresh and tender, smells good and has a bright color," said Xia Dan, an employee of the Huiming Tea Co. in eastern Zhejiang province.

UK: Natural alternatives to GM crops

The Guardian (Letters), 24 September 2008.

Ian Pearson needs to get his science straight before considering taking a stance in support of GM (Science minister attempts to reopen the debate on GM crops, September 22). Properties such as innate pest or blight resistance, drought or salt tolerance and yield are sophisticated processes that manifest from the function of multiple genes working in a tightly regulated, coordinated manner. The introduction of such properly functioning complex gene networks in plants by the crude and genetically disruptive GM transformation process is currently not possible. Fortunately, we have better alternatives that can contribute to alleviating the world's food problems now.

First, the biotechnological procedure of marker-assisted selection (MAS), which uses our increasing knowledge of gene maps, can significantly expedite the identification of new crop varieties with complex desirable properties created by natural cross-breeding programmes. Unlike GM, there are no inherent safety concerns with MAS that makes use of the vast gene pool of any given food crop in a manner that retains natural gene order and function.

Second, a 1996 report by the National Research Council in the US highlighted that there already exist many crops such as fonio, pearl millet, African rice that are naturally adapted to harsh climates and marginal soils as well as being nutritious and tasty. Unfortunately, outside interference has led to these hardy staples being displaced by maize, wheat and Asian rice. In the face of climate change, the world needs fast solutions to its food problems, which MAS and a return to traditional food varieties can provide and which GM simply cannot deliver.

Dr Michael Antoniou
King's College London

_____

Ian Pearson's comments reveal a government increasingly prepared to act as a mouthpiece for the GM industry. GM crops have failed to deliver - they do not yield more than conventional crops and there is not a single GM drought or salt-tolerant crop available commercially.

The government's own GM public debate in 2003 revealed widespread scepticism over both GM crops and corporate control of the food system. Instead of trying to convince the public to support GM and continuing to fund this unpopular and ineffective technology, the government must focus on the real farming solutions backed by 400 scientists in a recent UN report on the future of agriculture. This means meeting local food needs by combining science and technology with communities' traditional knowledge to support localised and diverse farming.

Clare Oxborrow
Food campaigner, Friends of the Earth

_____

Another week, another government minister tries to persuade us to grow GM crops. It is as if the UN report earlier this year, endorsed by the UK government, has been forgotten. The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development report said GM technology was not a quick fix to feed the world's poor. The 400 scientists who wrote it said they saw little role for GM in feeding the poor on a large scale; data on some GM crops indicated highly variable yield gains in some places and declines in others. GM crops are not banned in the UK; it is just that hardly anyone wants to buy them, and so no farmer wants to risk growing them. The environment minister, Phil Woolas, is giving opponents of GM crops a year to join in a debate. What will happen at the end of this one-year consultation that will be different to the situation as it stands today?

Roger Mainwood
Wivenhoe, Essex

_____

Ian Pearson believes that the British public would accept GM crops if they were beneficial to consumers. Yet the public would gladly forgo those benefits if they knew what the government is ignoring: that every feeding trial carried out by independent scientists on laboratory animals results in serious harm to their health. Government assurances of safety rely on tests submitted by the GM seed developers. There are many other reasons why GM crops should be neither grown nor eaten, but these facts alone should suffice to call for a moratorium, at least, and not promotion. Ministers are failing in their responsibility to protect the people and the environment in their zeal to promote the economy.

Eva Novotny
Cambridge

23 September 2008

Japanese groups reject GE sugar beet imports

Center for Food Safety, 23 September 2008.

Washington, DC -- The No! GMO Campaign, representing 53 of Japan's leading farmer, consumer, and public interest groups, have joined the Center for Food Safety and a coalition of US NGOs in opposing the US cultivation of untested, genetically modified (GM) sugar beets. This week, members of the Seikatsu Club Consumer's Cooperative (SCCC) have come to the US with a statement, representing nearly a million Japanese people, expressing their shared desire to keep food and feed containing GM sugar beets out of Japanese markets.

"This show of opposition to the importation of products containing GM sugar beets in Japan sends a strong message to US food and feed producers to beware of losing international markets if they use GM sugar beets," said Lisa Bunin, Ph.D., Campaigns Coordinator at the Center for Food Safety. "In the face of weak government regulation of GM food, consumers are now turning to industry to keep GM foods off the market."

Currently, only four major GM crops - corn, cotton, soy and canola - are grown commercially in the US. No new major GM crops have reached the market in over a decade, but the impending release of GM sugar beets into the food supply threatens to break this trend.

In addition to bringing a statement of opposition to GM sugar beets, SCCC representatives will tour Midwest farms in search of non-GM corn for cattle and dairy feed. The 14-member delegation - which includes pig, chicken, beef, and dairy producers - is meeting with farmers and feed distributors in Louisiana, Illinois, and Missouri, to identify stable supplies of non-GM corn to sell to its member farmers.

At present, Japan does not produce any GM crops for commercial consumption, although it allows the import of some pre-approved and labeled GM foods "Our goal is not only to keep Japan but also the world GM free," said Tatsumi Tanabe, SCCC's Business Development Department General Manager. "We believe that labeling is the best way to inform consumers about non-GM products so that they can make an informed decision whether to eat GM foods or not."

In addition to empowering people's food-buying choices, strong opposition to corporate control and consolidation of the food supply drives the many food and agricultural collectives flourishing across Japan. No! GMO is comprised of 53 of these cooperatives, including the SCCC, Green Coop Consumers' Cooperative Community, Consumers Union of Japan, and the Japan Organic Agriculture Association.

"Our cooperative food movement seeks to guarantee autonomous control over our lives," said Tanabe. "We do this by ensuring that farmers have the final decision over the seeds they save and plant, not corporations. This simply cannot happen when large multinational, GM seed conglomerates like Monsanto, control the worlds' seed stock." SCCC representatives plan to firm up contracts with non-GM corn growers throughout their US tour.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/

GM: Foolish or the future?
John Heney and Patrick O'Reilly give two opposing views on the controversial topic

The Irish Independent (Farming), 23 September 2008.

AGAINST:

Isn't it amazing how effective a good sales pitch can be? Claims by speakers at the recent Cork Biotechnology [Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC 2008)] reminded me of an incident that occured when I was just a child. My parents had just returned from the Dungarvan Show when my mother produced a small bottle of strangely coloured liquid that she had purchased. The label read "Snake Oil" and the salesman claimed it was a cure for all sorts of afflictions.

Currently we are bombarded with claims that GM will end world hunger, apparently surpassing even the miracle of 'the loaves and fishes'.

But not everyone agrees.

Research at the University of Nebraska found that a GM soya produced 6pc less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 pc less than the best non-GM soya available.

Professor Bob Watson was the director of the study. He is chief scientist at DEFFA in the UK, as well as being director of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). When asked if GM would solve world hunger, Professor Watson said: "The simple answer is no".

This supports the conclusion of a Teagasc expert at a Joint Oireachtas All-Party Committee Meeting on European Affairs and the Environment when asked the same question. He replied: "I would not trumpet that as likely to happen."

In 2006, the US Department of Agriculture, a long-time supporter of GM crops, also acknowledged that GM crop yields were not greater than conventional crops, something supported by many independent scientists.

And what about the 'infallible' claims we hear, that GM food is completely safe? It appears that most scientists who make these claims have, at some stage, been employed by the biotech industry.

One leading US bio-scientist, Dr Craig Venter, recently appeared to be playing God when he went so far as to claim that he is creating a new form of artificial life, which will be superior to natural life. Unfortunately for all these scientists, the assumed infallibility of science suffered a serious setback recently when it emerged that EU agriculture ministers were seeking to ban many widely used pesticides linked with cancer, mutation, reproductive toxicity and hormonal disruption, and which, up until now, scientists deemed to be perfectly safe.

What I find far more sinister is the fact that many highly respected anti-GM scientists such as Dr Arpad Pusztai, who have devoted their lives to exposing the myths surrounding the safety of GMOs, have suffered a sustained campaign of vilification against their work and personal integrity because of their findings.

The stark reality is that the supporters of GM refuse to accept that the European public do not want their GM food.

We must, under no circumstances, forget that GM crops, if introduced into Ireland, can never be eradicated. At the moment, as an island off the west coast of Europe, we are in the very happy position of being a genuine GM-free area and thus capable of targeting the growing demand for GM-free food in the 'high value' European market.

In spite of the creative sales pitch of the purveyors of GM, like the bottle of Snake Oil which was never uncorked because of strong consumer resistance in our household, the GM genie should neer be allowed to escape into the Irish environment. It would simply be economic and environmental suicide for Irish farming.

John Heney is a beef farmer from Kilfeacle, Co. Tipperary. He has a BA in Sustainable Rural Development from Tipperary Institute, and an MA in International Studies from University of Limerick.

FOR:

Plant biotechnology has become a permanent fixture in global agriculture. In 1996, when biotech crops were first grown commercially, there were only 4.2m acres planted worldwide. In 2007, 12m farmers in 23 countries planted more thatn 280m acres of biotech crops.

The technology has proven to be scale neutral, as 90pc of the farmers using it in 2007 were based in developing countries. Europe surpassed 250,000 acres of biotech crops for the first time last year, with eight countries planting biotech varieties.

Over the past decade, farmers planting biotech crops have increased their income by more than €23bn, through a combination of higher yields and lower inputs.

Farmers also have decreased pesticide applications by over 189m kilogrammes, through the use of biotech crops. These crops have decreased carbon dioxide emissions and saved fossil fuel use due to less tillage and spraying.

These are some of the main reasons why farmers who plant biotech seeds once will typically repurchase at rates well above 90pc. Biotech seed is usually more expensive, but farmers see clear benefits and are thus willing to pay the price premium. When given the right to choose, they will choose biotech seed.

Consumers have also benefited from plant biotechnology - healthy crops produce healthy foods. Pest-resistant varieties suffer reduced insect damage, making them less susceptible to fungal disease. In addition, protecting crops from insect damage results in lower levels of mycotoxins - which are known carcinogens.

The next generation of biotech crops in the pipeline is addressing more complex challenges across the spectrum of food, feed, fuel and the environment.

Many of these biotech crops will bring direct economic and environmental benefits if grown in Ireland. Herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape and forage maize, disease-resistant cereals and blight-resistant potatoes are all relevant to this country.

Oilseed crops with the ability to produce omega-3 enhanced oils or with reduced trans-fats, are both important products for the food industry.

Biotech maize varieties with built in high levels of lysine are immediately relevant to the feed industry.

Biotech crops in the pipeline that have significantly better nitrogen utilisation capabilities are especially relevant in the context of the Nitrates Directive.

Unfortunately, farmers in Ireland are being denied their democratic right to have freedom of access to these products. Why should farmers on the one hand have to compete against this technology, while at the same time being denied access to using it on their own farms?

After 12 years of wide-sclae commercial use, even with the limited available biotech crops to date, biotech varieties account for one fifth of the world's rapeseed, a quarter of the world's maize, over two fifths of the world's cotton, and almost two thirds of the world's soya plantings.

Like all new technologies, plant biotech has faced its share of scepticism. Various concerns and claims have been made, which should be examined based on evidence rather than emotion.

Despite the many questions and concerns raised, none of the doomsday health and environmental effects claimed has occured.

The regulations controlling these technologies have proven very stringent and very precautionary.

The safety of biotech crops and foods now on the market has been affirmed by experts around the world, including independent studies carried out over many years by the European Commission.

Biotech commodities, particularly soya and maize, are now a major component of animal feedstuffs globally, including in Ireland. For any country or region to adopt a policy of isolation from this global situation, would be to place at risk whole sectors of the agricultural industry.

It is time that Irish farmers were given the right to choose.

Patrick O'Reilly, business manager, Monsanto Ireland.

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Irish farmers will lose their right to choose to grow natural crops forever if they believe Monsanto's lies. 216 food and feed contamination incidents in 57 countries prove that GM crops can not "co-exist" with natural crops which they rapidly infect via pollen drift and seed dispersal. Contaminated farmers would lose ownership of their seeds and crops, be obligated to pay annual patent royalties, and face patent infringement and contamination lawsuits. Irish food would have to carry a GM label, automatically excluding it from the major retailers across the EU. Our farm, food and tourism revenues would plummet. Our hard-earned reputation as Ireland - the food island would be lost forever, along with our food security, since Monsanto et al would then control our food supply. Snake oil, anyone?

22 September 2008

GM crops: Environmentalists accuse Government of 'breath-taking naivety'

The Telegraph (UK), 22 September 2008. By Louise Gray, Environmental Correspondent

Environmentalists have accused the Government of "breath-taking naivety" for suggesting genetically modified crops could be the answer to the current food crisis.

Ian Pearson, the science minister, told a newspaper that the Government did not handle the public debate very well when GM foods first burst onto the scene in the late 1990s.

Activists disrupted scientific trials and consumer fears prompted supermarkets to pull products from their shelves.

However he said the public would accept GM this time around if there is a chance the technology could help feed people in developing countries.

"I don't think the GM debate in 2000 was handled very well," he said. "I think that the public want to see benefits for GM technology for the consumer, not just for the fertiliser company or the farmer.

"If GM can demonstrably provide benefits for people living in sub-Saharan Africa. . . then I think the public will want to support those as products and want to see them commercialised.

"If consumers see benefits from GM then I think a significant majority of them will want to choose GM. That's what we have to do. We have to show that there are benefits to the consumer of adopting GM technologies," he said.

However Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, said consumers will remain unconvinced.

"I think there is a breath-taking naivety about the belief that GM can be a silver bullet to solve all the problems agriculture is currently facing," he said.

"All the energy the Government and the proponents of GM are currently investing in a renaissance of the debate about the benefits of GM is a distraction from the real issues.

"There is no evidence that GM crops increase yields, reduce pesticide use or bring any public benefits to society. And there is a growing body of evidence there could be health risks.

"There is also the genie out of the bottle argument that once these organisms are released you cannot recall them and the choice issue because the fact remains that the vast majority of consumers in Europe do not want to purchase GM foods if they can help it."

Prince Charles has warned of an "environmental disaster" if GM crops are allowed to take over world agriculture.

Friends of the Earth accused the Government of using the food crisis as an excuse to align themselves with GM.

However the food biotechnology industry welcomed Mr Pearson's comments and said GM foods could make a "significant contribution" to the rising food and fuel crisis.

UK: Rooker accuses 'messianic' anti-GM lobby of ignorance

Farmers Guardian, 22 September 2008. By Alistair Driver.

FOOD and Farming Minister Jeff Rooker has launched a scathing attack on opponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, who he said were on a 'messianic mission' to halt the technology.

Speaking at a Labour Party Conference fringe meeting, he accused the anti-GM lobby of 'ignorance' and warned that opposition to the technology was jeopardising the UK's scientific base.

Responding to a question about whether the time was now right to reignite the debate on GM crops, the outspoken peer expressed frustration at what he described as the 'anti science climate' in evidence across the EU.

"We have to take on and challenge those who pontificate. It isn't just GM issues, it's the same with nanotechnology where simply because it's a new science there's an automatic barrier.

"We are taking a long-term view on this because we don't want to snuff out an industry before it has started."

He pointed out that 10 years ago GM tomato paste was outselling ordinary tomato paste two to one. "Then we got the 'Frankenstein foods', which is a brilliant sound bite and you can't counteract a sound bite that is ignorant and not based on science," he said.

He attacked protestors who seek to disrupt trials of GM. "We accept GM medicines for ourselves and our loved ones but it is a different issue with food.

"If the ignorance prevails where you don't allow an experiment to take place because of the fear of what you might find and if we just put up with it and say they are entitled to go and trash the fields and the magistrates will let them off, then frankly we are being taken for a ride."

He stressed that there was no evidence that anyone's health had ever been damaged by GM crops.

He also warned that the UK would 'lose its biotechnology scientific base if scientists were 'not able to progress in areas where we will see a positive advantage'.

He acknowledged that the first step was to find GM products that benefited consumers rather than just producers, as has been the case up to this point.

But even if that was achieved - and he suggested GM food that helped people with food allergies the answer - opponents of GM technology would have to be defeated for it to be given a chance.

He said he was not in favour of blanket approval of GM crops but wanted a rational debate.

"What I do not accept are the arguments and the slogans where there isn't any validity. They are on a messianic mission, it is like a religion, but there is no science base to it."

NATO's Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic
Using "Climate Change" as a Pretext to Appropriate World Seeds' Treasure

Centre for Research on Globalisation, 22 September 2008. By F. William Engdahl.

The controversial 'Doomsday Seed Vault', a nuclear-bomb-proof vault deep into the side of a mountain in NATO-member Norway's Svalbard, near the Arctic Circle, has begun to collect seed samples from the entire world to freeze in the newly opened facility. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, have constructed what is called by BBC the 'doomsday seed bank.'

Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. It sits on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group. Now scientists connected with the project are roaming the world to collect samples of every seed variety known, using the fraudulent argument of protecting against Global Warming to obtain samples of the crop diversity of the planet. The implications are potentially more dangerous than the threat of nuclear war.

As climate change is credited as one of the main drivers behind soaring food prices, the Global Crop Diversity Trust, the private organization which is responsible for maintaining the Seed Vault, is searching crop collections from Azerbaijan to Nigeria, allegedly for the traits that could defend the world agriculture against the impact of future changes. Traits, such as drought resistance in wheat, or salinity tolerance in potato, they argue, will become essential as crops around the world have to adapt to new climate conditions under forecast changes from Global Warming.

Beginning this past March, more than 200,000 crop varieties from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East–drawn from vast seed collections maintained by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)–were shipped to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (SGSV), a facility capable of preserving their vitality for thousands of years.

The seeds were from varieties of rice, wheat, beans, sorghum, sweet potatoes, lentils, chick peas and a host of other food, forage and agro-forestry plants. They are being safeguarded in the facility, which was created as a 'repository of last resort for humanity's agricultural heritage.' The vault was officially built by the Norwegian government as a service to the global community, and a Rome-based international NGO, the Global Crop Diversity Trust, will fund its operation. It officially opened on February 26, 2008.

Unofficially, the Seed Vault project is one of the largest steps taken yet by the handful of GMO agribusiness giants including Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta of Basle, the Rockefeller Foundation in addition to the Gates family foundation, the world's largest private foundation combining the wealth as well of Warren Buffett. As I described in an earlier piece posted January 3, 2008 in this space, Der "Tresor des Jüngsten Gerichts" in der Arktis, the project appears to be far from the innocent humanitarian enterprise its promoters claim. The key organizations involved have a long, often dirty history of fraud, intimidation and dubious methods to force the spread of patented Genetically Modified plant seeds into the world agriculture food chain.

Readers seeking a more detailed background on the GMO companies, the so-called Four Horsemen of the Seeds Apokalypse–Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow Chemical and DuPont–are encouraged to look further in my book, Saat der Zerstörung: die Dunkle Seite der Gen-Manipulation. There I describe the decades long background of the Rockefeller Foundation, working in close concert with Monsanto and others to create the scientifically flawed technology of introducing foreign traits into the seeds of the world's main food crops and thereby claiming grounds for exclusive patent rights to sell seeds of corn, rice, potato varieties, soybeans and countless other basic crops including cotton. GMO is a scientifically unstable technique whose long-term health impact on humans or even animals has never been independently tested by any Government.

That is a result of deliberate US policy, initiated in 1992 by then-President George H. W. Bush in consultation with top officials of Monsanto. Then Bush signed an Executive decree mandating the responsible Federal agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and others NOT to independently test the genetically modified seeds for possible harmful effects, but to consider them to be 'Substantially Equivalent' to conventional corn, soybeans, rice and such. That political fraud allowed Monsanto to submit GMO seed varieties for approval to plant commercially using only Monsanto-conducted test results as 'proof' that the seeds were safe. That was only the beginning of a policy of malign neglect on the side of the US Government regarding the dangers of GMO.

Toxic for human embryos

Compounding the dangers, the US Government also refused to examine, independently, the possible harmful effects to ground water and to humans and animals of the patented chemical herbicides which had to be sold alongside the Monsanto or DuPont or other GMO seeds. The seeds were patented in effect to force farmers to buy exclusively the herbicide of the seed patent owner.

As an example, Monsanto initially held patent rights to a powerful herbicide, Roundup©, which today is the world's most used herbicide. Monsanto developed and patented a soybean seed it names Roundup Ready©. Roudup Ready soybeans are "ready" for the Roundup herbicide. The Monsanto soybean is specially developed to be resistant to Roundup herbicide, a powerful poison that kills everything it touches. That pairing of herbicide and seed gives companies promoting the GMO product a lock on both sale of patented seeds as well as their mated herbicide chemicals. All major GMO seed giants started out as chemical companies.

More alarming is the fact that, according to numerous studies worldwide, GMO crops over time need more, not less, herbicide as the weeds develop a special resistance to become 'superweeds'.

Then a scientific study that has to date been blocked out of the public debate, suggests that the active elements in the world's largest-selling herbicide, Monsanto's Roundup, are toxic and get into ground water and into the human diet. The study found that Roundup had a measurable effect on human embryonic and placental cells.

The scientific study, released in the magazine, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology in November 2006 by a group of scientists headed by N. Benachour and G. E. Seralini of the University of Caen in France, following extensive tests with rats fed a diet of plants treated with Roundup, whose active ingredient is Glyphosate, that 'we can conclude that the failure to account for the combined effects...will undoubtedly lead to the underestimation of potential hazards, especially at the endocrine disruption level, and hence to erroneous conclusions at a regulatory level regarding the risk that they provoke.' The scientists concluded, 'Thus the toxic or hormonal impact of chemical mixtures in formulations (of Roundup–w.e.) appears to be underestimated.' Moreover, the Caen University scientists found that the toxic effects of Roundup were 'thus amplified with time. Taken together, these data suggest that Roundup exposure may effect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination.'[1]

The last statement, translated into layman's language is that the world's most popular herbicide has manifest impact on human embryo cells and no Government is moving to call for a ban on its sale pending larger more thorough independent tests. The scientific article was buried and no one outside a tiny scientific community even knew the alarming results. The story should have been banner headline in the world press: 'Scientists claim GMO Herbicide toxic to human embryo!'

NATO gets world seed samples

The fact that GMO is a product of the Rockefeller Foundation, an organization which has been the leading world organization promoting the racialist eugenics agenda since the 1920's, and promoting population reduction programs including forced sterilization of women in Puerto Rico, Nicaragua and elsewhere in the developing world is relevant to the probable agenda of the people who placed a global seed vault on the property of a NATO country far remote from any prying of the public.

The picture gets more ominous in context of the Arctic Seed Vault of the Rockefeller Foundation, Gates, Monsanto et al. The seeds for the Doomsday Seed Vault are being gathered from select seed banks around the world established by CGIAR. This first installment from the CGIAR collections will contain duplicates from international agricultural research centers based in Benin, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines and Syria. Collectively, the CGIAR centers maintain 600,000 plant varieties in crop gene-banks, which are regarded as the foundation of global efforts to conserve agricultural biodiversity. The seed banks are supposed to be protected from attempts of Monsanto et al to try to use the seeds for their patent efforts. There have been documented cases, however, where seed samples were illegally given to Monsanto or other GMO giants to develop GMO traits. Now by collecting all possible seed varieties far away from prying eyes in the Arctic, the seed companies such as Monsanto who are part of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault project, have at least the theoretical possibility of taking those seeds and patenting the most essential for their proliferation of GMO across the human food chain.

"We're tempted to say that nobody in their right mind would ever use these things," remarked Stanford University biophysicist, Professor Steven Block, a man with years of personal experience with classified Pentagon and Government biological research. "But," Block added, "not everybody is in their right mind...." [2]

The Svalbard project deserves far more public attention and scrutiny.

Notes

[1] N. Benachour, et al, Time- and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells, 20 November 2006, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 53, pp.126-133.

[2] Prof. Steven Block, quoted in Mark Schwartz, "Biological Warfare Emerges as 21st-Century Threat", Stanford Report, http://wwww.news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/january17/bioterror-117.html, 11 January 2001.

Scientists Uncover Bees Potential to Mediate Genetically Engineered Material Over Several Kilometres

Azom, September 22 2008

A study by scientists from the Nairobi-headquartered international research centre ICIPE, in collaboration with the French Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) has established that bees have the potential to mediate the escape of transgenes (genetically engineered material) from crops to their wild relatives over several kilometres.

The findings, which have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of 9th September, bear significant implications for the introduction of genetically modified crops in Africa.

The research, which was partly funded by USAID and the Rockefeller Foundation, was triggered by the planned release of insect-resistant genetically engineered cowpea in Africa, where cowpea's wild relative, Vigna unguiculata var. spontanea, is widely distributed. For the first time with insect pollinators, the scientists used radio tracking to determine the movements of the carpenter bee Xylocopa flavorufa and their implications for long-distance pollen flow.

"Bees can visit flowers as far as six kilometres away from their nest. From complete flight records in which bees visited wild and domesticated plant populations, we concluded that bees can mediate gene flow, and potentially allow transgenes to escape over several kilometres," explains icipe scientist Remy S. Pasquet.

He adds that for genetically engineered cowpea in Africa, these results indicate that although pollen movement beyond a few hundred meters has a low probability, strict isolation by distance may not be feasible. This research therefore confirms the widely held hypothesis that deploying genetically engineered cowpea in sub-Saharan Africa may mean that an escape of the transgene to the wild cowpea relative is inevitable.

UK: Science minister attempts to reopen the debate on GM crops
We must show benefits of hi-tech food, says Pearson
Campaigners claim move is cynical sop to industry

The Guardian, September 22 2008. By James Randerson, science correspondent.

Ministers have given their strongest backing yet to GM crops being planted in the UK. The science minister, Ian Pearson, predicted the public would accept GM crops if they could be convinced that the technology would benefit consumers.

He acknowledged that the original public debate on the issue was handled badly by government, but he said if the benefits of GM crops could be put across to people they would be more enthusiastic.

"I don't think the GM debate in 2000 was handled very well," Pearson said. "I think that the public want to see benefits for GM technology for the consumer, not just for the fertiliser company or the farmer. If GM can demonstrably provide benefits for people living in sub-Saharan Africa ... then I think the public will want to support those as products and want to see them commercialised."

He added: "If consumers see benefits from GM then I think a significant majority of them will want to choose GM. That's what we have to do. We have to show that there are benefits to the consumer of adopting GM technologies."

The backlash against GM began in the late 1990s when trials were interrupted by activists who ripped up the plants. Consumer fears also prompted supermarkets to remove GM products from their shelves. In 2004, Lord Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, declared "the end of GM in Britain" after the government announced that no more GM crops would be grown for the "foreseeable future".

The crops are grown widely in north and south America and China, but a Eurobarometer survey of 25,000 Europeans in 2005 found just 27% thought the technology behind GM should be encouraged.

Pearson said GM research held great potential for producing crop varieties that would help poor people in developing countries. "We can produce drought-resistant crops, salt-resistant crops. These could have huge potential benefits for people in developing countries and I think that we should be allowed to do the research," he said.

He added that the government needed to communicate its science message better to the public. "We need to find new and better ways of consulting and of working with people and making sure that we take them along with us," he said.

Pearson's comments signal a concerted effort by ministers to reopen the GM issue. On BBC radio's Farming Today this month, the environment minister, Phil Woolas, said opponents of GM had a year to prove it was not safe. "If you are opposed to GM it is now up to you to provide the evidence that there is harm. Ten years ago it was the other way around," he said.

Claire Oxborrow of Friends of the Earth said ministers were using the global food crisis as an excuse to align themselves with the biotechnology industry. "It seems the government has forgotten what came out of its own debate," she said. "There was this in-depth debate process sponsored by the government ... which overwhelmingly showed that the public were not ready for GM, did not see any benefits, did not trust the technology, and did not want their food controlled by corporations."

Pearson's comments were welcomed by Dr Julian Little, head of the Agriculture and Biotechnology Council, an umbrella group for the food biotechnology industry. "Biotechnology can make a significant contribution to rising food and fuel prices and environmental challenges," he said.

Biotech Snake Oil: A Quack Cure for Hunger

Multinational Monitor Vol. 29 No. 2, Sep-Oct 2008. By Bill Freese.

Rising global food prices reached a flash point this spring, sparking food riots in over a dozen countries. Mexican tortillas have quadrupled in price; Haiti's prime minister was ousted amid rice riots; African countries were especially hard hit. According to the World Bank, global food prices have risen a shocking 83 percent over the past three years. And for the world's poor, high prices mean hunger.

The global food crisis has many causes, but according to the biotechnology industry, there's a simple solution - genetically modified, or biotech, crops. Biotech multinationals have been in media blitz mode ever since the food crisis first made headlines, touting miracle crops that will purportedly increase yields, tolerate droughts, grow in saline soils, and be chockfull of nutrients, to boot.

"If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015," says Clive James, founder of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), an organization whose funders include all the major biotech companies, "biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade."

Not everyone is convinced. In fact, the UN and World Bank recently completed an unprecedentedly broad scientific assessment of world agriculture, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. This four-year effort, which engaged some 400 experts from multiple disciplines, originally included industry representatives. Just three months before the final report was released, however, Monsanto, Syngenta and chemical giant BASF pulled out of the process, miffed by the poor marks given their favorite technology. This withdrawal upset even the industry-friendly journal Nature, which chided the companies in an editorial entitled, "Deserting the Hungry?"

Serving The Wealthy

Genetic engineering involves the laboratory-based transfer of DNA derived from bacteria, viruses or virtually any living organism into plants to endow them with a desired trait. As implemented by biotechnology firms, critics say genetic engineering has trod the well-worn path of previous innovations of industrial agriculture – serving wealthier farmers growing commodity crops in huge monocultures by saving labor through the use of expensive inputs.

Biotech proponents insist genetically modified (GM) seeds are delivering results for farmers. "Already in its first 12 years, this technology has made a significant impact by lifting the incomes of farmers," says James.

But genetically modified crops are heavily concentrated in a handful of countries with industrialized, export-oriented agricultural sectors. Nearly 90 percent of biotech acres in 2007 were found in just six countries of North and South America, with the United States, Argentina and Brazil accounting for 80 percent. For most other countries, including India and China, biotech crops account for 3 percent or less of total harvested crop area.

Commercialized GM crops are confined to soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. Soybeans and corn predominate, and are used mainly to feed animals or fuel cars in rich nations. For instance, Argentina and Brazil export the great majority of their soybeans as livestock feed, mainly to Europe and Japan, while more than three fourths of the U.S. corn crop is either fed to animals or used to generate ethanol for automobiles. Expanding soybean monocultures in South America are displacing small farmers, who grow food crops for local consumption, and thus contribute to food insecurity, especially in Argentina and Paraguay. The only other commercial GM crops are papaya and squash, both grown on miniscule acreage.

Most revealing, however, is what the biotech industry has engineered these crops for. Hype and promises of future innovations notwithstanding, there is not a single commercial GM crop with increased yield, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance, enhanced nutrition or other attractive-sounding traits touted by the industry. Disease-resistant GM crops are practically non-existent.

"We have yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better," says Hope Shand, research director for the Ontario-based ETC Group. "Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or socially useful."

The industry's own figures reveal that GM crops incorporate one or both of just two "traits" – herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Insect-resistant cotton and corn produce their own "built-in" insecticide to protect against certain, but far from all, insect pests. Herbicide-tolerant crops are engineered to withstand direct application of an herbicide to kill nearby weeds. These crops predominate, with 82 percent of global biotech crop acreage.

Herbicide-tolerant crops (mainly soybeans) are popular with larger farmers because they simplify and reduce labor needs for weed control. They have thus helped facilitate the worldwide trend of consolidating farmland into fewer, ever bigger farms, like Argentina's huge soybean plantations. According to a 2004 study by Charles Benbrook, former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, herbicide-tolerant crops have also led to a substantial increase in pesticide use. Benbrook's study found that adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops in the United States increased weed-killer use by 138 million pounds from 1996 to 2004 (while insect-resistant crops reduced insecticide use by just 16 million pounds over the same period).

The vast majority of herbicide-tolerant crops are Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" varieties, tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is sold under the brand-name Roundup. The dramatic rise in glyphosate use associated with Roundup Ready crops has spawned an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, just as bacteria evolve resistance to an overused antibiotic. Farmers respond to resistant weeds by upping the dose of glyphosate and by using greater quantities of other herbicides, such as the probable carcinogen 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange) and the endocrine-disrupting weed killer atrazine, recently banned in the European Union. Glyphosate-resistant weeds and rising herbicide use are becoming serious problems in the United States, Argentina and Brazil.

"Roundup continues to be the cornerstone of weed management for farms today and provides a lot of value to farmers," responds Darren Wallis, a Monsanto spokesperson. "We have some online tools to help farmers manage any weed control issues that they might have. There have been some documented cases of weed resistance, but Roundup continues to control hundreds of weeds very effectively."

Critics retort that resistant weeds are spreading despite Monsanto's efforts, and that a technology often promoted as moving agriculture beyond the era of chemicals has in fact increased chemical dependency and accelerated the pesticide treadmill of industrial agriculture. And, of course, expensive inputs like herbicides (the price of glyphosate has doubled over the past year) are beyond the means of most poor farmers.

What about yield and profitability? The most widely cultivated biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, actually suffers from a 5-10 percent lower yield versus conventional varieties, according to a University of Nebraska study, due to both adverse effects of glyphosate on the soybean's nutrient uptakes, as well as unintended effects of the genetic engineering process used to create the plant. Unintended, yield-lowering effects are a serious though little-acknowledged technical obstacle of genetic engineering, and are one of several factors foiling efforts to develop viable GM crops with drought-tolerance, disease-resistance and other traits.

Monsanto says yield problems occurred only in the first year Roundup Ready soy was introduced, and that initial problems have been cured. "The first year we came out with Roundup Ready soybeans, there was a slight yield drag, but we improved the [seed] in subsequent years," says Brad Mitchell, Monsanto spokesperson.

Critics dispute this assertion, citing a 2007 study by Kansas State University which found that Roundup Ready soybean yields continue to lag behind those of conventional varieties.

Clive James of ISAAA points to the Asian experience with GM cotton, where he says small farmers are benefiting from biotech. More than 7 million farmers - representing some of the poorest in China - are seeing yields rise by 10 percent and pesticide use decline by half, he says. Farmer income is rising by approximately $220 a year, according to James.

But reviews of the Asian experience with GM cotton suggest that yield benefits are due more to good weather and other factors, not the use of biotech crops, and that GM cotton engineered for the shorter growing season in the U.S. sometimes fails to ward off targeted pests in India's longer growing season. It is true that insect resistant crops can reduce yield losses when infestation with targeted pests is severe. However, because cotton is afflicted with so many pests not killed by the built-in insecticide, biotech cotton farmers in India, China and elsewhere often apply as much chemical insecticide as growers of conventional cotton. But because they have paid up to four times as much for the biotech seed as they would for conventional seed, they often end up falling deeper into debt. Debt is an overriding problem among small farmers in developing countries, and any policies or technologies that deepen farmer debt have drastic consequences. Each year, hundreds of cotton farm ers in India alone commit suicide from despair over insurmountable debts.

Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has found no economic benefit to farmers from growing GM crops in most situations.

Seed Servitude

The agricultural biotechnology industry represents an historic merger of two distinct sectors - agrichemicals and seeds. In the 1990s, the world's largest pesticide makers - companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer and Syngenta - began buying up the world's seed firms. These four biotech giants now control 41 percent of the world's commercial seed supply. Two factors drove this buying spree: the new technology of genetic engineering and the issuance of the first patents on seeds in the 1980s. Biotech firms saw that they could employ genetic engineering to develop herbicide-tolerant crops to exploit "synergies" between their seed and pesticide divisions. Seed patents enable owners to exert monopoly control over seeds, in part by enabling biotech firms to prevent farmers from saving seeds.

While patents on biotech seeds normally apply to inserted genes (or methods for introducing the gene), courts have interpreted these "gene patents" as granting biotech/seed firms comprehensive rights to the seeds that contain them. One consequence is that a farmer can be held liable for patent infringement even if the patented gene/plant appears in his fields through no fault of his own (e.g. cross-pollination or seed dispersal). Another consequence is that farmers can be sued for patent infringement – as well as for infringing sales contracts – if they save and replant seeds from their harvest, so-called "second-generation" seeds.

In the United States, industry leader Monsanto has pursued thousands of farmers for allegedly saving and replanting its patented Roundup Ready soybean seeds. An analysis by the Center for Food Safety documented court-imposed payments of more than $21 million from farmers to Monsanto for alleged patent infringement. However, when one includes the much greater number of pre-trial settlements, the total jumps to more than $85 million, collected from several thousand farmers.

Spurred on by the biotech multinationals, the U.S. and European governments are pressuring developing nations to adopt similar gene and seed patenting laws. This effort is being pursued through the World Trade Organization, which requires member nations to establish patent-style regimes for plants, as well as through bilateral trade agreements. Since an estimated 80 percent to 90 percent of seeds planted in poorer nations are produced on-farm (that is, they are saved from previous crops), the revenue to be gained from elimination of seed-saving in connection with the introduction of GM crops is considerable – conservatively estimated at tens of billions of dollars. If biotech/seed firms have their way, what farmer advocates call the "seed servitude" of U.S. farmers could soon become a global condition.

Biotech firms also have so-called Terminator and Traitor technologies waiting in the wings. Terminator is a genetic manipulation that renders harvested seed sterile, and represents a biological means to achieve the same end as patents: elimination of seed-saving. Traitor technology is similar, except that the second-generation seed sterility can be reversed upon application of a proprietary chemical. In this scenario, farmers would be allowed to save seed, but would have to purchase and apply a chemical to bring them back to life. While international outrage has thus far blocked deployment of Terminator, Monsanto recently purchased the seed company (Delta and Pine Land) that holds several major patents on the technology (together with the USDA). And while Monsanto has "pledged" not to deploy Terminator, the pledge is revocable at any time.

As the biotech multinationals tighten their stranglehold on the world's seed supply, farmers' choices are diminishing, and high-quality conventional seeds are rapidly disappearing from the marketplace. Biotech seeds presently cost two- to four-times as much as conventional varieties, or more. The price ratchets up with each new "trait" that is introduced. Seeds with one trait were once the norm, but are rapidly being replaced with two- and three-trait versions. As Monsanto put it in a presentation to investors, its overriding goal is "trait penetration" and investment in "penetration of higher-[profit-]margin traits." Monsanto and Dow recently announced plans to introduce GM corn with eight different traits (six insecticides and tolerance to two different herbicides). Farmers who want more affordable conventional seed, or even biotech seed with just one or two traits, may soon be out of luck. As University of Kentucky agronomist Chad Lee puts it: "The cost of corn seed keeps getting higher and there doesn't appear to be a stopping point in sight." While "trait penetration" is now chiefly a U.S. phenomenon, it is likely to be pursued throughout the world wherever GM crops become prevalent.

The Many Uses of Biotechnology

The tremendous hype surrounding biotech crops as a response to the food crisis does serve at least two purposes: as a "carrot" to persuade developing nations to adopt strict patent-style regimes for plants; and to divert attention from the underlying causes of the food crisis.

In 1991, the U.S. government and Monsanto funded development of a genetically modified virus-resistant sweet potato in collaboration with the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute. Thirteen years later, the $6 million project was pronounced a dismal failure – the GM sweet potato did not resist the targeted virus, and yields were poor. However, it did help foster an atmosphere enabling introduction of other GM crops, and likely helped persuade Kenyan legislators to pass the Industrial Property Act in 2001, which according to patent expert Robert Lettington "may actually place very little restriction on the patenting of life forms at all." While the Kenyan project failed, a conventional breeding program in neighboring Uganda successfully bred a high-yielding, virus-resistant sweet potato in just a few years at a fraction of the cost. Many other biotech crop projects have also failed, including GM potatoes and tomatoes in Egypt, and GM corn and cotton in Indonesia.

Biotech mania has also diverted attention from the underlying social causes of the food crisis, which include diversion of food crops to make biofuels, and "trade liberalization" policies that have crippled developing country agriculture and made these nations dependent on subsidized surpluses from rich nations. "The structural causes" of the food crisis, says Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, "lie in policies of international financial institutions over the last 20 to 30 years, which have made developing countries so vulnerable in the first place." International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank policies, she says, "eroded state and international investment in agriculture," as well as farmer support mechanisms such as state grain marketing agencies and subsidized agricultural services.

The IMF and World Bank also "promoted cash crops instead of domestic production of food for domestic consumption. All of those policies have basically removed the principle of self-sufficiency. At the same time, you have had the lowering of tariffs which has resulted in the dumping of cheap, subsidized commodities from rich countries. With all of those policies, you find an erosion of the agricultural base of developing countries and their ability to feed themselves," says Mittal.

Eliminating agricultural self-sufficiency was an explicit objective of rich-country policies. As Reagan's agriculture secretary John Block expressed it with uncharacteristic candor in 1986: "The idea that developing countries should feed themselves is an anachronism from a bygone era. They could better ensure their food security by relying on U.S. agricultural products, which are available in most cases at lower cost."

The global food crisis underscores the bankruptcy of such policies. The flood of subsidized U.S. corn into Mexico facilitated by NAFTA has thrown at least 1.3 million Mexican farmers out of work. Haiti and the Philippines, once nearly self-sufficient in rice production, are now among the world's largest rice importers. Africa, a net food exporter in the 1960s, now imports 25 percent of its food. With the sharp rise in international grain prices, the reduced ability of poor nations to feed themselves presages increased hunger and poverty for many years to come. In fact, the food crisis recently prompted University of Minnesota food experts C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer to double their projection of the number of the world's hungry by the year 2025, from 625 million to 1.2 billion. The UN-World Bank IAASTD report advocates "food sovereignty," defined as "the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their own agriculture and food policies."

True Solutions

Another IAASTD recommendation is promotion of agroecological farming techniques suited to small farmers. Ever since the Green Revolution, the agricultural development establishment has focused primarily on high-tech crop breeding and expensive inputs (e.g. fertilizers, pesticides and "improved seeds"). These input-centered schemes offer potential market opportunities to multinational agribusinesses, but have generally favored wealthier growers over small farmers. In contrast, agroecology minimizes inputs, and relies instead on innovative cultivation and pest control practices to increase food production. A 2001 review of 200 developing country agricultural projects involving a switch to agroecological techniques, conducted by University of Essex researchers, found an average yield gain of 93 percent.

Control of insect pests through the introduction of natural predators has also achieved enormous success at low cost in Africa. One striking example is the introduction of insect predators to control a devastating cassava pest, which averted mass hunger in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. A new dryland rice farming technique called the System of Rice Intensification dramatically increases yield, and is spreading rapidly in rice-growing nations, despite dismissal by the agricultural development establishment. Besides being low cost, agro-ecological techniques typically benefit smaller farmers.

GM Reality Check

The tremendous hype surrounding biotechnology has obscured some basic facts. Most GM crops feed animals or fuel cars in rich nations; are engineered for use with expensive weed killers to save labor; and are grown by larger farmers in industrial monocultures for export.

"GM crops have nothing to do with feeding hungry people and nothing to do with sustainability," says Shand. "With the consolidation of the seed industry, seed companies' primary objective is to increase profits by restricting farmers' reliance on saved seeds."

Bill Freese is science policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit group that supports sustainable agriculture and opposes harmful food production technologies.

Australia: Shoppers want choice on GM food

Canberra Times, 22 September 2008. By Oliver Perkins.

When it comes to genetically modified food, an overwhelming percentage of Australian consumers say they want choice. A Newspoll survey has shown nine out of 10 shoppers want the presence of GM ingredients clearly labelled on all food products.

Currently products with highly processed GM ingredients do not require specific labelling.

However, the Network of Concerned Farmers said the problem was more complex than labelling. "There is no proper method for segregation and the test for determining whether or not a [non-GM] crop has been contaminated only gives a yes/no answer," spokeswoman Juliet McFarlane said. "There's no way to tell the percentage of contamination."

According to the survey, 54 per cent of respondents said they were less likely to buy a GM product, while only 2 per cent said they were more likely to buy it. Public Health Association of Australia chief executive Michael Moore said since the embargo on GM crops was lifted in NSW and Victoria this year, "the labelling of foods containing GM ingredients is not something Labor has wrestled with".

The NSW Minister for Primary Industry, Ian McDonald, said, "There's no credible research that proves GM food impacts on the health of the consumer any differently than non-GM food."

New poll: 9 out of 10 Australians want all GM food labelled

Greenpeace, Sept 22 2008

Sydney: A Newspoll survey released today shows that 90% of Australians want better labelling of food products that could contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients (1)

According to the survey, when asked if food products from GM crops and animals fed with GM feed should or should not be labelled, 90% of the respondents said "it should be labelled". Only 2% of the respondents said they were more likely to buy a product "if they knew" it contained GM ingredients, as opposed to majority of 54% who said they were less likely to buy it.

Michelle Sheather, Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner said "it is very clear that Australians want to avoid GM food and want it clearly labelled. However, glaring loopholes in our current labelling laws do not leave shoppers with a choice"

Current laws exempt oils and products from animals fed GM feed from being labelled. GM canola is now being grown in Victoria and New South Wales for the first time in Australia and will slip into the food chain unlabelled through canola oil which is used in a wide range of products and as animal feed.

Michael Moore, CEO of Public Health Association of Australia said "It is really difficult to understand why there has been resistance to labelling of all genetically modified food. It is appropriate for individuals to be able to make their own decisions about what they wish to consume. This is why labelling is a key element of any sensible policy on such foods"

Michelle added "NSW and Victoria are not using adequate procedures to segregate the GE canola from the conventional crop. This leaves food and feed companies as much in the dark as consumers".

Don Lazzaro, CEO of Pure Harvest, one of Australia's largest manufacturers and distributors of natural and organic food said "In response to consumer demand, labelling laws in Europe now require even highly processed GM ingredients like canola oil, and animal feed to be labelled. This shows that better labelling is practical and cost effective and most importantly, it gives consumers the information they need to make an informed choice."

Health experts and concerned groups have joined Greenpeace in launching a national petition demanding the comprehensive labelling and stringent safety testing of GM food (2).

Contacts:

Greenpeace: GE Campaigner Michelle Sheather; 0417241371
Public Health Association of Australia: Michael Moore (CEO) 0417 249 731
Pure Harvest CEO: Don Lazarro, 0419523293

Notes to Editors:

1. Newspoll surveyed 1,200 Australians aged 18+

2. The full Newspoll survey and summary can be found at: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/GE/rpt-gmpoll-190908

3. The petition: GM food: Our right to know" can be viewed at: http://www.truefood.org.au/OurRightToKnow/

So far 20 organisations including the Public Health Association of Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and the State Conservation Councils have endorsed the petition.

Tasmania profits from GM-free canola

AllAboutFeed, 22 September 2008

The Tasmanian Greens have said that the decision by Roberts Ltd. to stop selling canola seed into the Tasmanian market was a clear signal that contamination of canola seed in Australia was a real issue for other states.

It also implicates that the biotech companies who promote genetically engineered (GE) crops and boast that GE crops and seeds can be securely segregated have misled the producers and consumers of Australia.

Greens Shadow Primary Industries spokesperson Kim Booth said that the upside of Roberts withdrawal was that there was a clear market opportunity for Tasmanian growers.

They could become a hub of GE-free canola seed production as well as promoting the island as an exporter of premium GE-free bulk canola.

This kind of differentiation was exactly the kind of value adding avenue that will sustain and nurture Tasmania's agricultural sector, he said.

Government back-up needed

"Tasmanian farmers now clearly have a massive financial opportunity to become suppliers of the potentially lucrative 100% GE-free canola seed and canola for food consumption throughout the world, but the State government must come up with a strategy that will enable our farmers to seize this unique opportunity," Booth said.

Australia is one of twenty canola producers world-wide but only two grow GE canola, Canada and the USA. Just two countries trade canola internationally with Canada supplying around 70% and Australia about 30%.

"If Tasmania stands strong and maintains its GE-free status, with a zero threshold for GE contamination, and quarantine in place, Tasmania has the opportunity to be the GE-free canola seed developer and supplier to Australia and the world," Booth added.

September 2008

Brazil Government Agency Approves New GMO Corn Seeds

CNNMoney.com, 22 September 2008. By Tony Danby.

SAO PAULO -(Dow Jones)- Brazil's National Biosafety Commission has given the green light to two new varieties of genetically modified corn seeds, which should further pave the way for the uptake of such products in the 2008-09 crop season, according to analysts and industry specialists.

CTNBio approved Monsanto Co.'s Roundup Ready 2 and Syngenta AG's GA21, both of which are resistant to glyphosate, a non-selective herbicide which is widely used in corn growing areas, an agency press officer said on Friday.

These two new varieties of genetically modified corn join three other types of GM corn seeds that were approved in 2007 by CTNBio from Syngenta, Monsanto and Bayer CropScience Ltd..

Paulo Molinari, a grains analyst at consulting firm Safras & Mercado, said that genetically modified corn seeds are only just starting to enter the Brazilian market due to the long development and approval process.

Molinari said that farmers are likely to plant only 4% or 5% of their land with genetically modified corn in the first harvest, but should plant between 40% and 50% with GMO corn in the second harvest.

Brazil has two corn harvests each year. The first corn is planted between September and December, while the second corn crop is planted between December and January.

Brazil should plant corn in over 6 million hectares in 2008-09, said Molinari.

The analyst said corn farmers are keen to use transgenic seeds, which are resistant to pests and insects, but the process will start slowly because the seeds still aren't widely available.

By Brazil's second corn harvest, however, transgenic corn seeds should be more widely available and more farmers will buy them, said Molinari.

Medard Schoenmaeckers, head of media relations for Syngenta in Europe, sees Brazil's regulatory process as increasingly favorable towards genetically modified crops.

"Approval by CTNBio of our GA21 and BT11 transgenic products, shows that Brazil takes a responsible, scientific approach to making decisions," said Schoenmaeckers.

He also said Syngenta is likely to expand its mix of transgenic corn and soy products in Brazil, but gave no details.

Schoenmaeckers said Brazil is still behind other countries such as the U.S., where the use of genetically modified corn has been faster and where Syngenta expects its entire range of seeds to shift to GMO by 2012.

Still, the use of genetically modified seeds remains controversial in Brazil and Syngenta has faced invasions of its test center in Parana state by Rural Landless Workers Movement, or MST. Parana is the No.1 corn producing state.

The landless rights group has been campaigning against the use of genetically modified seeds and has vowed to keep on fighting companies such as Syngenta that develop them.

Other groups such as non-governmental group, Greenpeace, is also campaigning against the use of genetically modified seeds in Brazil.

"We are against the use of genetically modified crops in Brazilian fields because of the negative impact on the environment and the potential risk to humans and animals," said Gabriella Vuolto, a Greenpeace specialist on transgenic crops.

Vuolto said that CTNBio hasn't undertaken adequate scientific research into the impact of transgenic crops and that many of the potential impacts are still unknown. Seeds from genetically modified crops in one field can get carried and start to grow in neighboring fields, meaning that the farmer's crop are contaminated, she said.

CTNBio also approved one version of transgenic cotton last week and approved transgenic soybeans two years ago. Depending on the state, a little more than half of the soy crop is transgenic.

Corn is Brazil's No. 2 crop in acreage behind soybeans, which is Brazil's leading farm commodity.

19 September 2008

USA: FDA proposes approval process for genetically modified animals
The regulations would treat genetically engineered creatures like drugs. Critics suggest environmental concerns aren't being given proper weight.

Los Angeles Times, 19 September 2008. By Karen Kaplan and Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers.

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday opened the way for a bevy of genetically engineered salmon, cows and other animals to leap from the laboratory to the marketplace, unveiling an approval process that would treat the modified creatures like drugs.

The guidelines for the first time make explicit the regulatory hoops companies would have to jump through to sell engineered salmon that grow twice as fast as wild fish; pigs with high levels of healthy omega-3 fatty acids in their meat; or goats that produce beneficial proteins, such as insulin, in their milk.

"It's about time the federal government has acknowledged that these animals are on its doorstep and need to be regulated to ensure their safety," said Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.

Many experts, however, say the proposed regulations may not go far enough to protect the public. In particular, they argue that the approval process would be highly secretive to guard the commercial interests of the companies involved, and that the new rules do not place sufficient weight on the potential environmental effect of what many consider to be Frankenstein animals.

Animals can't be treated exactly like drugs, said Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety in Washington. "Drugs don't go out and breed with each other. When a drug gets loose, you figure you can control it. When a bull gets loose, it would be harder to corral."

The animals are genetically modified for a variety of purposes.

Some are designed to be more disease-resistant, such as the cow that is not susceptible to mad cow disease. Others are more nutritious or grow faster, enhancing profits.

Researchers are considering modified animals as sources of organs for human transplants.

Another idea involves so-called biopharm animals, which would be used to produce drugs such as insulin.

"There are very compelling and real benefits for humans and animals" from genetic engineering, said William Flynn of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

"But we must show that they are safe before they enter the marketplace."

The new regulations do not cover cloned animals, most pets or research animals. The FDA has already determined that clones -- genetic replicas -- are safe. Pets and research animals are unlikely to enter the food chain.

Only one genetically engineered animal is now being sold in the United States, the glow-in-the-dark zebra fish for aquariums. The FDA approved it because it is not eaten and its need for warm water effectively precludes its escape into the wild.

The first product likely to be sold under the new rules is a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon produced by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham, Mass.

Inserted genes from two other fish allow it to reach full size in 18 months rather than the normal 30.

Aqua Bounty, along with other biotechnology companies, has been pushing the FDA to establish guidelines and hopes to win approval next year.

Technically, it is not the modified animals but the added DNA segments that are considered drugs.

Realistically, however, the only way to regulate the property-changing DNA is to regulate the animal, said Eric Flamm, a policy advisor at the agency.

That regulation will require demonstration that the modified animal itself is healthy and that a food or drug produced from it is safe for human use. The new rules do not envision feeding the products to humans in the equivalent of clinical trials for drugs.

Once an animal product has been approved, its labeling may or may not reflect its origin, the FDA said.

If the composition of meat or other food has been changed, such as by increasing its content of omega-3 fats, that will be put on its label. But if the animal simply grows faster or is more environmentally friendly without changes in composition, no mention of its genetically engineered origin is considered necessary.

The lack of labeling concerns consumer advocacy groups. Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, called it "incomprehensible."

"Consumers have the right to know if the ham, bacon or pork chops they are buying . . . have been engineered with mouse genes," she said.

It's a lawless land when it comes to containing GM
(But even legalese can't contain promiscuous plants and wily wildlife)

Plenty Magazine, September 19 2008. By Tobin Hack.

You've seen them lingering in the aisles of your local health food grocery store, deep in thought. Painstakingly conscientious shoppers who can easily spend 20 minutes choosing the cereal that's best for the planet and for their bodies. No added sugars: check. Fiber content: check. Organic: check. But when it comes to choosing products free of genetically modified (GM) materials, what many shoppers don't know is that the USDA isn't protecting consumers or organic farmers.

Like any seeds, GM or GE (genetically engineered) seeds-ubiquitous in US food markets today-cannot be confined to the fields in which they're planted. Pollinating insects and lightweight seeds that blow on the wind will always obey nature rather than man-made boundaries. Inevitable human error–insufficiently cleaned trucks or grain elevators–will also always lead to some amount of GM contamination.

"It's actually absolutely impossible to contain genetically engineered crops," says Craig Holdrege, author of Beyond Biotechnology: The Barren Promise of Genetic Engineering, and director and senior researcher for non-profit The Nature Institute. "There's no way you can do it."

Even Monsanto – which makes 90% of GM seed, according to Greenpeace - concedes that GMO escapes cannot be prevented absolutely. "I don't think you can absolutely prevent anything in life from escaping or coming someplace else," says Monsanto spokesperson Brad Mitchell.

But when GE materials sneak out of their crop perimeters, they jeopardize both natural ecosystems and organic farmers' livelihoods. "We've got a situation where our federal agencies haven't even really dealt with this contamination issue, other than to suggest that it happens and it's an acceptable practice," says Center for Food Safety director Joe Mendelson. "That's just not good enough-that has environmental impacts, it has economic consequences, and it has social consequences on farmers who may lose their farm because they're contaminated."

When GMOs escape into the wild there is a risk engineered traits will infiltrate more delicate natural species through cross-breading, or even generate "superweeds" resistant to herbicides. A study done by the Nature Institute, for example, showed that creeping bentgrass-a USDA-approved herbicide resistant grass engineered by Monsanto and Scotts Company for golf courses-had spread its transgene via pollen to native and related plants up to 13 miles beyond the control area perimeter.

But it's not just other plants that are put in danger-organic farmers also find themselves between a rock and a hard place when GE materials go traveling. The USDA does not test organic crops for GM contamination, and has never revoked a farmers' organic certification as a result of GM contamination, according to spokesperson Joan Shaffer. But organic grain seed buyers–especially those that wish to export to European markets with stricter GM regulations-do test for GM presence, making organic certification a moot point.

"USDA may say that an organic farmer who gets contaminated isn't going to lose his certification, but it's disingenuous–the market's going to reject their product anyway, and they're not going to get their organic premium," says Mendelson.

Once an organic farmer has been contaminated, he must either move from the organic to the conventional market, or shoulder the full financial burden of restoring his contaminated crop. In either case, he runs the risk of being sued by Monsanto or another GM company, on grounds of patent infringement. According to non-profit advocacy group Rural Vermont, Monsanto has filed at least 90 lawsuits against farmers, in more than 20 states.

The GM industry is moving ahead at full speed nontheless. Every year, several hundred or even thousand new GM products are approved by the USDA's department of animal and plant health inspection services (APHIS) for field trial under permit, says Dr. Michael Wach, science and regulatory affairs managing director of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Seventy-five of those today enjoy "deregulated status," meaning that they and their progeny are considered safe for the environment and can be grown without APHIS oversight. And not a single GM product proposed by Monsanto has ever been rejected by the USDA, according to Monsanto spokesperson Brad Mitchell.

Center for Food Safety's Mendelson says the way to regulate the field fairly is to require GM labeling, and to place contamination liability on GM corporations like Monsanto, rather than on organic farmers. "The burden should be on the industry to prove that they can't contaminate. The industry that puts these products out in the marketplace-with the knowledge that it's going to get out and have economic consequences on people who don't want to use it-should pay for the impact of that," he says.

For proponents of stricter GMO regulation, recent legal battles over GM alfalfa and sugar beets-the next two big crops expected to take the GM market by storm-provide a glimmer of hope. Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa recently became the first GM product ever to have its deregulated status revoked by USDA. Thanks to litigation against USDA by the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto must reassess the environmental impact of the alfalfa.

Although farmers who had already planted the strain of alfalfa have not been made to uproot their crops, further planting is suspended until Monsanto has completed further study on the environmental impact of the plant. "We're confident that the alfalfa decision set a good legal precedent," says Mendelson.

Center for Food Safety is now litigating against USDA for having granted deregulated status to GM sugar beets grown in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. The valley is home to native relative species of the sugar beet, such as swiss chard and table beets, which are a source of seed for the rest of the country. If GM sugar beets were to get into these related species, transgenic seeds could quickly spread nationally.

Individual states are also making strides toward what many non-GM farmers hope will be a more level playing field. Vermont's Farmer Protection Act (Bill S 18), designed to make GM seed companies responsible for potential contaminations, passed in the state's House and Senate only to be vetoed by Governor Douglass in April of 2006. "This administration is committed to protecting the biotechnology industry, they've made that very clear," says Amy Shollenberger of Rural Vermont. "When Governor Douglass vetoed this bill, he did it at a farm, and he did it in a huge press conference. It was a big deal."

In her February 2006 testimony on Bill S 18, Annie Claghorn, an organic farmer in Vermont, made a personal case for strict liability. "With genetically modified seed, the manufacturer of this seed always retains ownership, the farmer never does...If these companies are confident enough to promote their technology as safe and effective, there should be no problem holding them accountable for damage from genetic drift," she said.

California is currently waiting for Governor Schwartzenager to sign off on a bill designed to protect non-GM farmers against contamination and potential lawsuit from GM corporations. As well as providing a "protocol" for GM patent infringement cases, Bill AB 541, would provide that a farmer is not liable based on the presence or possession of a patented genetically engineered plant, so long as he did not knowingly buy or acquire it.

In the meantime, shoppers concerned about the impacts of GM products on their health and planet have little choice but to give organic farmers and organic grain buyers their good faith, hoping the competitive market provides sufficient protection and transparency.

18 September 2008

You Tube video: Creating a World that can Feed Itself

Larry Brilliant, Executive Director, Google.org interviews Hugh Grant (Chairman, President and CEO, Monsanto), Michael Pollan (Knight Professor of Journalism, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism) and Sonal Shah (Director, Global Development Initiatives, Google.org).

Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9I1IkbcHNE Comment from GM Watch:

What's quite shocking about Hugh Grant's contribution is the way that he uses the current food crisis to push for GMOs as a solution to "needing more food". But the reality, as Michael Pollan points out is that the food crisis has been driven more than anything by the ethanol led "biofuel" boom and nobody has lobbied harder to keep that boom going than Monsanto, which has profited hugely out of it while the food crisis has been ratcheted up.

Monsanto expects Roundup to generate 1.8 billion in profits for 2008

Gristmill, 18 September 2008.

That's a lot of poison in our rivers, streams, food, air and stomachs. Poison for profit. That should be their slogan. And why are these profits so high? Well, because they have bought up close to 90% of the global seed market thus forcing farmers to sign their bogus contracts holding them to buying their seeds and poison every year. They cannot save the seeds, and they have to buy the poison sprays with the seeds yearly. And the pesticides sprayed on crops made by these companies have also been found in higher levels in beehives, suggesting that it is possible that when bees have tried to pollinate GM crops they carry these pesticides back to the hives which makes them sick, thus causing them to desert the hives. Imagine what their seeds with built in pesticides can do for your salad!

And yet, the FDA states there is no difference between this poison and the conventional crops that farmers once grew and could regrow with saved seeds as has been the tradition in agriculture since ancient times. That way they also get out of responsibility from labelling the food you eat. That way you don't know the poisons you are consuming. And even if you are an organic farmer, chances are your crops have also been poisoned by their transgenic pollution. Even without selling you the seeds, you are a part of their big happy poison family.

Oh, and of course, these fake seeds with the poison centers are feeding the world! Don't pay attention to all of the starving people in Haiti, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Don't let the real truth blind you to their propaganda... profit is good even at the expense of morality, truth, and this planet. That's the Monsanto way.

Fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

United Nations Commission for Europe, 18 September 2008.

In light of the importance given to the topic of genetically modified organisms within the work programme of the Aarhus Convention, the newsletter from the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity marking the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol may be of interest - please see http://www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/bpn/bpn-03-04-high-en.pdf

USA: Consumers Union: Statement on FDA Review of Genetically Engineered Animals Sold as Food

Consumers Union, 18 September 2008.

Consumers Union finds it "incomprehensible" that the FDA will not require labeling of genetically engineered animals that are sold as food. Genetically engineered animals may contain genetic material from entirely different species. For example mouse genes have been put into pigs to help them metabolize phosphorous more efficiently, and spider genes have been put into goats so that they produce spider silk in their milk.

FDA proposed today that they will only review genetically engineered animals for their safety as food, and will not require any labeling. "It is incomprehensible to us that FDA does not view these animals as different from their conventional counterparts, and therefore something that under law is required to be labeled," stated Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "In our view, consumers have a right to know if the ham, bacon or pork shops they are buying come from pigs that have been engineered with mouse genes."

Consumers Union is also concerned that cows engineered to produce antibiotics in their milk, which can help the cow avoid udder infections, also will not be labeled. "Unlike conventional antibiotics, which must be cleared from the cow before it can be used to produce milk or meat, the antibiotic that is genetically engineered into the animal will always be present. We are concerned both about the potential safety and lack of labeling on such food products," stated Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist at Consumers Union.

USA: Center for Food Safety responds to FDA rules on genetically engineered animals

Center for Food Safety press release, 18 September 2008.

Washington, D.C. - The Center for Food Safety issued a statement in response to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) release of a draft guidance outlining the approval process for genetically engineered (GE) animals. Jaydee Hanson, Policy Analyst on cloning and genetics for the Center for Food Safety, reacted to the FDA draft of the GE animal approval process, issued by the agency today:

"The FDA draft guidance released this morning would treat genetically engineered animals under its new animal drug provisions. While the new guidance would require a long-overdue mandatory review process, the proposed FDA rules are seriously flawed.

"At a time when the FDA has inadequate resources to protect the food system and is reeling under allegations of conflicts of interest, this new proposal uses a secret approval process wherein no one other than FDA reviewers can see the data submitted before final approval. And, unlike drugs which can be recalled because they are labeled, FDA maintains that genetically engineered animals should not be labeled.

"Under this draft, the public cannot know if the review of a product met the highest scientific standards until after its approval, and then they cannot avoid the product in the marketplace because it is not labeled. The FDA feels it deserves the public's trust, but refuses to give us the tools to verify that it is doing its job fairly and adequately.

"While we support many features of the new animal drug process; it has major deficiencies for reviewing a technology as new as GE animals. Secret approval and lack of labeling indicates a complete lack of transparency and the potential conflicts of interest in an industry as small as the cloning/GE animal business cannot be reviewed without an open process. The FDA needs to request Congress to amend the new animal drug law so that the process is transparent AND it needs to require labeling so that the public can report any problems they discover with the product."

BASF May Abandon Genetically Modified Crops for European Market

Bloomberg, September 18 2008. By Naomi Kresge and Sheenagh Matthews.

BASF SE, the world's largest chemicals company, may abandon research into genetically modified crops for the European market should it fail to get approval for its engineered Amflora potato.

"America, with Asia, is so attractive that even if Europe doesn't work out, we will do this without Europe," Juergen Logemann, a vice-president at BASF's plant science division, said today at a conference in Berlin. "Europe is not mission- critical."

BASF, based in Ludwigshafen, Germany, in July filed a case with the European Court in Luxembourg saying the European Commission failed to act on the approval of Amflora, which is modified to produce just the starch needed in the paper and textile industries. The potato is the company's only project developed for solely European markets, and Logemann called it "our ice-breaker in Europe."

To contact the reporter on this story: Sheenagh Matthews in Frankfurt at smatthews6@bloomberg.net

USA: Genetically-engineered animals could lead to 'Frankenfoods'
Environmentally-friendly pigs, fast-growing fish and super chickens could be heading towards American dinner tables after the US government unveiled new rules for regulating genetically-engineered animals.

The Telegraph (UK), 18 September 2008. By Tom Leonard in New York.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed legal framework which is expected to open the market to meat and milk produced from modified animals, which detractors have already termed "Frankenfood".

Such creatures, which could include new hen breeds capable of laying healthier eggs and cows that are immune to mad cow disease, have been developed already.

But producers have been discouraged from marketing their creations by the absence of clear rules governing such a controversial issue.

The government wants the guidelines to resolve questions such as as whether altered animals are safe for human consumption or whether they pose a risk to the environment.

"Genetic engineering of animals is here and has been here for some time," said Larisa Rudenko, a science policy adviser with the FDA's veterinary medicine centre.

"We intend to provide a rigorous, risk-based regulatory path for developers to follow to help ensure public health and the health of animals."

Consumer groups welcomed plans to regulate the area but were alarmed by apparent gaps in the proposals.

They pointed out that the FDA does not, for example, plan to insist that all such meat, fish and poultry be labeled as genetically-engineered.

"They are talking about pigs that are going to have mouse genes in them, and this is not going to be labeled," said Jean Halloran, director of food policy for Consumers Union. "We are close to speechless on this."

The FDA has already ruled that cloned animals - which are not the same - are safe to eat.

The agency will continue to exempt genetically-altered animals that pose little risk, such as aquarium fish that were recently changed so they would glow in the dark.

Genetically-engineered animals, which are created by the insertion of a gene from one species of animal into the DNA of another, could fulfil a similar role in food production to GM plants.

Genetic engineering is already widely used in agriculture to produce higher-yielding or disease-resistant crops. However, all sides are aware that consumers may be rather more alarmed by the idea of eating GM meat.

Germany: DIB annual press conference: Green genetic engineering the industry's problem child

Biotechnologie.de, 18 September 2008.

[Image caption: The DIB thinks that plant biotechnology is the problem child of the industry. The association lays responsibility on the destruction of crops by opponents to genetic engineering, as well as a lack of political support.]

Medical and industrial biotechnology in Germany is on course for growth. On the other hand, the development of agricultural biotechnology is stagnating. This was among the conclusions of the German Association of Biotechnology Industries (DIB), part of the Association of the Chemical Industry, at its annual press conference on 9 September 2008. In Frankfurt am Main, DIB Chairman Bernward Garthoff called for more support from politics and the implementation of the revised Genetic Engineering Act without "additional hurdles". Proposals on a European level to monitor genetically modified organisms even more intensively were rejected the industry.

"The success story in red and white biotechnology continues," said Garthoff in Frankfurt. Thereby, his confidence stemmed from three factors: Firstly, according to the Association of Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA), the product pipelines for the development of new biotechnological medicines were better stocked than at the end of 2007. The number of candidates in clinical development rose by ten percent to over 350, and the number of Phase III candidates has increased by nearly one third to 92. Garthoff sees a second positive trend in the development of jobs in the biomedical field. Here, the VFA counted 4000 new posts in 2007 across the 371 companies in this sector. In the biomedical sector, the VFA counted a total of 34,000 employees. Included here are small and medium-sized biotech companies, medium-sized and large pharmaceutical manufacturers, and German subsidiaries of major international biotech companies. Thirdly, according to the DIB, Germany is playing a leading role - alongside the US - in the field of industrial "white" biotechnology. However, this area is largely focused on large-scale industrial activities. Only eight percent of the 496 companies in Germany that work mainly or wholly with modern biotechnological methods name white biotechnology as the focus of their activities, confirmed the association. These figures are in accordance with biotechnologie.de's most recent statistics (more...).

22 fields destroyed

The DIB's conclusions about white and red biotechnology were as cheerful as the picture painted for agricultural and plant biotechnology was bleak. "We're not moving forward in plant biotechnology," said Garthoff. The sector in Germany has had to struggle with "legal insecurity, wavering political stances, and the destruction of fields". The association sees a connection between the lack of political backing and the declining number of open-field trials. In 2007, according to the location registers for open-field trials, there were 78 trials - at the current time there are only 38 trials. The DIB believes that this trend will continue. According to statistics from the German Federal Criminal Police, up to August 2008, 22 fields containing genetically modified plants were partially or completely destroyed. Here, Garthoff also lays some responsibility on the judiciary. He proposed the establishment of special prosecutors, which focus on crimes against biotech companies.

Garthoff also criticised the administrative handling of agricultural biotechnology. He gave examples of nature conservation authorities requiring special regulations for the cultivation of genetically modified crops, or of farmers who are looking to grow genetically modified plants, but who must complete additional extensive environmental impact assessments. "We demand that the Federation and the states implement the Genetic Engineering Act without the inclusion of additional hurdles".

No GM-free zones in Europe

The DIB has rejected the proposal by the Federal Consumer Minister Horst Seehofer that regions in Europe retain the right to declare themselves GM-free zones. Also meeting with little love in the industry is the initiative by the French EU presidency to more robustly investigate genetically modified organisms in the future for their possible consequences for humans and the environment, as well as to enable the member countries to curb the cultivation of previously approved GM varieties (more.. .). The stronger involvement of individual countries in the European Food Safety Authority, as also recommended by France, would "dilute" the quality of scientific expertise, thinks the DIB.

As repeatedly stated by the Association of the Chemical Industry, the DIB also called for tax credits for research-based biotechnology companies. This is already in place in the majority of EU member states. In the medium-term, said Garthoff, research in Germany will be funded in equal parts by indirect support through tax credits any through direct funding. At the same time, state funding must be increased. However, Garthoff did not take exception with the fact that venture capital firms and the stock exchange had for some years only engaged to a limited extent with the field of biotechnology. He sees the industry as standing at the beginning of a growth phase: "Now the state has to pull its weight".

EU study affirms green genetic engineering

A study by the EU's Joint Research Centre concluded: "No demonstration of any health effect of GM food products submitted to the regulatory process has been reported so far." PDF

Rules on Bioengineered Animals:
FDA to Release Guidelines for Stages of Genetic Modification

Washington Post, September 18 2008. By David Brown.

The Food and Drug Administration will release today long-awaited regulatory guidelines governing genetic engineering of animals for food, drugs or medical devices.

Although none of the provisions is likely to surprise the biotech industry, their formal appearance after years of discussion is expected to energize a field whose commercial potential is huge but so far unrealized.

The agency's regulatory control of animals will be considerably stronger than its oversight of genetically engineered plants and microorganisms. The latter -- or substances derived from them -- are on the market and, in some cases, have proved controversial.

The guidelines tell companies what the FDA wants to know about their work at virtually every stage of creating an engineered animal.

For example, biotech firms will be asked to provide the molecular identity of snippets of DNA inserted in an animal's genome, as well as where the genetic message lands and whether it descends unaltered through subsequent generations. The FDA also wants to be told how the genetic alterations might change an animal's health, behavior and nutritional value.

The companies also should inform the agency how they will keep track of animals, prevent them from mingling with their non-engineered cousins and dispose of them when they die.

Genetically engineered animals -- salmon, pigs, cows and goats are in development -- are expected to have two main uses. Some will be food animals whose new genetic endowment makes them disease-resistant, faster-growing or more nutritious. Others will be genetically engineered to produce medically useful substances, such as hormones or antibodies, in their organs or body fluids.

Pigs that are able to more easily absorb phosphorus, and therefore need less feed supplementation, are being developed in Ontario. Goats that produce spider silk in their milk are being made in Wyoming.

Food that is produced from genetically engineered animals will not have to be labeled as such. However, if the genetic manipulation changes the nutritional content -- for example, by increasing a beneficial form of fat -- that must be declared on the label.

The specific requests in the guidelines are not mandatory. However, biotech companies seeking FDA approval to commercialize genetically engineered animals must follow federal drug laws. The guidelines are meant to show how they can do that.

The FDA has been providing the advice on an informal basis for about 10 years, said Eric Flamm, a policy adviser at the agency. The guidelines will be open for public comment for 60 days.

"We are simply clarifying what we've always done, and will continue to do," he said.

There was general agreement that something in writing on the subject has been needed for a while.

"It is past due for the federal government to finally recognize that genetically engineered animals are on the horizon and need regulation and oversight," said Gregory Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a lobbying organization in Washington.

The action "will drive investor confidence," said Barbara Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "They know that we will reach commercialization of a product." At the moment, about a dozen of the organization's 1,200 member companies are developing genetically engineered animals, she said.

But the new guidelines drew criticism from groups worried about possible environmental, ecological and physiological hazards of bioengineered animals. The experience of genetically modified plants is rife with examples of unintentional dissemination of the organisms, and their interbreeding with unmodified members of their species.

"The first time that the public will learn about a genetically engineered animal will be the day it is approved," said Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "This requires that you completely trust the FDA to do this right, and I don't think folks trust FDA that much."

Michael Hansen, a scientist with Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, said that "there is very little transparency without [the FDA] laying out all the data" for the public to see. He does not think that transparency is assured.

The FDA is laying claim to regulatory authority over what it calls "GE animals" through an unusual legal argument.

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act defines a drug as anything that alters the "structure or function" of a person or animal. Adding a gene to an animal through recombinant technology changes at least the animal's structure and probably its function, as well.

In the new guidelines, the FDA argues that "recombinant DNA constructs" inserted into animals are by definition drugs. However, because the DNA constructs are physically inseparable from the whole animals, the latter also fall under the agency's regulatory control.

"You can't regulate the drug without regulating the animal," said Flamm, the FDA policy adviser. "So, effectively, we are putting controls on the animal rather than on the little piece of DNA."

With this strategy, virtually no genetically engineered animal will escape FDA scrutiny during its development and testing. This is not true with plants.

The FDA regulates genetically modified plants whose nutritional content is altered, in which case they become "food additives." The Environmental Protection Agency regulates them when the new genetic endowments provide pesticide-like actions.

Although the animal-is-drug strategy will allow the FDA to regulate genetically engineered animals without getting further authority from Congress, the unintended effects of that strategy worry some consumer groups.

Although companies will have to provide detailed information about their work starting from the earliest stage, the FDA is prohibited by law from revealing that information to the media or the public. That is because much of the information is proprietary, competitive and extremely valuable. The agency cannot even acknowledge that a company has a "new drug application" on file.

Consequently, discussions that occur during the development of a genetically engineered animal about its safety and effectiveness will not include consumer or watchdog groups.

Although the guidelines say that the FDA may ask a company to submit an environmental impact statement with its application for approval of a genetically engineered animal, the agency cannot reject a drug strictly on environmental grounds.

Some groups are worried about the effects of unanticipated mixing of genetically engineered animals with others -- for example, the escape of fast-growing salmon into the open ocean, where they could breed with wild species.

"I don't think what's being announced will protect humans and the environment from all the potential risks that a genetically engineered animal may pose," said Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Zambia: FRA Blacklists Two Suppliers

The Times of Zambia (Ndola), 18 September 2008.

The Food Reserve Agency (FRA) has blacklisted two companies following their importation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) maize when they were contracted to supply the staple food.

FRA executive director, Anthony Mwanaumo told a parliamentary committee yesterday that the agency had stopped dealing with Nyiombo Investments and Louis Greyfus because they allegedly supplied the agency with GMO maize in two years ago.

This came to light when FRA officials appeared before a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) answering queries raised in the 2006 auditor general's report on accounts of parastatal bodies.

The committee was being chaired by Luena MP Charles Milupi (Independent).

According to the auditor general's report, contrary to the 2006 presidential directive on the importation of the GMO maize, the FRA in the same year imported, paid and received 3,000 tonnes of maize from Nyiombo Investment valued at K3, 689, 647, 200 (US$1, 080, 000).

The Agency also received 16,000 tonnes of maize from Louis Dreyfus valued at K20,006,087,040 (US$5, 856, 000).

And 6,000 by 50 kilogrammes bags of GMO maize were delivered and received in Mkushi in May 2006.

Further, FRA gave Louis Dreyfus, a second contract without consulting the board for the supply of 12,000 tonnes of maize instead of buying cheaper maize which would have been ready at the end of March 2006.

When Mr Milupi queried Dr Mwanaumo whether Nyiombo and Louis Dreyfus had been blacklisted: "I am not comfortable with the word blacklisted all I can say is that we have stopped dealing with the two companies."

He explained that upon detecting the GMO maize, the agency exported the maize to Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Africa to recover the cost.

On failure to collect K1.3 billion debt from Simama General Dealers of Malawi where the agency supplied 3,158.58 tonnes of maize valued K2,336,211, 236 ($498,172, 80) in 2005, Dr Mwanaumo said lawyers had been engaged to handle the issue.

The committee was saddened that the agency lost 15,000 by 50 kilogrammes bags of maize valued at K555 million in Kalomo because of poor storage of maize which was exposed to adverse weather conditions resulting into wastage.

Africa: Major row erupts ahead of biotech congress

Business Daily, 18 September 2008. By Steve Mbogo.

The intentions of a biotechnology forum to be held in Nairobi next week has come under scrutiny from civil society groups that fear it could be a lobbying platform for commercialisation of genetically modified foods in Kenya.

The international meeting dubbed 'All Africa Biotechnology Conference' has been organised by the African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF).

Delegates are expected on Sunday for the week long event.

"We suspect that the meeting will come up with a resolution that Africa is ready for GM foods and there are no dissenting voices," said Samuel Ochieng, the acting director general of Consumers International.

But the organisers have said they were not locking out any groups from participating.

Dr Felix Mmboyi of the ABSF said the registration fee of Sh31,000 was not meant to restrict participation.

"We have received 117 scientific papers from around the world and 16 of them are actually from scientists who oppose the GM technology," he said. He denied that multinationals are part of the sponsors of the conference.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

This sounds like an African version of the ABIC 2008 conference recently held in Ireland. See press release at www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI41.pdf

USA: FDA won't require label for genetically altered meats

The Natural Foods Merchandiser, 18 September 2008. By David Accomazzo.

The debate over whether to label genetically modified foods shifted a step away from disclosure today as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a draft guidance saying the agency will not require a label on food made from genetically engineered animals.

The draft will be open for public comment until Nov. 18.

The FDA will study all genetically modified foods for safety issues before approving them for market consumption, the draft said. There are no genetically engineered animal products on the market, the FDA's Web site said, although some products are undergoing a safety review.

"It is likely that for the first [genetically engineered] animal approval(s), we will convene a public advisory committee meeting prior to the completion of the approval," the FDA's Web site said.

The FDA will regulate any recombinant DNA modification under the animal as a "new animal drug" under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, even though some of the some of the genetic modifications might involve splicing the DNA of one animal into a completely different species. Examples include the insertion of the spider-silk protein gene into goats for the production of a filament-rich milk and the introduction of a mouse gene into pigs to alter the composition of pig manure.

The classification would allow manufacturers to avoid having to use a separate label for any products coming from genetically engineered animals. The FDA says the foods would undergo strict testing and that any approved foods would be safe for human consumption.

But that's missing the point, said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union. Many label requirements have little to do with food safety.

"We require labeling of juices whether they come from concentrate or if they're fresh-squeezed or whether milk is homogenized or not, so along those lines, we think that all genetically engineered animals present in the food chain should labeled as such," Hansen said.

Other problems could arise if genetically modified animals get into the wild population, Hansen said.

It's called the Trojan Gene Hypothesis, Hansen said – the idea that the offspring of genetically engineered animals are weak. For example, some salmon are engineered to grow to larger sizes. Salmon choose their mates based partially on the size of the male, so the genetically altered fish would be preferable. However, genetically engineered fish have fewer offspring that have a lower survival rate, so the salmon population could decrease dramatically after only a few generations of breeding, Hansen said.

GM cotton grown in China has wider impact on insects than intended crop

The Telegraph (UK), 18 September 2008.

Genetically-modified cotton which has been altered to include an insecticide can help cut pests in neighbouring fields of ordinary crops.

Cotton grown in China that has been genetically modified to produce the insecticide, Bt, had a wider impact on insect pests than the target crop, a discovery which is welcomed by the agriculture lobby and criticised by environmentalists.

Drs Kongming Wu and colleagues analysed data from 1997, when the GM cotton was commercialised, to 2007 about the agriculture of Bt cotton in northern China, and compared them to data on pest populations in the region. The use of Bt cotton reduced the populations of cotton bollworms, a problematic pest for Chinese farmers, cutting the need for pesticides by around half, and reduced the insects on neighbouring crops.

The insect usually moves between crops, after first invading cotton.

"Bt cotton kills most of the larvae of the second generation and accordingly works as a dead-end trap crop for cotton bollworm population," said Dr Wu.

"This case study for Bt cotton also implies that other Bt crops such as Bt rice may have a great potential value for agricultural practices in China," he added.

Bt is an insecticide derived from the spores and toxic crystals of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, and has been sold commercially since 1960. It is considered non-toxic to humans, animals, fish, plants, micro-organisms, and most insects.

However, it is lethal to caterpillars of moths and butterflies. However, major challenge to the success of Bt cotton in China remains the potential for insects to evolve resistance to it.

Dr Wu and colleagues recommend that Bt cotton should be considered only one component in the overall management of pests. Environmentalists will argue that the study shows GM crops could disrupt neighbouring ecosystems but Dr Wu said: "There are two kinds of ecological balances, one is balance for all wild species, another is for agricultural production. Bt cotton is good for ecological balance in an agricultural system. If environmentalists want to get an ecological balance for all wild species, this means we need to protect wild ecology and risk food shortages."

Cotton bollworm is one of the most important insect pests of cotton, corn, soybean, peanut and vegetables. In 1992, this pest cut China's cotton yield by almost one third. The outbreaks resulted in overuse of chemical insecticides which increased cost, polluted environmental, and bring a series of economic, ecological and social issues.

Dr. Jian-Zhou Zhao, a co-author, also highlights the health benefits of using Bt cotton.

"Poisoning from other insecticides, and even death, was a big problem for cotton farmers in the 1990s." Most farmers did not have proper protective clothes while applying insecticides with small backpack sprayers. This may be another reason that many farmers refused to plant cotton before Bt was available -- it was too dangerous and scary."

Commenting on the study, Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow said: "It's not surprising that the number of target pests has fallen - the GM cotton contains a toxin poisonous to them.

"This study tells us nothing about the wider ecological impacts of growing Bt cotton, such as the impact on non-target species. It also fails to identify the impact on crop yields and the overall level of pesticide-use.

"This limited study must not be used to justify the cultivation of GM cotton - or any other GM crop."

Ireland: Relying on genetics for future food supply
Worldwide food shortages mean that the production of genetically modified crops may not always be an option, but instead an essential practice, writes Ronan McGreevy.

The Irish Times, 18 September 2008. By Ronan McGreevy.

The recent rise in food prices serves as a warning to people about the potentially devastating effects of food shortages. Through the spike in the price of commodities such as bread and milk caused pain to those on low incomes in the developed world, it also went on to prompt riots in Haiti, Cambodia, Indonesia and India as basic foodstuffs, such as rice, were priced out of the range of ordinary people.

The worldwide food inflation was caused by a number of factors, such as the conversion of millions of hectares of lands from cereal crops to bioethanol, and droughts in Australia and India. Another key factor is growing prosperity in the world's two most populous countries - India and China - leading to a spike in the consumption of meat which demands much more intensive farming.

The pressure on food supplies is likely to get worse. According to the UN, the world's population will increase from 6.7 billion today to 9.3 billion by 2050.

"That's equivalent to the population of Germany being added every year," Says Tony Kavanagh, Associate Professor of Genetics at Trinity College Dublin (TCD).

Kavanagh is passionately pro-genetically modified (GM) foods which have had a bad public profile since the first transgenic plant - a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic - was created in 1983.

They have been called "Frankenstein foods", and Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent, wants Ireland to be a GM-free nation, recently calling GM foods "a dangerous distraction from the fundamental challenge" of future food supply.

Unlike other parts of the world, the EU has been circumspect about introducing GM foods and the area under cultivation is much smaller than in the rest of the world.

At TCD they take a different view. GM foods, they say, are not an option - they are essential if the world's burgeoning population is to be fed at a time when global warming is showing signs of wreaking havock on agriculture.

"To solve the problems of future food supplies, we're going to have to throw everything at it. We have a realy useful tool which is GM technology. Not to use it would be crazy," says Kavanagh.

He believes that without the "green revolution" of the 1960s, which saw the cultivation of high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice, countries such as India would still be experiencing periodic famines. In India, for example, a new rice variety capable of yielding up to 10 times more than local varieties, revolutionised agriculture and food security. The country has not experienced famine since green revolution agriculture was introduced in the late 1960s.

"From a scientific point of view", we have had 25 years of GM crops. None of the scare stuff has held up and yet [GM opponents] are still banging on about it," he says.

Currently, GM crops account for 57 per cent of soybean, 25 per cent of maize, 13 percent of cotton and 5 per cent of oil seed rape worldwide. In the US alone, 90 per cent of cotton and half of all maize are GM crops.

"One of the real problems about the criticisms in the West is that those who pontificate from their affluent position do not know how critical this is because they don't have to," Kavanagh says.

One of the biggest proponents of GM crops is the giant multinational corporation, Monsanto. Its biotechnology manager Dr. Chris Merritt says food surpluses in Europe may become a thing of the past.

Pressure on food stocks elsewhere could restrict the flow of imports, such as foodstuffs for animals, which have to be imported from outside Europe, he believes.

"We were in a luxury situation where we were producing surpluses and food prices were low. Opposition to GM did not matter. Now that things have changed, people are beginning to ask if we should use the more efficient agriculture again.

"In the UK we have blight-resistant potatoes which were harvested recently. That's an example of a crop which could benefit us, particularly in wet years like we have now, where blight is a big problem and crops have to be sprayed nine or 10 times."

David McConnell, Professor of Genetics at TCD, says the opposition by the Green Party and others to GM foods is not only wrong, it is potentially damaging to Ireland's standing in the scientific community.

"It is misleading everybody in the country, including students in science. It will cause significant disadvantages to consumers, farmers and food producers.

"There is no doubt that some anti-GM people have set out to cause fear and anxiety. They are the modern-day equivalent of flat-earthers," he says.

Currently, TCD scientists are investigating fundamental genetic questions about how plants grow, by using GM crops as a research tool. "We're interested in, for instance, if plants can be used as a production platform to produce antibodies and to produce other kinds of therapeutic new proteins," says Kavanagh.

Dr Frank Wellmer, another faculty member involved in plant research, is studying GM versions of mouse-ear cress, a weed that can be found in any garden.

"The research is focussing on the development of flowers which carry the reproductive organs of a plant, ultimately giving the seeds that lead to reproduction.

"When you learn more about how flowers form, you may have a good starting point so that you can manipulate plants so that they give higher yields," he says.

Though the mouse-ear cress has no agricultural properties it is very similar genetically to important plants such as oil seed rape, cauliflower and mustard.

The research carried out at TCD aims at understanding the molecular processes that control the growth and development of higher plants. Any progress thatwill be made in understanding their development has potential applications in plant breeding.

[Photo caption: Leading the GM revolution - Dr Frank Wellmer (left) and Prof Tony Kavanagh from TCD's Department of Genetics. Dr Frank Wellmer is a German scientist who obtained his PhD at the University of Freiburg in 1989. He carried out post-doctoral research between 1999 and 2005 at the California Institute of Technology and became a serior research fellow between 2005 and 2008. He has lectured at the Smurfit Institute of Genetics since September 2006. Prof Tony Kavanagh is Associate Professor of Genetics at Trinity College Dublin. He obtained his doctorate from UCD in 1984 and, following post-doctoral research at the Plant Breeding Institute in Cambridge, returned to his current position as head of the Plant Molecular Genetics Laboratory in Trinity in 1987.]

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The above article provides no evidence to support its central claim that GM crops are essential to meet the world's food supply. Current GM crops are designed either to be resistant to toxic weedkillers, and/or to produce their own pesticide. None are modified for higher yield, and a number of authoritative studies show that GM crops have lower yields than conventional varieties.

The article admits that the EU area under GM cultivation is "much smaller than in the rest of the world", but fails to mention that the area is only 0.02 per cent of arable land in the EU.

No mention of the fact that GM crops boost the sale of toxic weedkillers, rapidly contaminate conventional and organic seeds and crops, reduce biodiversity, and result in GM superweeds. No mention of the scientific evidence of health risks to humans, farm animals and widllife. No mention of the fact that GM crops are patented, that farmers must pay patent royalties, that contaminated farmers have been sued for patent infringement, and that those who refuse to pay up can lose ownership of their seeds and crops. No mention of the fact that GM crops are widely opposed by farmers in developing countries as well as in Europe. No mention of the fact that GM patents enable Monsanto and 4 other companies to control 50% of the world's agricultural seeds. And no mention of the recently published UN International Assessment of Agriculture, Science and Technology for Development report, which found that GM crops have little, if any, role to play in meeting the world's food needs: http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=Plenary&ItemID=2713

But that is what we have come to expect from the Irish Times (see our related press release from October 2007 Irish Times slammed for bias on GMO issues), as a result of the conflict of interest inherent in Prof David McConnell's dual role as Chairman of the Irish Times Trust and co-Vice President of the EAGLES agri-biotech lobby group, a task force of the European Federation of Biotechnology, which receives funding from Monsanto.

Remove 'zero tolerance' of GM feeds - Fischler
Austria's former EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr. Franz Fischler, spoke to James Campbell at the world congress of the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists in Graz

The Irish Farmers Journal, 18 September (dated 20 September) 2008.

Franz Fischler was clear on the issue of animal feedingstuffs being barred from import into the EU because of the 'zero tolerance' of non-approved genetically modified organisms (GMO) - in particular GM varieties of maize or soyabeans. He said the fundamental problem is that zero tolerance won't work any more and we must get rid of the zero tolerance rule.

"When we discuss GMO and food safety, the question is always about risk. We made a mistake in previous times in suggesting to people that there was a possibility to have no risk. Zero risk does not exist," said Fischler.

He added: "The GMO question in Europe has become more and more ideological. It is no longer based on facts. So the question is what can be done to base our position more on facts than ideology?"

Fischler does not see this at odds with Austria's strong involvement in organic agriculture, with 30% of their farmland devoted to organic production methods. He may even see it as something positive for the organic sector, strengthening its unique selling point in the market.

"The GMO industry hasn't been able to demonstrate reasons why I should buy a GM product. But I am sure that biotechnology must play a part if we expect biomass to make a good contribution to future energy needs", he asserted.

Climate change

"The IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) reports indicate that the climate is changing faster and faster. I ask how quickly can nature adapt. If nature cannnot adapt as fast as climate changes, then we need to look at biotechnology and what it can do to solve the problem.

"There are two ways to tackle it - mitigation and adaptation. Whatever we do to mitigate climate change won't be enough. That is indicated by the IPCC, which involves 3,000 scientists - we must take heed. So we need to adapt. We must spend time and effort on adaptation to manage to live with climate change.

"European countries are 'know how' intensive. The EU is the most competitive producer of environmental technologies and should invest more in research and development of these. This is the only way to face the challenge currently confronting us," says Fischler, "let's face it".

He sees it as a great opportunity and says that "with our 'know how', we Europeans should play a much stronger role in the globalisation process".

Commission focused on feed problems

Also responding to Farmers Journal enquiries, the EU Commission spokesman for agriculture and rural development, Michael Mann, said that Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel is focused on the problem of GMO with particular reference to imports of animal feeds, but is not seeking to make any moves to increase the growing of GM crop varieties within the EU.

She is aware that there are problems with the length of time taken by the procedures of the EU in approving GM varieties that have already been approved elsewhere.

Mann referredto the Commission's own report ahtthere is a threat to future sourcing of feeds for EU livestock and poultry.

He said that Commissioner Fischer Boel thinks it would be damaging to EU farmers and would deceive consumers if we were unable to import sufficient feed and ended up instead importing meat fed with the very GMOs which are not allowed in the EU.

Mann pointed out that approval of new varieties is not in the portfolio of the Agriculture Commissioner. It is a matter for the Commission's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (ScoFCAH) after an assessment has been obtained from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA - but it often ends up with the Commission to make the decision if a qualified majority is not reached.

In the past few days, the European Commission adopted a decision authorising GM soybean A2704-12 for feed and food uses, and for import and processing.

A2704-12 soybean received a positive safety assessement from EFSA and underwent the full authorisation procedure set out in the EU legislation. Member states did not reach a qualified majority decision for or against ths authorisation in SCoFCAH, and then in the Council, the dossier was sent back to the Commission for decision.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

The above article is extremely misinformative.

On Earth Day, 22 April 2008, European farming organisations, consumer cooperatives, and Non Governmental Organisations representing 50 million citizens from all 27 EU member states said that relaxing EU laws on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would not solve the problem of animal feed cost increases which have hit the continent's livestock and dairy industries. See our related press release of 28 April "Relaxing GM laws will not lower animal feed prices in Europe" http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI39.pdf

Note that the author of the above article, James Campbell is the Northern Editor of the Irish Farmers Journal. He is also the Treasurer of the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists, whose web site is sponsored by the global animal healthcare company Merial Limited, a join venture between pharmaceutical giants Merck & Co. and Sanofi-Aventis. In June 2008, European antitrust investigators initiated proceedings against Sanofi-Aventis, for allegedly trying to block a dawn raid during an inquiry into generic medicines.

17 September 2008

USA: Obama Campaign Reveals Science Advisors

Wired, September 17 2008. By Brandon Keim.

Barack Obama has established a small but well-regarded inner circle of science advisors that includes Nobel laureates. Though their influence on the policies of a prospective Obama administration are unknown, they've played a prominent role in establishing his science platform to date.

Obama announced his science platform earlier this month in response to questions posed by ScienceDebate2008, a nonpartisan political education group. When asked by Wired Science, the campaign identified five people who had helped draft Obama's statement: Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate and former head of the National Institutes of Health; Gilbert Ommen, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Peter Agre, a Nobel laureate and civil rights advocate; NASA researcher Donald Lamb; and Stanford University plant biologist Sharon Long.

Republican candidate John McCain responded to the ScienceDebate2008 questions on Monday, but his campaign ignored multiple requests for the identity of its science advisors.

On paper, both candidates have outlined a generally strong approach to science. There are differences -- Obama emphasizes basic research funding and proposes moderately more ambitious greenhouse gas cuts, while McCain supports a new wave of nuclear power and would outlaw some embryonic stem cell research -- but they are generally small. And at this pre-Presidential moment, neither platform may provide more than a hazy indication of what each man would do as President.

In divining the realities of each candidate's presidency, non-binding campaign rhetoric may be less important than the advisors they assemble.

"Neither of the candidates is a scientist to start with. We can presume that they're going to rely on experts in science and science policy," said Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a nonpartisan bioethics think tank. "It is important to know who their advisors are."

In some ways, Obama's team is a mix of contrasting approaches: Lamb and Agre are both academics, while Omenn is a director of the biotechnology company Amgen and Long was a director at agricultural giant Monsanto. In other ways, their expertise is narrow: four of the five advisors come from the life sciences.

"There are a lot of excellent scientists in major fields that we're going to need research in," said Martin Apple, president of the Council of Science Society Presidents, a confederation of scientific societies whose membership spans more than one million scientists and teachers. "The inner circle would be much improved by increasing the range of disciplines."

Apple was confident that Obama would be able assemble such a team. "He's certainly the kind of person who tends to build larger consultation groups," he said. "All of [the advisors] have networks of people who would be able to put high-quality appointments together."

The Team:

Harold Varmus: President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He won a Nobel Prize in 1989 for breakthroughs in cancer genetics. Under Clinton, he directed the National Institutes of Health; the agency's budget doubled, but his legacy was tainted by his permitting NIH researchers to take excessive payments from pharmaceutical companies. A champion of open-access research, Varmus co-founded the Public Library of Science. He chairs the scientific board of Grand Challenges in Global Health, launched by the Gates Foundation and NIH to improve health in the developing world. Varmus was an advisor to the now-defunct Campaign to Defend the Constitution, launched to combat the political influence of the religious right. His political contributions are here.

Gilbert Omenn: Professor of internal medicine, human genetics and public health at the University of Michigan. Former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; during his tenure he denounced anti-evolution education laws, and has been a vocal critic of creationism. "The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," he told reporters this year. "I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin." Omenn is a director of Amgen, a biotechnology company, and served in the Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Carter. His campaign contributions are here, and a list of industry ties here.

Peter Agre: Director of the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute. After winning a Nobel Prize in 2003 for discovering proteins that move water through cell membranes, he pledged to use the prize money to defend academic freedom from the restrictions of the War on Terror. He has been sharply critical of President Bush's climate change policies. "The Bush administration has been a disaster for the environment," he said in 2004. "If we wait until there's unequivocal proof that this is the cause of global climate change, it will be too late." Agre helped found Scientists and Engineers for America, a non-partisan science advocacy group. An advocate of increased government investment in science, he wants more scientists to run for public office. He has appeared twice on The Colbert Report.

Don Lamb: A University of Chicago astrophysicist and expert in stellar evolution, Lamb helped found the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has been described as "the most ambitious astronomical survey ever undertaken," and recorded the most distant explosion ever. A Mission Scientist on NASA's High-Energy Transient Explorer, he has fought to maintain NASA's research budget. "Science at NASA is disappearing – fast," he told the New York Times in 2006. Lamb has also argued against the privatization of commercial space flight. "Space exploration," he told the Times, "particularly manned space exploration, is just too expensive and risky to attract private enterprise, especially venture capitalists."

Sharon Long: Recently stepped down as dean of Stanford University's School of Humanities & Science to return to her research on the symbiosis of soil bacteria with alfalfa. Long resigned last year from the Board of Directors of Monsanto, an agricultural biotechnology corporation. A former MacArthur Fellow, Long is a member of the leadership council of the National Academy of Sciences. She has contributed to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Comment from GM Watch:

Four of Obama's five advisors on science come from the life sciences. They include Gilbert Omenn, a director of the biotech firm Amgen, and Sharon Long who until a year ago was on the board of directors at Monsanto.

Climate ready GM crops: The patent race

ClimateChangeCorp, 17 Sep 2008. By Rajesh Chhabara.

GM food special report: Crops that survive climate change

The world's big seed companies face claims of bio-piracy and a tough fight with activists as they race to secure patents for climate-proof GM crops.

Over the past four years, the world's leading agricultural biotechnology companies have flooded patent offices with applications for "climate-ready" genes. The companies claim their genetically engineered climate-resistant seeds can withstand catastrophic effects of global warming, such as floods, drought, heat, cold and salinity.

Over 530 applications, belonging to 55 patent families, for climate-ready genes have already been lodged, according to a report in June by the Ottawa-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC group), which works for human rights and conservation. Most of the claims, some of which have already been approved, are for a gene sequence and a method for using it to engineer a plant that can withstand environmental stress.

Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, and BASF, the world's largest agro-chemicals company, lead the pack, seeking control of 27 of the 55 patent families. The two agro-giants are partners in a $1.5 billion research project to bio-engineer climate-resistant crops. Other companies in the patent race include Dupont, Dow Agro Sciences and Land O' Lakes from the US, Syngenta of Switzerland, Group Limagrain of France and Bayer and KWS from Germany.

These companies are accustomed to criticism of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or GM crops for their potential impact on the environment and the poor, but their efforts to patent climate-resistant GM crops have attracted fresh accusations - this time of bio-piracy.

Patent case of bio-piracy?

Vandana Shiva, a veteran environmentalist and founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology - a New Delhi-based NGO - says the climate-ready genes companies are claiming as their own invention already exist and that local farmers are familiar with the varieties in which they appear.

Activists say that companies are collecting seeds from parts of the world with extreme climatic conditions in the assumption that seeds there will possess the desired genetic traits. Then they map the genome of these varieties to identify genes or gene sequences that increase a plant's tolerance to a certain environmental stress. The companies then develop a way of transferring the identified gene sequences in a transgenic plant, or a method to over-express the trait in the same plant.

"Farmers in India have long known and used flood-resistant, drought-resistant, cold-resistant and heat-resistant seeds to adapt to local climatic conditions," says Shiva. "Patents on these traits to multinational companies deny the innovation embodied in indigenous knowledge."

There is already a large number of known climate-resistant crops. Scientists from the International Rice Research Institute and the University of California-Davis discovered a farmers' variety of flood-resistant rice called "Dhullaputia" in the flood-prone state of Orissa in India. Dhullaputia is considered the world's most flood-tolerant variety, and this trait was identified by local farmers 50 years ago.

Similarly, researchers have found traditional African rice that can withstand drought and heat. The African Rice Centre, an intergovernmental research association, is now developing drought-resistant varieties by crossing traditional African rice with high-yielding Asian rice.

"Seed companies are simply taking such naturally available varieties in developing countries and using genetic engineering to isolate climate-tolerant genes ... [in order to] transfer them into a new species to claim patents," says Shiva.

A Monsanto spokesman in India responded: "Climate change will pose new challenges for farmers around the world, and Monsanto and other companies are making major research and development investments to help farmers meet those challenges. Patent protection allows companies to see a return on their investment which enables further investment in research and product development."

Monsanto also said that "bio-piracy" was not an adequately defined concept, and certainly had no internationally agreed definition.

The ETC Group defines bio-piracy as "the appropriation of the knowledge and genetic resources of farming and indigenous communities by individuals or institutions who seek exclusive monopoly control, through patents or intellectual property, over these resources and knowledge."

Activists say that current patent regimes benefit the multinationals, because the burden of evidence to prove piracy lies with the party challenging the patent. There are fears in the developing world that once patents are granted to seed companies, local farmers will be forced to stop using, even destroy, their own climate-resistant traditional varieties.

Once a genetic sequence becomes the intellectual property of a company, it can prevent others using any plant that has a substantially similar sequence. Farmers could therefore have to buy climate-tolerant seeds from these companies for every crop-cycle and would not be allowed to store or exchange seeds for replanting.

The broad application of patents is also a possibility. For example, a Dupont patent claim for a method that will improve a plant's drought or cold tolerance is not limited to one crop but may extend to several other plants, such as maize, barley, wheat, oat, rye, sorghum or rice, soybean, alfalfa, safflower, tobacco, sunflower, cotton or canola, according to the ETC Group. Monsanto, BASF, Syngenta and others have filed numerous sweeping claims that will preclude future competition by other companies.

Claims of damage to farmers

Seed companies claim their climate-resistant seeds will not only help tackle global warming but address hunger and food shortage.

Shiva claims, conversely, that "if climate-traits are patented, the cost of agriculture will go up and the poor will suffer even more. Governments will have to spend more money to buy patented seeds as poor farmers will not be able to afford them."

She points to repeated reports of suicides by debt-ridden cotton farmers in south India since they started using Bt Cotton, a GM variety, in 2002. Activists estimate that over 200 farmers have committed suicide over the period in the Vidarbha region as their yield actually declined after using the GM seeds.

Activists say that these farmers had borrowed money, mostly from local loan sharks to buy Bt seeds. However, the revenues from the crop were not sufficient to cover the debt. And they had no money to buy seeds for the new season. Moneylenders then foreclosed the loans and confiscated their lands.

"This will be repeated with other crops now. Multinational seed companies will force farmers to buy their fraudulently patented climate-resistant seeds and push them into debt," warns Shiva.

Hope Shand, research director of ETC Group, says: "Governments should respond by recognising, protecting, and strengthening farmer-based breeding and conservation programs and the development of on-farm genetic diversity as a priority response for climate change survival and adaptation."

Campaign for regime change

Experts say a weak international patent regime is making bio-piracy easier for companies. "While patent regime introduced by the WTO TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property) affords protection to technologies developed by using biological material, the rights of countries providing the material, as recognised by UN Convention on Biodiversity, are completely ignored," says Kasturi Das, a Fellow at the Centre for WTO Studies at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade in New Delhi.

Developing countries have clubbed together to demand an amendment to TRIPS, requiring patent applications to disclose the origin of biological resources or associated traditional knowledge, provide evidence of prior information consent from the origin country and of benefit sharing. However, a number of richer nations, including the US, Canada, Australia, South Korea and Japan, have voted against the proposals.

Shiva plans to launch a global campaign against bio-piracy of climate-tolerant plant genes on October 1, which will include filing bio-piracy cases against climate-trait patents in patent offices in the US and Europe.

She has already overturned three non climate-related GM patents filed by US companies WR Grace, Rice Tec and Monsanto, on patents related to Neem plant, Basmati rice and Nap Hal wheat respectively. The authorities in Europe and the US accepted that the patents amounted to bio-piracy.

That multinational companies were successful in claiming such patents in the first place reflects on the weaknesses of the patent regime, Shiva says. Nevertheless, she is confident the climate trait-based patents will also be overturned.

A Monsanto spokesman told ClimateChangeCorp.com: "We are extremely confident that all of our patents were developed in accordance with international laws and agreements."

Despite stiff resistance from most countries, and from the EU as whole, GM crops are big business. Agricultural biotechnology market research firm Context Network estimates that the global proprietary seed market exceeded $22 billion in 2007, a 10% growth over 2006. And with global warming expected to create unprecedented demand for climate-resistant varieties to address food shortages, the new GM seeds could gain biotech firms entry into fresh markets and power even more explosive growth.

The stakes are high for both the seed giants and the activists - we should expect a protracted battle.

Biotech and IP Abuse

[extracted from: The South Strikes Back Against Overreaching IP Enforcement]
IPWatch, 17 September 2008
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1229

[Carlos Correa from the University of Buenos Aires] suggested that developing countries should develop their own set of data and should start recording anti-infringement abuses. He presented the case of Monsanto against Argentina concerning Roundup Ready soybeans in which the company sought compensation for its technology even though the modified bean technology is in the public domain in Argentina. When such compensation was not forthcoming, Monsanto tried to use patents obtained in the EU to stop Argentina's imports of processed soy flour to Europe.

Soyflour is a derivative product of soybeans and the patents cover genetic sequences within a living soy plant. According to EU biotechnology directive (Art. 9) a gene "should perform its functions," which is rendered impossible by the processing needed to make the soy plant into flour. But some European countries complied with Monsanto's claim and stopped imports based on the suspicion of patent infringement. "Patent infringement is very hard do determine by custom officers" who might not have the expertise, Correa said. "This is why alleged patent infringement is so dangerous."

South Africa: Farmers oppose GM potatoes

Business Report (iol), September 17 2008. By Melanie Gosling.

The proposed commercial release of a genetically modified (GM) spud in South Africa has become something of a hot potato as farmers and some major food giants say they will not use them.

Potato SA, which represents potato farmers, has written to the department of agriculture saying the potential costs, particularly of consumer backlash and possible loss of exports, outweigh the potential benefits.

This is the first time organised agriculture has opposed the introduction of a GM crop in South Africa.

The submission is in response to a permit application by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), which has been working with Michigan State University to develop tuber moth-resistant potatoes with funding from USAid.

Ben Pieterse, research manager at Potato SA, said tuber moth was not a major problem in South Africa.

"The benefit is far less than the potential damage to the industry. We won't save that much on pesticide as we will still have to spray for other pests.

"There is no mandatory labelling for GM products, and no testing or tracing procedure, so how do you keep the GM potatoes separate?"

Pieterse said this was important for export markets and farmers who supplied major food companies that would not take GM crops.

Diale Mokgojwa, who manages Potato SA's emerging and small farmers' programme, says this sector also opposes the commercial release of GM potatoes.

The GM potato is the Spunta variety, which is not suitable for processing, so the big food chains would not use it anyway.

The plan is to transfer the GM technology to other varieties of potato in time.

Owen Porteus, managing director of McCain Foods, the biggest producer of frozen potato products globally, said all the company's products were GM-free.

"We're very much driven by consumer needs and they don't want GM."

Kobie de Ronde, the ARC scientist who heads the GM potato project, said much of the resistance to GM was because of lack of understanding. All GM crops underwent a full safety assessment before being approved for production.

ARC's application for commercial release contained a "full set of environmental, food and feed safety data" that indicated GM potatoes were as safe to grow and eat as conventional spuds.

"This is not an application for a full commercial permit so that potatoes will be on the market tomorrow. We'd still have to plant them in specific areas so we can evaluate certain questions," De Ronde said.

She agreed GM labelling needed to be addressed. ARC was discussing this with the department of health.

The Future of Food
Vandana Shiva's call to rethink the paradigm of food in the lead up to this international conference

Slow Food Times, September 2008.

"Climate Chaos and the food crisis compel us to revisit the dominant paradigm of food and agriculture. Industrial, globalized agriculture has contributed to climate change as well as to the current food crisis and food insecurity. More than 40 countries have experienced food riots. Rising oil prices and food prices are being defined as a security issue. However, at the high level UN Food and Agriculture Organization meeting in June 2008 on the food crisis and climate change, the World Bank and global corporations promoted the disease as the solution. They called for higher levels of chemical fertilizer use even though the cost of fossil fuel based fertilizers has tripled with the rise in oil prices and synthetic fertilizers are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change.

We feel it is important and urgent to address these interlinked issues of climate, food and GMO's and defend the rights of all people to safe healthy and nutritious food and the rights of farmers to secure and sustainable livelihoods, and to seed sovereignty and seed freedom.

Thus, Navdanya together with the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and Diverse Women for Diversity would like to invite you to the major international conference The Future of Food: Climate Change, GMO's and Food Security, being held in New Delhi over October 1 - 2, 2008 in New Delhi."

Contact: navdanya@gmail.com

Monsanto: herbicide powerhouse
The GMO seed giant expects Roundup to generate $1.8 billion in profits in 2008

GRIST, 16 Sep 2008. By Tom Philpott.

Monsanto positions itself as a green company.

"Using the tools of modern biology," its website informs us, "we help farmers grow more yield sustainably so they can produce more and conserve more."

Compare that twaddle to this bit from Monsanto's announcement on Tuesday:

"[Monsanto's Chief Financial Officer Terry] Crews will indicate that Monsanto's Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides business is on track to be above $1.9 billion of gross profit for the 2008 fiscal year, ahead of the previous forecast." http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=641

Wow. Nearly $2 billion in profit, from Roundup alone. As recently as February, Monsanto was expecting to make $1.4 billion from its herbicide division this year. I guess farmers applied it even more copiously than expected.

But the company isn't just churning out profit by peddling weed-killer. Its seeds are doing pretty well, too -- particularly corn:

"Crews will also note that for the 2008 fiscal year, the company's corn business should exceed $2 billion in gross-profit generation for the first time."

Interesting. So it makes nearly as much on herbicide as it does on corn seeds. (Overall, the company expects to make $3.8 billion on seeds in '08).

Investors applauded Monsanto's announcement, sending shares up 7.5 percent Tuesday.

I wonder if they're being short-sighted. Monsanto's success rests on Roundup Ready technology -- selling seeds genetically engineered to withstand heavy doses of its flagship herbicide.

But Roundup-tolerant weeds (so-called "superweeds") are on the rise. Eventually, farmers will have to shift away from Roundup -- Monsanto's $1.8 billion cash cow. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/14/9630/00762

Meanwhile, Bayer is rolling out a new line of herbicide-tolerant seeds, this one designed to withstand doses of Bayer's glufosinate herbicide. Ain't the agrichemical industry grand? http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/libertylink-eu-0910/

South Africa: New law will enforce labelling of contents of GMO foods

Business Day, 17 September 2008. By Linda Ensor, Political Correspondent.

CAPE TOWN - Labelling of the genetically modified contents of food will become mandatory once the Consumer Protection Bill is implemented, and producers, importers, distributors and retailers will be held liable for any damage these products might cause.

Parliament's trade and industry committee decided to include these controversial provisions in the bill yesterday despite strong opposition by the health and agriculture departments and despite the technical complexity entailed.

The original version of the bill tabled in Parliament excluded genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from the goods for which there would be strict liability for damage but this changed once the committee decided to go the labelling route.

Currently, labelling is applied on a voluntary basis under the health department's health safety laws and is mandatory only in extreme cases of genetic modification.

Government's policy is to support the development of GMO foods and the agriculture department, which administers the GMO Act, was apparently concerned that the obligation to label would send confusing messages.

The committee's decision was welcomed by civil society organisations involved in biosafety matters as a breakthrough which would keep SA abreast with best international practice with regards to consumer protection.

But Business Unity SA was against the inclusion, saying that GMO labelling was a technical matter which should be managed by the technical regulator - the agriculture department.

Committee members of all political persuasions felt strongly that consumers had to be informed so that they could choose whether or not to consume GMO products.

The new enabling clause introduced into the bill - adopted by the committee yesterday - reads that "any person who produces, supplies, imports or packages any prescribed goods must display on or in association with the packaging of those goods a notice in the prescribed manner and form that discloses the presence of any genetically modified ingredients or components of those goods in accordance with applicable regulations".

These regulations would be those issued by the agriculture department which would still be responsible for determining thresholds and technical requirements.

The clause on labelling is less far-reaching than the one initially proposed by the trade and industry department which had been withdrawn by the time the bill arrived in Parliament. Comment by GM Watch:

Doubtless the industry will be lobbying again to have this clause removed on the grounds that labelling and segregating GM crops and non-GM crops from farm to fork will cost too much. But the reality is that there was no increase whatsoever in food prices in the European Union when the EU's strict labelling policy was implemented. Likewise, Australia has labelling regs and food prices there have been unaffected. The only reason for not having GM labelling is to protect vested interests from consumer choice.

16 September 2008

Europe: Transgenic Crops' Days May Be Numbered

Inter Press Service, 16 September 2008. By Mario de Queiroz.

LISBON -- Pressure from the president of the European Commission has not succeeded in advancing the cause of transgenic crops. In spite of the power wielded by the executive organ of the European Union, the bloc's member countries are gradually discontinuing the use of genetically modified seeds.

This is due in large measure to the difficulty of convincing European farmers to adopt the transgenic crop production model, which is being promoted by biotech giants, but also to increasingly vociferous protests from civil society, which is demanding that governments take an active role, according to an expert interviewed by IPS.

Genetically modified (GM) organisms, also called transgenics, are made in laboratories by inserting genes from other species of plants or animals into their original DNA, in order to improve their properties or confer resistance to external factors like pests or insecticides. Vectors, often viruses or bacteria, are used to insert the foreign genes.

In Spain and Portugal, which have the largest areas in the EU devoted to GM maize cultivation, people are beginning to question the benefits of sowing and harvesting transgenic varieties of maize, a crop native to the Americas which was the staple food of a number of indigenous cultures.

Maize was slow to be introduced in Europe, because the Central American areas where it was grown were colonised by the Spanish at the time when the Roman Catholic Church was conducting the Inquisition, and they believed that Europeans should not eat the same food as indigenous peoples because, in their view, the latter were not "children of God."

Widely used now as feed for animals, maize has been the subject of fierce controversy within the European Commission.

On the one hand, Commission President José Manuel Durão Barroso is in favour of significantly increasing the production of GM maize within the EU. On the other, European Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, is dead set against it.

The European Commission works like a cabinet government and is made up of 27 Commissioners, one from each EU member state, although they must represent the interests of the EU as a whole, not just their home country.

In October 2007, Dimas opposed European Commission approval for cultivation in the EU of two GM varieties of maize, Bt-11 and 1507, because "possible long-term risks to the environment and biodiversity are not completely known, and environmental effects resulting from the cultivation of the GM maize lines are unacceptable."

"However, the majority of the Commissioners are in favour of GM maize, and the final decision has been postponed twice because a consensus could not be reached," Portuguese biologist Margarida Silva, the national coordinator of Plataforma Transgénicos Fora, comprising 12 Portuguese non-governmental organisations working on agriculture and the environment and networking with likeminded NGOs in the EU, told IPS.

Durão Barroso tried to convince Dimas to withdraw his objections in April, while simultaneously requesting an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority, "with the purpose of undermining the legitimacy of Dimas' stance," according to Silva, who is also a university professor.

Silva said that "the movement against transgenics is growing in civil society throughout Europe, and GM crops have already been banned in several countries."

"There isn't much that Europeans can do, but the power of numbers is still on our side, and we can use them to back Stavros Dimas," she said.

EU policies on transgenics are based upon Regulation 1829 on GM food and fodder, adopted in 2003, and 2001 Directive 18 on the deliberate release of transgenics into the environment. According to these rules, cultivation and consumption of GM crops can only be authorised after rigorous assessment of their risks.

Research on risks to human and animal health is the responsibility of the European Food Safety Authority, but authorisation of GM plants and animals is ultimately up to lawmakers in each of the bloc's member countries.

Maize, the crop at the centre of the transgenics debate, has an annual production of 677 million tonnes, mostly for animal feed. It is one of the four staple foods of humankind along with rice, wheat and potatoes, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

Fifty-eight percent of total world maize production is grown in countries in the Americas, mainly in the United States, which is also the cradle of genetic engineering technology and transgenic organisms.

The United States is the world's largest producer of maize and accounts for nearly half of global production. Large quantities of fertilisers and herbicides are used on its crops, which include hybrid and GM varieties.

Critics like Silva point out that it has been proven that the large amounts of weedkillers used on transgenic crops pollute the soil and endanger biodiversity.

Detractors of transgenics also say that pests affecting GM grains develop resistance to agrochemicals, so that ever higher doses must be applied, with all their negative effects on the environment.

The production of GM seeds for cultivation itself leads to extreme genetic uniformity between seeds, with a corresponding loss of the natural diversity of crop strains.

Environmentalists who oppose transgenics are unmoved by the argument that the higher productivity of these crops could increase food production and end world hunger.

"Feeding the world is not the goal, but rather boosting the export incomes of the big agribusiness companies that are currently involved in the GM industry," Silva said.

Defenders of GM crops say that there is no other solution. If, as expected, the world's population doubles over the next 40 years, food production will have to be increased by about 250 percent.

A huge, unified movement of people in favour of declaring a moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops has emerged in Spain and Portugal, following a similar decision taken in March by the French government that invoked the "safeguard clause" allowing an EU member state to bypass a community directive.

Silva said France based its decision "on a set of 25 scientific studies indicating risks to the environment, farming and human health derived from the cultivation of GM maize."

In the southern Portuguese region of Alentejo, which covers one-third of the country's 92,000 square kilometres of territory, "half of the farm units have given up growing transgenic crops," Silva said.

Farmers prefer "more effective technology and practices, that pose fewer risks for the environment, human health, and their own pocketbooks," she said. Although "in breach of the law, the Agriculture Ministry refuses to release statistics, the scenario in Portugal shows that a significant number of farmers first experiment with GM crops and then stop using them," she said.

This phenomenon "is consistent with a recently published EU study of three regions in Spain, which found that growing transgenic maize offered no economic advantage over conventional maize to farmers in two of the areas," Silva said.

The biologist said that GM maize has been experimented with in the Iberian Peninsula since 2005 by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a seed company belonging to the U.S. DuPont group, and the Swiss corporation Syngenta, both "companies with a long history of agricultural pollution in Europe."

In addition to Portugal, the products of these corporations "have already affected farmers in Germany, Austria, Croatia, Slovenia, Spain and Italy," she said.

"Now that France, Hungary and Poland, Europe's main cereals producers, have forbidden the use of GM maize in their territories, and Germany is in the process of following suit, the Iberian countries (Spain and Portugal) should take heed and do the same," she said.

Silva was harshly critical of the Portuguese government for allowing the two corporations, in partnership, to experiment for three years in the municipalities of Monforte and Rio Maior, in the centre of the country, and in Ponte da Barca, in the north.

The green light given to Syngenta and Pioneer "makes no economic sense, is immoral, and jeopardises the green and natural image of those municipalities and their tourism potential. Approval has been granted to apply more herbicide, in a country that already suffers from excessive agrochemical use," said Silva.

Beasts of bioengineering
GMO burgers, fish fillets, and pork chops making their way onto a menu near you

Plenty, 16 September 2008. By Alisa Opar.

[Image caption: An introduced gene allows Enviropigs to utlize phosphorus in their feed, so they expel less of it in their manure. Photo courtesy Cecil Forsberg]

The pigs living in pens at the University of Guelph in Ontario are, well, unique. It's nothing to do with their appearance–cute and pink, they look like any other Yorkshire pigs. The difference is in their genetic makeup, and, subsequently, their "cleaner" manure.

Normally, a pig can't break down phytate, a phosphorus-rich compound found in the cereal grains they eat. That means as much as 75 percent of the phosphorus in the animal's feed goes undigested and ends up in its manure. That becomes a problem when large numbers of pigs are concentrated on ranches. "The bulk of phosphorus passes through the pig and can get into freshwater sources, leading to extensive algal growth," says Cecil Forsberg, leader of the university's pig project.

To solve this long-standing environmental pollution problem, Forsberg and colleagues genetically engineered pigs, dubbed Enviropigs, which digest more phosphorus. By introducing a bacterial gene for the enzyme phytase into Enviropigs' genome, the pigs secrete the enzyme in their saliva and expel up to 60 percent less phosphorus in their manure than their non-transgenic counterparts.

Enviropigs are just one type of genetically engineered animal living in experimental labs in North America. Others include fast-growing salmon, disease-resistant cows, and goats that produce antibacterial milk. But before meat and dairy products from these animals move from the barnyard to the dinner table, they need FDA approval. That's something the agency hasn't granted yet, but biotech companies are betting big bucks that they will soon. Some environmental and consumer advocate groups, however, worry that there isn't enough information about the safety of such foodstuffs to bring them to market.

FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey acknowledges that the agency is drafting rules, but she wouldn't estimate when they'll be published. "We can't comment on where a particular rule may be in the regulatory process, or provide specifics about what a pending rule may contain."

Currently, no meat, fish, milk, or dairy products from genetically engineered animals are approved for food or feed use. However, the FDA has given the green light to other biotech-produced foodstuffs. In 1994 the first genetically engineered food, the Flavr Savr tomato, hit the market. And in January 2008, the FDA ruled that cloned animals and their offspring are safe to eat, though there's been some backlash from consumer advocates about the decision.

Cloning involves taking the nucleus of one somatic (a non-sex cell) cell implanting it into an egg cell whose nucleus has been removed, stimulating the cell to divide, and once an embryo forms, implanting it into the womb of a host mother. Scientists genetically engineer animals by splicing only the genes from another animal into the nucleus of a fertilized egg, and then implanting the embryo into the womb of a host mother.

The FDA keeping mum about how it might regulate genetically engineered animals has some groups concerned that the rules won't be stringent enough. Critics say modifying animals' genes could inadvertently bring about harmful changes in the composition of meat or milk, perhaps by turning on a gene that produces a toxin or food allergen. Another worry is that transgenic animals could upset ecosystems if they escaped; wild salmon, for instance, might not be able to find food or mates if they have to compete with fast-growing salmon.

"We don't know how these genes work in animals, and humans haven't tried to digest these before, so we don't know how they'll work in people, either," says Jaydee Hanson, policy analyst for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety.

The FDA has proposed regulating transgenic animals under the "new animal drug" provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under its guidelines, the FDA would evaluate the safety of each new transgenic animal on a case-by-case basis, like it assesses each new antibiotic, for instance, to ensure that it's safe and effective.

Using the new animal drug standards is the way to go, according to Ronald Stotish, CEO of Aqua Bounty Technologies, a company that has modified Atlantic salmon to grow to market size in half the time of traditional salmon. They've engineered the growth spurt by splicing a gene for growth hormone from the Chinook salmon with a genetic on-switch from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish.

Assessing each new transgenic animal on a case-by-case basis would not only address safety concerns, says Stotish, it would also ensure a proprietary niche for the companies or scientists who created the animal.

"It would mean companies could say our animals are constructed for these specific purposes, and the regulatory review would ensure the animals do what they say they do and are indeed safe," says Stotish. "It takes the concern out–that question for the consumer, 'Gee, how do I know that there isn't some aspect of this technology that isn't safe, or is less safe?'"

Hanson, too, believes that following the new drug standards would add a necessary safety net, but he worries that the FDA won't actually use these regulations to evaluate transgenic animals. "That's what they originally said on cloning, too, but then they invented a new process," Hanson says. The agency reviewed hundreds of scientific studies, and found meat and milk from cattle, swine, and goat clones to be as safe as that from normal animals. So cloned animals do not have to be approved on an individual basis. "We really saw it as a completely inadequate process," says Hanson, who points to what he sees as a small number of animals involved in the studies. "If the FDA were to use the new animal drug standards [for regulating transgenic animals], they would have to have bigger sample sizes, they would have to look at issues like allergic reactions, they would have to really overall do a much more thorough job."

While this regulatory approach would allay public concerns and be good for business, Hanson still views it as potentially problematic. "It makes transgenic animals more easily patented than a traditional animal," he says. Like genetically engineered crops, transgenic animals can more easily be proven to be 'inventions', and therefore patentable, than traditionally bred or crossed plants and animals. "We'll be introducing into animal breeding what's happened with crops–ranchers won't own the next generation, or will owe a royalty. It might not be Monsanto, but it will be the Monsanto equivalent. At this point, safety should be the main concern, but the next step is these economic issues."

They Call It "Pharming" And It's Phrightening!

OpEdNews.com, 16 September 2008. By Robert Singer

Biofuels are often blamed for 85% of corn price increases since 2002. Even Congress is growing weary of the corn/ethanol inflation.

Why were we on this road in the first place?

It would seem an easy road to avoid, considering over 140% more energy-mostly high value oil and natural gas, is expended to produce a gallon of corn ethanol than is in the ethanol itself. In 2007, 20% of the U.S. corn crop was converted into 6 billion gallons of ethanol-to replace only 1% of U.S. oil consumption.

President Bush 43 - known for his insight into our energy problems (We need an energy bill that encourages consumption), on April 29, 2008 told reporters at the Rose Garden "the solution now is to make ethanol out of switchgrasses or wood chips." Later in that same speech he said, "...it's in our national interest that our farmers grow energy." Really? I thought that's what our food supply was supposed to provide-energy for our bodies to survive.

Switchgrass and growing energy is not a solution to our energy and global warming problems. They worsen Global Warming and are a Trojan Horse for Genetic Modified Organisms (GMOs), promising not only whole new markets for biotech products, but the irreversible entrenchment of genetically modified crops throughout the world.

When GMOs were first introduced into agriculture, farmers and consumer groups questioned the lack of basic protections. Since then, GMO contamination has spread from the cornfields in the Midwest to the birthplace of corn in the remote mountains of Mexico. Farmers have not been able to protect themselves from this genetic trespass. Instead of holding GMO manufacturers liable, the courts are upholding the patent rights of seed companies and making the farmers pay!

The latest proposals are to produce biofuels from more cellulose-rich plants like switchgrass rather than food crops. This may seem like a solution to the food v. fuel conflict inherent in ethanol production, because people will not directly starve when we fill up our gas tanks (of course they probably wouldn't starve if we subsidized alternative fuels, mass transit or just demanded automakers produce cars that get 50+ miles per gallon). However the energy it takes to unlock the energy in cellulosic ethanol is far greater than the energy it produces, making it a net energy loser, but a winner for genetically modified organisms or GMOs because the cellulosic plants will be grown from these high tech seeds, which independent sources have warned of emerging human health and environmental problems.

With the advent of biofuels, however, Monsanto and other biotech companies have found a market that is more insulated from public rejection because none of these crops are directly destined for our food supply--only our gas tank.

The problem is that once Genetically Modified or GM seeds are planted in the field, there is no way to prevent GMO fuel crops from contaminating their food-crop cousins. Because these crops are wind-pollinated, cases of genetic contamination are commonplace. In the past two years alone, there were at least 73 publicly documented cases of genetic contamination. Once GM agrofuels have entered the agricultural gates, they will soon escape into the wild, contaminating food crops across the globe.

It gets worse, no commercial fuel crop that is under consideration or that is already approved in the U.S. has had the benefit of long-term unbiased testing. Independent sources have warned about the

•

nutritional deficits in food made from GMO crops

•

problems of genes wandering when GMO crops cross with other plants

•

setting recombinant viruses on the loose

•

growing problems of resistance and tolerance

Why are a select group of people, probably in St. Louis (home of Monsanto), going to all this trouble to make sure we have an agronomically flat, untested GMO world that leaves our food systems vulnerable to climate change, pest and disease outbreaks? According to Henry Kissinger, every president's friend, "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."

Even though national polls show that over 90% of U.S. consumer's want GMO food labeled, government regulators still refuse to consider it. Meanwhile, soybeans that resist weed killers and corn that poisons the insects that eat it, are already in our food supply. These experimental crops contain pharmaceutical proteins, industrial chemicals, and even human genes.

This powerful new use of biotechnology is called "pharming" and it poses a very real threat to our personal and environmental health-and phrankly, I, for one, am phed up!

What about you? I urge you to Contact your U.S. House Representative and ask him/her to co-sponsor Representative Dennis Kucinich's bill, "The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act", when it gets introduced before Congress. Or even better, why not tell members of Congress and the Senate to support and co-sponsor legislation that would restrict the open-air growing of biotech crops that contain pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals.

Robert Singer is a local activist in the Santa Monica Mountains

USA: As Synthetic Biology Becomes Affordable, Amateur Labs Thrive

The Boston Globe, 16 September 2008. By Carolyn Y. Johnson.

In a third-floor loft where programmers build Internet start-ups, Mackenzie Cowell is talking about the tools he and like-minded young colleagues are using to fuel what they hope will be the next big thing in biology. The list includes a cut-up Charlie Card, ingredients bought on eBay to make a kind of scientific Jell-O, and a refrigerator, just scored on Craigslist.com, that chills to 80 degrees below zero.

Cowell is part of an effort called DIYbio – short for do-it-yourself biology – that aims to move science into the hands of hobbyists. It is starting by holding sessions where amateurs extract DNA, and attempt genetic fingerprinting using common household items and the kitchen sink.

"It shows you how much science can be about duct tape and having a few screws in the right place," Cowell said. "It shatters that clinical image."

What Cowell and crew hope to achieve is a democratization of science that could propel the field of biology into the mainstream, much as computer hackers fueled computer development a generation ago. After all, Silicon Valley's Homebrew Computer Club played a part in the personal computer industry and counts Apple Inc. founders among its attendees; Cowell would like DIYbio to be the Homebrew Club of Biology.

Cowell and his mostly 20-something friends are on a mission that seems inevitable to them, and is beginning to spark the attention, interest – and sometimes safety concern – of professional scientists. The recent shutdown of a lab in a retired chemist's home in Marlborough focused attention on the question of safety and the regulation of citizen scientists.

The idea of doing useful science at home isn't new. Backyard stargazers have long made contributions to astronomy. Bird-watchers participate in a wildlife census.

Now, enter the biohacker.

The movement is getting much of its steam from synthetic biology, a field of science that seeks to make working with cells and genes more like building circuits by creating standardized biological parts. The dream, already playing out in the annual International Genetically Engineered Machine competition at MIT, is that biology novices could browse a catalog of ready-made biological parts and use them to create customized organisms. Technological advances have made it quite simple to insert genes into bacteria to give them the ability to, for example, detect arsenic or produce vitamins.

"This follows in the heels of enormous American enthusiasm for invention that carries on in each generation," said Scott Mohr, a Boston University chemist who is writing a primer on synthetic biology.

"This is part of the same cycle: You go out there, you're an inventor, and you build mechanical stuff – my dad did that," Mohr said. "You go into computer programming and write viruses and video games. Those are the parents and older brothers of people who are going to do something even more thrilling" – experiments with living things.

But the work also raises fears that people could create a deadly microbe on purpose, just as computer hackers have unleashed crippling viruses or broken into government websites.

There is little formal regulation specifically for home labs. The state Department of Environmental Protection requires permits for businesses that create hazardous waste. Cambridge was the first city in the nation to pass a law regulating DNA research more than three decades ago, but it was intended to regulate professional scientists at universities and businesses, not individuals.

Still, authorities have discretion to act if they suspect wrongdoing. In 2004, Buffalo art professor Steve Kurtz was arrested and investigated as a possible bioterrorist because petri dishes and laboratory equipment were found in his home in upstate New York, after his wife had died of a heart attack.

Tom Knight, a senior research scientist at MIT who is cofounding a synthetic biology company called Ginkgo BioWorks, sees the transformative value of biohacking – the phrase used to describe doing to living organisms what computer hackers have long done with electronics. But he has reservations about putting such power into the hands of amateurs.

"I think if the safety issues can be addressed, there is a big opportunity," Knight said. "It's a huge issue; how do you regulate so [people] don't cause havoc."

The promises and risks of biohackery were addressed in a paper this summer in the new journal Systems and Synthetic Biology. "A young crowd of enthusiastic biohackers ... may spark a wave of innovation," wrote the coordinator of a European task force examining the implications of synthetic biology. But he cautioned that amateurs who don't adhere to a professional code of conduct and lack sufficient safety training raise the specter of biosafety and security risks.

The clash between the potential benefits and dangers of doing home science were highlighted by the case of Victor Deeb. The retired 71-year-old chemist in Marlborough saw his basement lab dismantled by authorities this summer after it was noticed by fire officials putting out a second-floor air conditioner fire.

The state DEP said officials intervened in Deeb's workspace because it did not meet lab standards. Chemical companies shipping Deeb their materials were unaware that they were shipping to a residence, authorities said.

Deeb, who said he was trying to make safer surface coatings for food containers, insists that the chemicals he was using were less hazardous than common cleaners and household chemicals. He questions why his hobby was seen as more dangerous than, for example, a hunter with a gun collection, or a person using a propane grill.

"The more I tried to explain, the more they thought I was a lunatic," Deeb said, questioning why he should need permits to tinker in his basement.

Not far from the loft where Cowell is trying to hatch his grass-roots scientific revolution, a group of synthetic biologists at MIT – whose business cards identify them as DNA hackers – are working with Knight to create a resource that could bring sophisticated biology techniques within reach of amateurs.

The company plans to provide standardized biological parts to biotech companies or clean fuel entrepreneurs, not casual garage scientists, but they see the excitement of what biohackers are trying to do. This summer, the company made a comic book-style protocol, with each frame showing how to do a bit of biological engineering, and brought it to a hacker expo, Foo Camp, where people made cells that smelled like banana or turned red.

"For us, it's a continuum," said Reshma Shetty, one of Ginkgo's founders. "We can make it easier for newcomers and professors" to do biology, "and make it so people can start biotech companies in their basement, just like they can build a Web 2.0 company in their basement."

Madagascar: Faustian bargain

L'Express (Madagascar), 16 September 2008. By Nicholas Rainer.

Lucidity sometimes springs from the most unexpected sources. Imagine my surprise when a friend forwarded me John Hodges'opening address at the World Poultry Congress, of all fora, and the urgency of his words hit home with unerring precision. Rather than presenting a stodgy speech about the intricacies of poultry farming, the animal geneticist made an emphatic plea for a sustainable world system rather than one created by and for what he calls "the elite capitalist minority".

The scientific community has the credibility and expertise needed to denounce the excesses of big business. And it's about time they sounded the wake-up call needed to get the world population out of its consumerist-induced stupor.

"Individually, we are ethical. You and I do not break the law. We use good science, intelligent and rational business methods ; and by reductionism we minimize our use of resources and produce cheap food. What has gone wrong ? Like the rest of society, we are pushing the market economy system that has yielded huge financial success and cheap food. But it is a Faustian bargain. Now we pay because we have stretched a good system too far and have broken boundaries of sustainability and morality through distorted and excessive uses."

Amongst many other things, John Hodges warns against the long-term implications of genetically-modified (GM) food products. He establishes a timely parallel between the impact of GM organisms on the human digestive system and the effects of beef proteins on cows. If the former is still unknown, we know what happens when we feed ruminants meat : mad cow disease. Many governments have shown criminal neglect by accepting the widespread cultivation of GM crops without deeming it necessary to carry out the scientific tests to determine their effect on the health of their citizens. More often than not, they accept the results of "tests" conducted by the GM companies themselves, companies that have shown jaw-dropping disdain for the rule of law.

"Thinking people know we are pushing the natural resource community beyond its ability to recover. But many leaders in business, politics and science believe we have found the winning formula that has no limits. Their proven formula is the market economy that has yielded immense prosperity over several centuries especially in the last 60 years. Western leaders are desperately keen to sweep the whole world into free trade market economics by globalization. But here is a tragic paradox. Even though the free market is being widely advocated it shows warning signs of unsustainability. Promoting it globally both spread and compounds the crisis", he explains. As yet, there might not be an alternative to the market economy. And don't expect politicians or businessmen to be overzealous in looking for one. By simply waking up to the exploitative nature of the current system and by recognizing that, as human beings, you deserve better, you'll be sowing the seeds of a more sustainable future.

Belarus: information about GMO content in food products to be identified at price labels

Fruit Inform, 16 September 2008.

v Information about content of genetically modified components in food products will be identified at the price labels in the stores in Belarus since September 12, Agrobel.by reported.

The governmental resolution No 1115, coming into force since September 12, foresees provision that obligates the seller "in case of content of genetically modified components in food products to additionally inform customers about GMO content, identify it on the price labels by any other ways (using labels, stickers or posters)", the Ministry of Trade of Belarus reported.

Earlier this information was only stipulated on the consumer packaging.

Information about GMO content should be identified on the price labels with red color and larger print than the product name, the Ministry of Trade informed.

Canada: Federal elections - Call for a moratorium on GE crops and foods

CNW Telbec, September 16 2008.

OTTAWA - A broad coalition of civil society groups is calling on all candidates and Parties in the federal election to support an immediate moratorium on all new genetically engineered (GE) crops and food approvals until the government's procedures for GE risk assessment have be reviewed and strengthened to meet strict international and scientific standards.

The coalition, coordinated by the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), has made this call for action on the same day as the National Film Board releases the DVD version of the controversial documentary: The World According to Monsanto (1). The filmmaker, Marie-Monique Robin, will be visiting Canada for the occasion and will be attending a public screening of the documentary in Ottawa tomorrow (2).

"Nobody can remain undisturbed after watching the documentary The World According to Monsanto," said Lucy Sharratt, CBAN coordinator. "The film documents the history of Monsanto, the global leader in genetically engineered seeds and one of the most controversial companies in the world. The film shows the devasting impacts of GE crops around the world, one of the most relevant issues of our time."

"After watching this documentary, everyone will understand how Monsanto managed to get governments to authorize GE crops and foods without supplying public, independent and peer-reviewed scientific proof of their safety," said Josh Brandon, Greenpeace agriculture campaigner.

"Canada was wise to say no to Monsanto's GE Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) in 1999 and the next government should follow suit and adopt a moratorium on GE crops and foods."

Canada and the U.S. are currently the only two countries in the developed world that refuse to impose mandatory labeling of GE food. "Monsanto's excessive influence in Ottawa explains why the Harper government and a majority of MPs voted against Bill C-517 last May that would have labeled GE foods and given Canadians the right to know ," said Tony Beck, steering committee member with the Society for a GE Free B.C..

The coalition urges citizens to contact their local candidates for the October 14 Federal election and demand that they support an immediate moratorium on all new genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods.

"Monsanto's GE crops like soya, canola and corn increase farmers dependency on Monsanto's Roundup herbicide," said Colleen Ross, Women's President of the National Farmers Union. "Harper's attack on the farmers' controlled Canadian Wheat Board would give foreign multinational companies the power to force Canada to adopt GE wheat."

Notes

(1) DVD copies of The World According to Monsanto are available at video stores (Blockbuster, Superclub Videotron, etc.) and online at: http://www.archambault.ca/store/Product.asp?mscssid=&sku=002218715&type=2

(2) September 17 4pm to 7pm in the Alumni Auditorium, University Centre, University of Ottawa, September 18, 7-10 pm at UQAM in Montreal, room DSR-51, pavillon J-A DeSËve, 320 Ste-Catherine est

(3) List of MPs voting record on C-517 available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/latest-developments/c-517-how-they-voted

For request for media interview with Ms. Robin, please call +514 605-6497

For further information: Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, CBAN, (613) 241-2267; Josh Brandon, Agriculture campaigner, Greenpeace, (604) 721-7493; Colleen Ross, Women's President, National Farmers Union, (613) 213-1522; Tony Beck, Steering Committee Member, Society for a GE Free BC, (604) 980-3916

UK: GM crops are not good for Africa

The Independent (Letters), 16 September 2008.

David King's contention that GM crops could help solve food shortages in Africa ("Africa needs GM food, says top scientist", 8 September) is in sharp contradiction to the views expressed in an important document that the British Government signed up to this year.

The Synthesis Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development is the agricultural equivalent of an assessment from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It concluded that, "information [on the impact of GM] is anecdotal and contradictory, which has led to uncertainty about the possible benefits and damage". Christian Aid, along with other NGOs, has further concerns too. We don't want poor farmers to become any more reliant on expensive, often imported inputs, such as GM seed, chemical fertilizer and pesticides when our experience is that they can boost their incomes and supply better, cheaper food to their immediate communities if they focus on using organic fertiliser and seed developed for their local conditions.

The highest productivity per acre comes from smaller farms. For Africa to be able to feed itself, there must be reforms to support small-scale food producers. These include investment, market development and improved infrastructure, and the abandoning of misplaced trade liberalisation policies forced on many countries.

Andrew Hogg
Christian Aid, London SE1

The Philippines: Ban GMO rice, Greenpeace asks Senate

GMA News TV, 16 September 2008.

MANILA, Philippines - Environmental group Greenpeace asked the Senate to ban the sale of genetically modified organism (GMO) rice, as it opened a photo exhibit highlighting the importance of rice.

The group cited the importance of rice to Filipino culture, saying this is why it must be protected from risky genetic modification.

"Greenpeace is here at the Senate to lobby our senators to enact a legislation to protect our most important staple food from the inherent risks of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is an unproven, unpredictable and unnecessary technology. The resulting genetically-modified food crops threaten human health, the environment, and farmers' livelihoods," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering Campaigner Daniel Ocampo, in a statement on the group's Web site (www.greenpeace.org.ph).

He said that while a genetically modified organism would never occur in the natural world, the new organism created becomes a living experiment.

"It is unpredictable and its long term effects on the environment and human health are unknown," he said.

Greenpeace has been actively campaigning against the commercialization of GMOs in the country.

It is currently questioning the Department of Agriculture's (DA) regulation process for GMO crops, which, aside from being unconstitutional, lacks transparency and appears to be heavily influenced by corporate interests rather than the protection of consumers and farmers.

During the past few years, Greenpeace voiced growing alarm how the regulatory bodies for GMO crops, the DA as well as the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), have never rejected an application of a GMO despite documented cases on questions of their safety and rejection by other countries, even by countries where they were developed.

Last year, Greenpeace also released a report, which details how almost all key personalities involved in regulating the entry of GMOs in the Philippines are members of pro-GMO lobby groups funded by multinational GMO corporations.

"In the six years since GMOs have been approved in the country, the DA has been approving GMOs at a rate of almost one every month, without adequate public consultation or information," it said.

"Greenpeace believes that rice is now under threat. Currently no GMO rice is authorized for commercialization in the Philippines but the environment group has documented that such experimental rice from the United States has entered the country's food chain at least twice in the past three years," it added.

It said the DA has denied both instances but has refused to conduct stringent testing on the said US rice. The GMO rice strain in the US rice was the result of an abandoned experiment, and its contamination of rice stocks created a major scandal that prompted countries to reject US rice imports in 2006 and 2007.

"The Philippines is a center for rice biodiversity and rice is our most important food. The clear message then is that the government must reject GMOs and instead look toward a future of farming and food production grounded on the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity, and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food," said Ocampo.

New Zealand: GMO risk is unfair

Whangarei Leader, 16 September 2008. By Denise Piper.

Northland ratepayers could shoulder the risk if a field trial of genetically modified organisms goes wrong in the region.

The risks and management options of GMO trials is being considered by a Northland and Auckland working party, which includes both the Whangarei District and Northland Regional Councils.

It found local councils would have to pay for any environmental damage if a GMO release, approved by the Environmental Risk Management Agency, was to go wrong.

Northern Regional Council policy and planning manager Glen Mortimer says while there are no field trials in Northland at the moment, there is a possibility of some in the future.

Proposals which could affect Northland include genetically modified livestock, vegetables, ryegrass, pine trees and horse flu vaccine.

The working party is now considering banning GMO field trials in Northland and Auckland until outstanding issues like liability, costs, environmental risk and community concerns are resolved.

The Whangarei District Council has decided to get involved with a community consultation programme to gauge the level of support for local regulation of GMO land use.

It has committed $10,000 toward a telephone survey and submission consultation.

Councillor Sheryl Mai, the working party chairwoman, says the group is moving forward by asking communities what is acceptable risk.

"We will be going to these communities to ask what risk is acceptable to us. What level of risk are you prepared to live with?"

Conversely, the Northland Regional Council has decided not to participate in the consultation, with councillor Ian Walker saying policies should be based on scientific evidence, not public opinion.

He asked for scientific information on the level of risk.

But both councils will continue, with the working party, to lobby central government to fix the loopholes in the regulation over liability.

Whangarei mayor Stan Semenoff says he is disappointed central government did not put a stop to GMO release until the issues were sorted.

"I'm sure going to kick the governments of the day for not having the backbone to stop it when it should've been stopped, or at least have a safety valve."

The working party has asked each political party questions about changing the rules to address liability, to allow comparison between parties before the election.

Mr Semenoff says if there is a change in government, he will be "sitting on their doorstep" wanting action.

15 September 2008

Kenya: Environmentalists Urge Leaders to Reject Bio Bill

The Nation/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX News Network, 15 September 2008

Nairobi -- The Participatory Ecological Land Use Management, an international environmental organisation, has asked President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga to reject the Bio-safety Bill.

Speaking in Nakuru, the organisation's chairman, Mr Eliud Ngunjiri, said the government had come up with a weak and flawed bill that did not fully consider the effects of genetically modified organisms.

He said the views of small-scale farmers should be considered to put the interests of Kenyans before scientific innovations that could be harmful.

EU: Commission advisors back GM

Farmers Guardian (UK), 15 September 2008.

EUROPEAN Commission advisors have concluded that GM food is safe to eat prompting fresh calls for a balanced debate on biotechnology.

The Commission's Joint Research Centre conducted a study into the safety of GM crops after a request from the European Parliament in November 2006.

The study concluded that "no demonstration of any health effects of GM food products submitted to the regulatory process has been reported so far".

Euro-MP Robert Sturdy, who sits on the European Parliament's environment committee, said that the study should stimulate an informed debate on GM based on factual evidence.

"Our views should be based on scientific evidence, and not emotive scaremongering.

"This is now the time to disregard unfounded prejudices and fears and have an open mind.

"We should consider all options and encourage more research and development, particularly as we are experiencing a global food crisis, concerns about providing our future energy requirements and reduced land availability," he said.

Willy De Graf, head of the bio-industry association EuropaBio, said that the JRC study backed a host of other studies to verify the safety of GM food.

He indentified the 2001 study by the European Commission that covered 15 years experience with biotech products along with more recent reports by the WHO, the French and British Academies of Medicine and other renowned institutes.

"That food made from biotech crops is safe for human and animal consumption is not exactly news," he said.

"We hope that the European policymakers who have insisted on verifying this fact again will now act in accordance with the findings in the form of more timely and actual approvals of biotech products.

"Now that we have once again (re-)ascertained the safety of biotech foods, let's give consumers the opportunity to choose among a variety of safe foods produced with the help of modern biotechnology... let's get these products approved," he said.

Comment from Friends of the Earth Europe:

Contrary to press reports, the summary results do not indicate that the study is saying that GM crops are safe.

However the summary results do appear to ignore all scientific controversy around impact assessment of GM crops - not suprising as the JRC is known for biased research that supports Commission policy. Despite the Commission going on about how independent the JRC is, any report by the JRC is always sent to the Commission before publication and we know from previous cases that the Commission can make substantial changes. This report does not seem to be much of a big deal - the European Commission is basically agreeing with what EFSA says: no big suprise there!

USA: Is the FDA doing its job?

Published by the Norwegian development journal "Bistandsaktuelt", 15 September 2008. By Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero.

[Ruiz Marrero is founder and director of the Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety. http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com]

The main argument of defenders of products derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO's) is that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined in 1992 that they are safe and therefore need no further safety testing.

The FDA refused to allow the public to view the internal documents related to these tests, which caused in 1998 a lawsuit by a coalition of civil society and public interest groups headed by the Alliance for Biointegrity demanding that these be made public. The judge ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, resulting in the release of over 44,000 pages of documents. These show that contrary to the agency's top officials' assurances, staff scientists had major misgivings about the safety of GM foods.

The declassified documents are revealing and extremely interesting. In one of them, dated March 6 1992, microbiologist Louis Pribyl says that "The unintended effects cannot be written off so easily by just implying that they too occur in traditional breeding. There is a profound difference between the types of unintended effects of traditional breeding and genetic engineering."

Compliance officer Linda Kahl warned in a memo dated January 8 1992 that by "trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices" the FDA was "trying to fit a square peg into a round hole... The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."

The man put in charge of overseeing the GMO evaluations at the FDA, Michael Taylor, was not a scientist but a lawyer. He had previously represented US biotechnology giant Monsanto. After leaving the FDA he went back to his private practice, eventually becoming Monsanto's vice president. This is a classic case of the revolving door syndrome, the conflict of interest caused by the constant movement of professionals back and forth between the private and public sectors.

Taylor's case is in no way unique. US Supreme Court judge Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto lawyer. Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was for eight years the CEO of the Searle pharmaceutical company, which Monsanto bought in 1985. And Anne Veneman, first agriculture secretary of the Bush-Cheney administration, was a member of the board of directors of the Calgene corporation, bought by Monsanto in 1997.

Activist and researcher Beth Burrows, president of the Edmonds Institute, investigated for years the biotechnology revolving door in the United States but eventually gave it up, reasoning that it would be more useful to document cases of public servants that were NOT moving into the biotechnology industry.

Michael Taylor's direct supervisor at the FDA was James Maryanski. French film maker Marie Monique Robin confronted him in her recent documentary Le Monde Selon Monsanto [The World According to Monsanto] regarding the internal memoranda that indicated that staff scientists had doubts about the safety of GM foods. Marynski acknowledged the dissent but stated that in the end everyone agreed GM was perfectly safe.

The FDA is required to approve a food or medication only if there is a broad consensus among its staff about its safety and if there is a substantial body of peer reviewed studies supporting its safety. GM foods did not meet either requirement.

REFERENCES:

Cummins, Claire. "Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds". Beacon Press, 2008.

Edmonds Institute revolving door database. http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html

Robin, Marie Monique. Le Monde Selon Monsanto. http://www.arte.tv/lemondeselonmonsanto

Smith, Jeffrey. "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods". Yes! Books, 2007.

Slow Food Nation interview: Andrew Kimbrell
The GMO industry has been scraping by on bad science

Gristmill, 15 September 2008. Posted by Tom Philpott.

In 2002, a most unlikely book came out: an oversized, lushly produced, coffee-table tome on the ills of mass-scale, chemical-intensive agriculture.

Grandly titled Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture, the book contained stark photos of highly mechanized, monocrop farming, along with pungent, probing essays by Wendell Berry, Wes Jackson, and other seminal thinkers of the agrarian school.

I got my hands on Fatal Harvest when I first started farming in 2004. It helped crystallize and shape my ideas around agriculture, providing me with a vocabulary and a tradition from which to begin writing.

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, was the force and vision behind Fatal Harvest. A lawyer by training, he has been investigating the doings of agribusiness for 30 years. His main focus has been the stunning rise of the genetically modified seed industry. As Kimbrell has shown, the GMO seed giants (mainly Monsanto) have managed to foist their wares into our farm fields and onto our plates with at best minimal public oversight.

And guess what? The mapping of the human genome revealed that the GMO giants got the science wrong: the relationship between organisms and individual genes is much more complex and mysterious than researchers originally thought. And that, Kimbrell says in this interview, helps explain why after 25 years of R&D, the GMO industry has only managed to create a couple of viable traits. The main one, of course, is "herbicide tolerance," e.g., Monsanto's Round Up Ready corn and soy, engineered to withstand copious lashings of its flagship herbicide, Round Up.

See the video interview at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/12/63959/6573

The Philippines: Greenpeace's Rice Campaign gets an exhibition in the Senate

PR Inside.com, 15 September 2008.

Manila -- Greenpeace calls on Senate to ban genetically-modified (GMO) rice.

Greenpeace today called on the Philippine Senate to enact a legislation to ban the commercialization of genetically-modified rice (GMO) rice. The call was made at the opening of a photo exhibit in the Senate halls, featuring the importance of rice in Filipino life and culture and why it must be protected from risky genetic modification.

"Greenpeace is here at the Senate to lobby our senators to enact a legislation to protect our most important staple food from the inherent risks of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is an unproven, unpredictable and unnecessary technology. The resulting genetically-modified food crops threaten human health, the environment, and farmers' livelihoods," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering Campaigner Daniel Ocampo.

Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs are products of genetic engineering in which the genes of one species are inserted randomly into the DNA of an entirely different organism in a way that can never happen naturally. An example is a tomato inserted with genes from a fish to create a vegetable with a longer shelf life, or corn inserted with bacteria genes to create a crop that has its own built-in insecticide. Aside from the fact that the resulting living GMO would never occur in the natural world, the new organism created becomes a living experiment-it is unpredictable and its long term effects on the environment and human health are unknown.

Greenpeace has been actively campaigning against the commercialization of GMOs in the country and is currently questioning the Department of Agriculture's (DA) regulation process for GMO crops, which, aside from being unconstitutional, lacks transparency and appears to be heavily influenced by corporate interests rather than the protection of consumers and farmers. During the past few years, the environment group has noted with growing alarm how the regulatory bodies for GMO crops, the DA as well as the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), have never rejected an application of a GMO despite documented cases on questions of their safety and rejection by other countries, even by countries where they were developed.

Last year, Greenpeace also released a report which details how almost all key personalities involved in regulating the entry of GMOs in the Philippines are members of pro-GMO lobby groups funded directly or indirectly by multinational GMO corporations, or have been involved in research projects and GMO-promotion activities sponsored by GMO lobby groups, or directly by GMO manufacturers. In the six years since GMOs have been approved in the country, the DA has been approving GMOs at a rate of almost one every month, without adequate public consultation or information.

Greenpeace believes that rice is now under threat. Currently no GMO rice is authorized for commercialization in the Philippines but the environment group has documented that such experimental rice from the United States has entered the country's food chain at least twice in the past three years. The DA has denied both instances but has refused to conduct stringent testing on the said US rice. The GMO rice strain in the US rice was the result of an abandoned experiment, and its contamination of rice stocks created a major scandal that prompted countries to reject US rice imports in 2006 and 2007.

At present, an application for GMO rice is pending at the DA, but in 2007, petitioners, supported by Greenpeace and SEARICE filed a court case questioning the constitutionality of the existing regulatory process for GMOs, as well as the lack of public participation in the said approval process. This led, in September 2007, to the granting of a preliminary writ of injunction on the application of the GMO rice. The court case is currently on-going.

"The Philippines is a center for rice biodiversity and rice is our most important food. The clear message then is that the government must reject GMOs and instead look toward a future of farming and food production grounded on the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity, and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food," said Ocampo.

Note:

The exhibition, which features 18 photographs depicting rice rituals of Indigenous Peoples in Ifugao and Sarangani Provinces, rice festivals, and rice farming, aims to promote awareness about our Filipino rice heritage.

The exhibition will be displayed at the Senate building's second floor hallway until Thursday, September 18. Senator Ma. Consuelo Madrigal was the guest of honor at the opening and ribbon-cutting held today.

For more information:

Daniel Ocampo, Genetic Engineering Campaigner, +63 917 897 6416
Lea Guerrero, Media Campaigner, +63 2 434 7034 loc 121+63 920 250 6877

Author:

Adelaida Bulaon
e-mail
Web: www.balitapinoy.net Phone: +4420 7207 6145

USA: Tell Hershey's to kiss GM sugar goodbye!
Stop the double standard and reject GM beet sugar as it did in Brazil

Ecological Farming Association Action Alert

Consumers in Brazil can now eat Hershey's Kissesô without fear of GM contamination.Ý Unfortunately, that is not the case for US consumers.Ý Several weeks ago, Hershey's in Brazil announced that it will not use GM ingredients, including GM beet sugar, in the products it makes in Brazil, but it remains silent about its plans in the US.

US farmers planted GM sugar beet crops for the first time this year.Ý These Roundup ReadyÆ GM sugar beets are genetically altered to resist Monsanto's toxic weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate.Ý But here's the scary part:

Ý When the USDA first approved the planting of GM sugar beets, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on the beet roots (from which sugar is extracted) by a staggering 5,000%!Ý This EPA policy change was made at the request of Monsanto, producer of GM sugar beet seeds.

What this means for consumers is that the more GM ingredients permitted in our foods, the greater the likelihood that we are ingesting more toxic chemicals.Ý What's worse is that there will be no way to know if we're eating GM beet sugar once it hits the market, which could happen as early as next year, because GM ingredients are NOT labeled.

Ý In 2001, Hershey's announced that it would not use GM beet sugar, but the company has been noticeably silent on the issue ever since.Ý A double standard is not likely to prevail in the US, where members like you have sent more than a hundred thousand letters to food companies asking them to publicly refuse to use GM sugar in their products.

Tell Hershey's to Kiss GM Sugar Goodbye!Ý Write a letter to Hershey's urging the company to publicly reject the use of GM sugar in its chocolates and other sweets. Ý

Sample Letter to Send to Hershey's

Subject: GM beet Sugar

As someone who actively avoids buying genetically engineered foods, due to the threats they pose to human health, family farmers and the environment, I know sugar has beenÝ one of the few, pure ingredients I could count on to not be GM. Without labels on GM products, I have to rely upon public company statements that they will avoid GM ingredients in their products to inform the purchasing decisions I make for myself and my family.

As you know, Hershey's in Brazil recently announced that it will not use GM ingredients, including GE beet sugar, in the products it makes in Brazil, but the company remains silent about its plans in the US.Ý For US consumers this is a disappointing double standard, particularly in light of the widespread consumer opposition to GM foods that exists in this country as well.

Several years ago, Hershey's told U.S. consumers it would not use genetically engineered sugar. But now that sugar beets are being planted commercially in the US, you have made no such public assurances.

Please afford US customers the same protections afforded to those in Brazil, and pledge to avoid the use of GM beet sugar in your products.

Hershey's Email: PR@hersheys.com

Hershey's Address:

100 Crystal A Drive
Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033-0810
Telephone: (717) 534-6799
Toll Free: 800-539-0261
Fax: (717) 534-6760

New research rocks base of AgBiotech

Gene News (editorial), 15 September 2008. By Dr. Suman Sahai.

A paper published in June 2007 by a consortium of scientists from 80 research organisations has provided evidence that genes do not necessarily behave in a linear fashion with information flowing one way, from DNA to RNA to protein, as was thought till now. This central dogma that has been the bedrock of genetics and the foundation on which the genetic engineering industry is based, has been challenged by a growing collection of data but scientists have been reluctant to revise the scientific principles established by the Watson-Crick discovery of the structure of DNA and the subsequent understanding of gene function.

Now, unequivocal evidence comes from research organised by the US National Human Genome Research Institute, which has found that the human genome is not really a clear and organised set of genes but rather a tangle of overlapping, interacting genetic material that functions as a complex network, with highly nuanced gene regulation. Almost none of these mechanisms are understood. Not being able to predict how genes will behave strikes at the very basis of using genetic engineering as a tool to create new products. The biotechnology industry is built on the linear model of the "one gene, one protein" principle, postulated by scientists who created recombinant DNA in the 1970s. Earlier, it was thought that genes had clearly defined functions, therefore a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into any other organism, however unrelated, and carry on its prescribed business. In this way, the Bt gene that produces a toxin in a soil bacterium is presumed to perform exactly the same function when inserted into cotton, or rice plants.

The new research shows that this assumption cannot be upheld. The use of genetic engineering to create new products rests on the presumption that there is a universal, genetic code that sets the rules for creating proteins from DNA and that the rules are virtually identical across all organisms. Even before this research on the human genome, the theory of a uniform system for making new proteins was challenged by a number of

scientific discoveries like the presence of large amounts of 'junk DNA' in all organisms and the fact that the highly complex human organism was found to have just 30,000 genes, a fairly small number considering the myriad functions a human being performs.

The new research casts the spotlight on the role of 'junk DNA', the large amounts of DNA detected during genome sequencing for which no clear functions can be ascribed. It is now accepted that the so-called "junk" DNA has a key regulatory role and it is of critical importance in regulating gene expression in organisms, a process about which there is as yet little understanding.

Apart from the new evidence and the presence of junk DNA, there are other findings that challenge the one gene-one protein foundation of agricultural biotechnology. One of these is the discovery that DNA is not the sole hereditary material and not the only means of transmitting information for new protein synthesis.

Understanding of the Mad Cow Disease and its link with the human Jakob-Creutzfeldt disease shows that both diseases can be passed from generation to generation not via genes, but via a protein molecule called a 'prion'. Pioneering work done in the US by Stanley Prusiner, Susan Lindquist and Eric Kandel indicates that prions mediate a form of protein-based information flow, which seems to be important in a variety of biological processes. To all this, if we add what is being discovered about the other ways in which RNA acts and the process of RNA interference, the reliability of genetic engineering becomes questionable. RNA's normal role is to carry a message from the DNA to the cytoplasm where it provides the direction for making proteins. Now it appears that ordinary RNA can enter a cell, seek out a gene's protein making template and then destroy it. This process is called RNA interference.

A complex, interactive network of genetic material incorporating so-called 'junk DNA', prions as units of heredity and the phenomenon of RNA interference, invalidates the premise on which agricultural (and other) biotechnology has been founded. Evidence that gene expression is complex and non-linear begins to explain why so many things go wrong during the process of genetic engineering and why predicting its outcome remains a gamble. This opens up the question about the extent to which genetic engineering can be considered accurate and predictable as a 'manufacturing process'. What else is transmitted along with genes and how do these factors determine the outcome? How do genes actually function in the new environment and can one ever hope to control the complex regulatory mechanisms that come into play once a gene, or many genes, are engineered into another background?

14 September 2008

Ireland: the risks of GM food crops are too great

The Sunday Times (Ireland), letters, 14 September 2008.

Your Think Tank (Ireland, a hub for GM meds?), Comment last week) promotes the introduction of GM "pharma" crops", which are modified to produce prescription drugs such as blood thinners and clotters and contraceptives.

Their commercial release is banned in the EU, but the agri-biotech industry sees them as a potential goldmine and wants European Commission approval.

We already know that GM contamination of the food chain and environment occurs at all stages of the production cycle and in some areas has become endemic (e.g. Brazilian soya, Canadian rape and maize in parts of Spain). When it penetrates breeders' seed stocks, and even the soil, this contamination becomes permanent and can be catastrophic.

Sean Duke, the author of the article and joint editor of Science Spin, imagines that GM pharma contamination of the food chain can be prevented by cultivation in greenhouses. But what if the GM pharma pollen escapes through an open window, on the wings of a fly, or on a lab worker's clothes? What if their seeds get mixed up with those of conventional food crops, and are accidentally planted?

The introduction of GM crops of any kind in Ireland would lead to consumer boycotts of Irish food like the one against Kellogg's GM corn flakes in America.

The claim by the agri-biotech brigade that there is "no evidence" of any environmental or health risks is indefensible.

Michael O'Callaghan
Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The Times' editor shortened and modified this letter. Here is the original version:

Sean Duke's article "Ireland, a hub for GM meds" (Sunday Times Irish edition, 7 September 2008) promotes the introduction of GM "pharma crops", which are modified to produce prescription drugs (such as blood thinners, blood clotters and contraceptives), industrial chemicals, and agro-fuels. Their commercial release is banned in the EU, but the agri-biotech industry sees them as a potential gold mine, and wants the European Commission to approve them.

216 reports from 57 countries published in the GM Contamination Register (www.gmcontaminationregister.org) prove that GM crops contaminate the food chain via pollen drift, seed dispersal, as well as storage and transportation. The US National Academy of Sciences has warned in two reports that GM pharma food crops are virtually certain to contaminate the food supply.

In the USA, ProdiGene Inc., was ordered to pay more than $3 million in penalties and cleanup costs in 2002 after mismanaging field trials of pharmaceutical crops. Farmers effectively stopped outdoor cultivation of "pharma rice," concerned that the drug-plants would contaminate their food-grade crops and make them unmarketable. Last year, the US rice industry lost US$1.5 billion due to product recalls and lost export markets after an untested and illegal GM rice variety which escaped from a 1998 field trial in Arkansas subsequently contaminated rice sold by retailers around the world, including the UK and Ireland. The introduction of GM food crops in Ireland would lead to consumer boycotts of Irish food like the one against Kellogg's GM corn flakes in the USA.

Sean Duke imagines that GM contamination can be prevented by cultivation in greenhouses. But what if the GM pharma pollen escapes through an open window, on the wings of a fly, or on a lab worker's clothes? What if GM pharma seeds get mixed up with those of conventional food crops? This would strike a devastating and possibly irreversible blow to our food, farm and tourism sectors in the Republic and Northern Ireland.

Members of the Irish agri-biotech brigade like Sean Duke, Phil Dix of NUI Maynooth, Jimmy Burke of Teagasc, and David McConnell of TCD keep repeating the claim that there is "no evidence" of any environmental or health risks associated with GM food and farming. Such claims bring to mind the verse from Bob Dylan's song "Blowing in the Wind":

How many times can a man turn his head
and pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind,
the answer is blowing in the wind.

_______________________

Scotland urges UK-wide ban on GM crops
Defra thwarting devolved nations' policy, say ministers

The Herald, 14 September 2008. By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

SCOTTISH MINISTERS are putting mounting pressure on the UK government to end its support for GM crops now that Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have all agreed to become GM-free.

In the wake of the latest GM crop contamination revealed on Friday, the Scottish environment minister, Michael Russell, is urging Whitehall to alter its stance to take account of the strong opposition to genetically modified crops in all the devolved administrations.

His call has been welcomed by anti-GM groups, though they argue he should go further. The GM concordat agreed by the devolved administrations just before the last Scottish election should now be renegotiated, they say.

At a conference in Dublin last week, the agriculture ministers of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland both declared that they wanted their countries to be GM-free. This follows similar commitments from the Scottish and Welsh governments.

"I'm very encouraged by the strong all-Ireland stance that is being taken, and it chimes perfectly with our stance and that of Wales," Russell told the Sunday Herald. "The political dynamic of the GM debate in these islands has changed profoundly over the last year and it is time that the UK government woke up to the fact."

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in London stressed that it wasn't for or against GM crops. It believed in assessing each application on its merits without blanket approval or rejection.

A Defra spokesman pointed out that the Scottish government was responsible for authorising GM crop trials north of the Border.

Applications for commercial releases, however, were decided by the European Union, where the UK is represented by Defra. "The government is aware of the position of the Scottish Executive and discusses these issues regularly," the Defra spokesman said.

Pete Riley from GM Freeze argued that Defra's position was undemocratic. "It's a bit rich for the government in London to override Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast," he said.

The GM concordat between the devolved administrations had been negotiated in a hurry early last year between the then Labour administrations to protect the future of GM, Riley alleged. "It was stacked in London's favour, and it should now be renegotiated."

The concordat, dated April 2007, says that "every effort" should be made to arrive at an agreed UK position on GM. But if that failed "the UK negotiating position should be set by the UK government on the basis of expert scientific advice, and taking into account the views of the devolved administrations".

Riley also called for an investigation into how rapeseed planted on three test plots in Aberdeenshire and near Arbroath had come to be contaminated with GM. The Scottish government announced on Friday the contaminated crops would be destroyed.

A batch of conventional rapeseed being grown in trials was found to be contaminated with a genetically modified herbicide-tolerant variety made by the GM giant, Monsanto.

13 September 2008

Irish visit by Erin Brockovich

Irish Times (Horizons), 13 September 2008. By Sylvia Thompson.

The public talk by American campaigner, Erin Brockovich in the O'Reilly Hall, UCD, Belfield, Dublin, at 1pm next Saturday is sure to be the highlight of this year's National Organic Week, which runs from Monday to Saturday.

Brockovich is famous for an investigation which established that residents of Hinkley, California, had been exposed to toxic Chromium 6 as a result of a leak into the groundwater from a nearby Pacific Gas and Electric Company plant. In 1996, as a result a huge lawsuit, the company paid the largest toxic tort injury settlement in American history. Brockovich will speak about the power of one individual to create lasting change, the importance of truth-telling and transparency in high places, the feminine approach to tackling problems and the future of organic food.

Tickets at €27.65 are available from www.ticketmaster.ie or 0818-719300.

All proceeds from the event will be donated to the GM Free Ireland Network.

Scotland: Probe call after GM oilseed rape sown by mistake
Risk to the environment could have been very serious, says Minister

The Press and Journal, 13 September 2008. By Tim Pauling.

The debate over genetically-modified crops has erupted again after it was revealed they had been mistakenly sown in Tayside and Grampian.

Environment Minister Michael Russell said the incident posed a "serious risk" to the environment. Green campaigners expressed their horror and called for an investigation to ensure it did not happen again.

It was revealed yesterday that trial sowings of a new variety of oilseed rape at two sites in Aberdeenshire and one near Arbroath were found to contain small amounts of unauthorised genetically-modified (GM) material.

Further sowings of the seed have been stopped. The plants at the three trial sites will be destroyed as will the remaining seeds.

It is understood the seeds came from America where the use of GM crops is widespread.

Mr Russell said: "Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious.

"This further emphasises the continuing need for rigorous controls on GM material and for Scotland to remain a GM crop-free zone.

"The Scottish Government is working with stakeholders to understand how this occurred and to ensure that it never happens again."

Aberdeen City Council deputy leader Kevin Stewart, a key member behind the now-defunct Grampian Against GM, said he was "horrified" by the incident but glad action had been taken quickly to destroy the crop.

"This could have been extremely serious and could have resulted in cross-contamination elsewhere," he said. "I think this quite clearly shows that the GM companies have not got this right and it is appalling that ordinary, normal seeds are being contaminated by GM seeds."

Another anti-GM campaigner, Aberdeen North SNP MSP Brian Adam, said he was not confident seeds from the US were GM-free.

"I think it will give Scotland's agriculture an edge, in terms of marketing, in being GM-free, but these incidents are not helpful," he said.

Friends of the Earth Scotland director Duncan McLaren said: "There must be an urgent investigation to find out how this incident occurred, how it can be prevented from happening again, and what guarantees can be given that it is not part of a wider problem."

But farmers said GM crops may help guarantee food security.

A spokeswoman for NFU Scotland said: "NFU Scotland agrees the current EU rules relating to cultivation of GM crops should not be breached. However, the time has clearly come for there to be a sensible and scientifically-based discussion on the role of biotechnology in agriculture."

12 September 2008

Scotland destroys GM seeds with 'very serious risk'

WebIndia.com, 12 September 2008. By Dipankar De Sarkar.

The Scottish government Friday ordered an immediate halt to scientific trials from a batch of genetically modified (GM) rapeseed, saying they could have posed a "very serious risk" to the environment.

The new variety of herbicide-tolerant rapeseed contained "small amounts" of unauthorised GM material, the provincial government disclosed.

It said sowing of seeds from that batch has been halted and plants on the three trial sites will be destroyed.

The situation is contained and there are no current risks to human or animal health or to the environment, the government said.

GM crop cultivation is banned throughout Europe unless there is explicit approval under one of two laws - the GM Food and Feed Regulation (1829/2003) or the Deliberate Release of GMOs into the Environment Directive 2001/18/EC.

In addition, strict regulations require any authorised GM which is marketed to conform to traceability and labelling standards.

Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious, Scotland's Minister for Environment Michael Russell said, adding his government was trying to understand how this occurred and to ensure that it never happens again.

Authorities said the rapeseed sample was due to have been sown at trial sites in England and Scotland, but added: This will now not happen and the seed has been sent to the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) Seed Handling Unit for destruction.

However, the same batch of seed has also been used for three additional trials which have been recently sown, authorities said.

Although these sowings represents a technical breach of the GM regulations, they do not represent any current risk to human or animal heath or to the environment. A risk to the environment would only be present if the plants were allowed to mature and produce pollen and set seed which could spread or persist in the environment.

Inspectors from the Scottish government's GM Inspectorate will ensure that the plants are destroyed, they said.

Scotland: GM mix-up 'posed very serious risk'

The Independent (UK), 12 September 2008. By Joe Quinn, PA.

Genetically-modified seeds were wrongly sown at three locations in Scotland, posing a "very serious risk" to the environment, the Scottish Government said today.

The new variety of oilseed rape contained "small amounts" of unauthorised GM material, it was disclosed.

Sowing of seeds from that batch has been halted and plants on the three trial sites will be destroyed.

The Scottish Government announcement did not say how the blunder had happened but said the risk to the environment had been averted.

"The situation is contained and there are no current risks to human or animal health or to the environment," it said.

Scottish Environment Minister Mike Russell said: "Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious.

"However, prompt action by the Scottish Government is ensuring that the situation is remedied.

"This further emphasises the continuing need for rigorous controls on GM material and for Scotland to remain a GM crop-free zone.

"The Scottish Government is working with stakeholders to understand how this occurred and to ensure that it never happens again."

Officials said a seed sample of a conventional oilseed rape submitted to a UK national trialling programme contained small amounts of a genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape.

This was to have been sown at trial sites in England and Scotland but that would not now happen and the seeds would be destroyed.

But seed from the same batch had already been sown at three additional sites - two in Aberdeenshire and one near Arbroath.

"Although these sowings represent a technical breach of the GM regulations, they do not represent any current risk to human or animal health or to the environment," said the Scottish Government.

It said there would only be an environmental risk if plants were allowed to mature and produce pollen and set seed, and that Scottish Government inspectors would ensure the plants were destroyed.

Environmental campaigners said the episode showed that safety regulations were "far too weak" despite assurances from the biotechnology industry.

Duncan McLaren, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "There must be an urgent investigation to find out how this incident occurred, how it can be prevented from happening again, and what guarantees can be given that it is not part of a wider problem.

"GM is not the solution to the challenges faced by our food and farming industry.

"The Government must listen to consumers and back safe, sustainable and locally-produced food."

Scotland: NFUS questions Scottish government GM policy

Farm Business, 12 September 2008.

The Scottish government and NFU Scotland appear to be on something of a collision course on GM policy.

Although the NFU has supported the government in dealing with a breach of GM rules, its remarks on the need to maintain a "GM-free" Scotland do not appear to have the full support of the union.

The government announced today (Fri) that "corrective measures" had been taken after trial sowings of a new variety of oilseed rape in Scotland were found to contain small amounts of unauthorised GM material.

Further sowings of the batch of seed have been stopped and plants on the three trial plots will be destroyed.

The new conventional oilseed rape variety had apparently been submitted into the UK's National List trialling programme but found to contain small amounts of a genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape which had not been approved for use in the EU.

This seed sample was due to have been sown at national list trial sites in England and Scotland but this will not now happen and the remaining seed has been sent to the NIAB Seed Handling Unit for destruction.

The same batch of seed has also been used for three additional trials which have been recently sown, two in Aberdeenshire and one near Arbroath, and these will also be destroyed.

"Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious," said environment minister Michael Russell.

"This further emphasises the continuing need for rigourous controls on GM material and for Scotland to remain a GM crop-free zone."

NFU Scotland, however, suggests the incident has brought the GM issue to a head.

"We agree that the current EU rules relating to cultivation of GM crops should not be breached, however, the time has clearly come for there to be a sensible and scientifically based discussion on the role of biotechnology in agriculture," said the union.

"We are very lucky to have a world class scientific research base in Scotland and we should make the most of it so that we can decide for ourselves whether these crops and technologies show the way forward.

"This is particularly important in a world where we cannot guarantee a secure supply of food."

Scotland: GM plants found in Scottish fields

The Scotsman, 12 September 2008. By Jenny Hayworth.

GENETICALLY modified seed-lings have been discovered growing among oilseed rape in three fields in Scotland. GM crops are banned from Scotland but the rogue seedlings have been found amid crops in two fields in Aberdeenshire and another near Arbroath. It is only the second time such plants have been discovered growing in the country.

Swift action has been taken to remove and destroy the contaminated seedlings, a variety created by GM giant Monsanto.

Mike Russell, the environment minister, said there was no risk to health or the environment but Friends of the Earth Scotland said it was another reason not to trust the companies behind GM crops.

The rogue seedlings were found in three fields where trials were going on into a new type of conventional oilseed rape by the Scottish Agricultural College and the British Society of Plant Breeders.

If the plants had grown large enough to flower, seeds could have spread, contaminating other crops and causing chaos for the farming industry. Mr Russell said: "Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious. However, prompt action by the Scottish Government is ensuring that the situation is remedied. This further emphasises the continuing need for rigorous controls on GM material and for Scotland to remain a GM crop-free zone.

"The Scottish Government is working to understand how this occurred and to ensure it never happens again."

A Scottish Government spokesman said there was no suggestion the GM crop had been planted intentionally, but that it was probably due to a mix- up with the seed. A Monsanto spokesman said that, although the firm developed the gene in the crop, it did not supply it to these trials.There was "no risk" of the crop spreading in the wind because they were sown under the ground using a seed drill. They were too young to have produced flowers and seeds that could have spread. He added that by banning GM crops, the Scottish Government was "denying" farmers the ability to be able to compete by using the most efficient and safest methods.

But Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said they were an unnecessary expensive distraction from real food security issues.

He added: "This is the industry that tells us it can control cross contamination of GM into other crops, but which can't even control cross contamination into its own seed supply system.

"We have seen repeatedly that the GM industry is incapable of meeting the claims it makes, whether that's about the benefits of the crops or, as in this case, about their ability to control the accidental contamination of other crops with GM material."

NFU Scotland president Jim McLaren said: "We are very lucky to have a world-class scientific research base in Scotland and we should make the most of it so we can decide for ourselves whether these crops and technologies show the way forward."

Scotland: Time to consider use of GM
It's way forward, says former EU farm commissioner

The Press and Journal, 12 September 2008. By Joe Watson in Austria.

EUROPE'S former farming commissioner has said that biotech crops might be the only way for the world to feed itself - if climate change keeps accelerating.

Franz Fischler also said the time had come for a new debate on the controversial issue of using genetically modified plants in Europe.

He told the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists congress in Austria that the discussion on GM had become ideological, rather than based on fact.

Mr Fischler said that, with all international experts pointing to increasing climate change, the use of GM had to be considered.

He added: "The real challenge is just how fast climate change is and how fast nature can adapt to that. If climate change is faster than nature can adapt, then the only way out for us is to use biotech.

"It is important to think about the fundamentals (of GM). This is what is needed. We need a more realistic approach to the discussion."

Mr Fischler questioned why the various approaches taken to food safety globally were not used for GM and an entirely different stance taken - particularly in Europe where resistance to the technology remained considerable.

He said the biggest problem up to now in gaining consumer support for biotech in Europe had been in the agricultural sector and those behind the technology being unable to communicate the benefits of it. "If you can buy a non-GM product for the same price you can get a GM product for in a supermarket, then there is no chance of GM succeeding," he added.

He was in no doubt that GM was the way forward. "We should not ignore the problems that are ahead of us. Biotech must play a role if we are serious."

The former commissioner saw particular uses for biotech in providing the fuels of the future.

New Zealand: GM not OK, we're not sure who would pay

The Northern Advocate, 12 September 2008. By Mike Dinsdale.

Whangarei District Council wants a ban on genetically modified organism releases or field trials until the issue of who pays if things go wrong is sorted out.

The council voted unanimously this week to support an inter-council working party recommendation to prohibit GMO and genetic engineering trials and release until a range of concerns were satisfied.

The council led the way on establishing that liability for GMO trials which went wrong would lie with local authorities, after it helped fund a legal opinion in 2004.

Since then the council has helped set up the inter-council working party on GMOs with Auckland city and regional councils, the Far North, Kaipara and Rodney district councils, Waitakere city and Northland regional councils.

North Shore City Council is an observer.

WDC environment manager Paul Dell said the recommendation was not about whether people thought genetic engineering was good or bad.

"It's about the issue of accountability when things go wrong.

"The council's view has always been that the risks are there," Mr Dell said.

Mayor Stan Semenoff strongly endorsed the move to ban GMO field trials and releases until the issues are resolved.

Possible GMOs include transgenic livestock, genetically modified vegetables, ryegrass, pine trees, and a genetically engineered vaccine for horse flu.

Mr Semenoff said within New Zealand, research so far had been confined to laboratories or contained field trials.

However, the next stage in the development of genetically modified plants and animals is likely to be pre-commercial conditional releases to the environment.

"The working party found if the Northland/Auckland region was included in any of these applications, it would effectively be too late for (those) councils to prevent the release should it be approved by the national regulator, ERMA."

"Any chance of the region remaining GE-free, until the issues of liability are resolved, would be lost," he said.

Mr Semenoff said there were serious concerns in Auckland and Northland local government over the release of GMOs.

Urgent action was needed to prevent their release.

"Central government should have put a stop to any chance of the release of GMOs into the environment nationally until the issues surrounding them are resolved.

"But it has not had the backbone," he said.

"If there is a change of government, I will be sitting on their doorstep wanting action. Significant concerns have been raised here.

"For example: herbicide-resistant ryegrass getting into our waterways. How would we deal with that?"

The working party will request the Auckland and Northland regional councils add provisions to their regional policy statements to prohibit field trials or releases of GMOs in their areas until outstanding issues are resolved.

Scotland: Wrongly sown GM seeds 'posed risk'

Press Association, 12 September 2008

Genetically modified seeds were wrongly sown at three locations in Scotland, posing a "very serious risk" to the environment, the Scottish Government said.

The new variety of oilseed rape contained "small amounts" of unauthorised GM material, it was disclosed.

Sowing of seeds from that batch has been halted and plants on the three trial sites will be destroyed.

Scotland: Seeds "a threat to UK eco-system"

PA Business, 12 September 2008.

The UK environment was put under "very serious risk" when genetically modified seeds were wrongly sown at three locations in Scotland, the Scottish Government has said.

The new variety of oilseed rape contained "small amounts" of unauthorised GM material. Holyrood did not say how the blunder had happened but said the risk to the environment had been averted.

Sowing of seeds from that batch was halted and plants on the three trial sites will be destroyed.

According to the Scottish Government: "The situation is contained and there are no current risks to human or animal health or to the environment."

Scottish Environment Minister Mike Russell said: "Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious. However, prompt action by the Scottish Government is ensuring that the situation is remedied.

"This further emphasises the continuing need for rigorous controls on GM material and for Scotland to remain a GM crop-free zone. The Scottish Government is working with stakeholders to understand how this occurred and to ensure that it never happens again."

Officials said a seed sample of a conventional oilseed rape submitted to a UK national trialling programme contained small amounts of a genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape.

This was to have been sown at trial sites in England and Scotland but that would not now happen and the seeds would be destroyed.

Scotland: Unauthorised GM release

The Scottish Government, 12 September 2008

Corrective measures have been taken after trial sowings of a new variety of oilseed rape in Scotland were found to contain small amounts of unauthorised GM material.

The situation is contained and there are no current risks to human or animal health or to the environment.

Further sowings of this batch of seed have been stopped. Plants on the three trial plots will be destroyed.

Minister for Environment Michael Russell said:

"Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious.

"However, prompt action by the Scottish Government is ensuring that the situation is remedied.

"This further emphasises the continuing need for rigourous controls on GM material and for Scotland to remain a GM crop-free zone.

"The Scottish Government are working with stakeholders to understand how this occurred and to ensure that it never happens again."

No GM crop may be grown in Europe unless it has explicit approval for cultivation granted under the GM Food and Feed Regulation (1829/2003) or the Deliberate Release of GMOs into the Environment Directive 2001/18/EC. Any authorised GM which is marketed also needs to conform to traceability and labelling requirements.

In this case, a seed sample of a new conventional oilseed rape variety submitted into the UK's National List trialling programme has been found to contain small amounts of a genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape.

This seed sample was due to have been sown at national list trial sites in England and Scotland. This will now not happen and the seed has been sent to the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) Seed Handling Unit for destruction.

However, the same batch of seed has also been used for three additional trials which have been recently sown. Two of these sites are in Aberdeenshire and one near Arbroath. Although these sowings represents a technical breach of the GM regulations, they do not represent any current risk to human or animal heath or to the environment. A risk to the environment would only be present if the plants were allowed to mature and produce pollen and set seed which could spread or persist in the environment.

Inspectors from the Scottish Government's GM Inspectorate will ensure that the plants are destroyed.

Scotland: 'Unauthorised' release of GM seed

BBC News, 12 September 2008

[image caption: The seed had been used at three sites in Scotland.]

Trial sowings of a new variety of oilseed rape in Scotland have been found to contain small amounts of unauthorised GM material.

The Scottish Government said there were no current risks to human or animal health or to the environment.

Plants on the three trial plots - two in Aberdeenshire and one near Arbroath in Angus - will be destroyed.

Friends of the Earth said it supported the government's "action to handle the situation".

The organisation's director, Duncan McLaren, added that in his view this was another example of the "lackadaisical attitude" of the GM industry.

Environment Minister Michael Russell said: "Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious.

However, prompt action by the Scottish Government is ensuring that the situation is remedied.

"This further emphasises the continuing need for rigorous controls on GM material and for Scotland to remain a GM crop-free zone."

He added that steps were being undertaken to understand how this had happened and to ensure that it does not happen again.

Specific authorisation

No GM crops can be grown in Europe without specific authorisation.

In this case, a seed sample of a conventional oilseed rape variety was found to contain small amounts of GM material.

It had been due to have been sown at national trial sites in Scotland and England. This will now not happen and the seed has been sent for destruction.

It had already been used at three trial sites in Scotland.

The Scottish Government said these would only have represented a risk to the environment had the plants been allowed to mature and set seed.

11 September 2008

African heritage crops threatened by South African GMO decision

African Centre for Biosafety and GRAIN press release, 12 September 2008.

Johannesburg à An Appeal Board established by the Minister of Land Affairs and Agriculture has overturned a landmark decision by a South African GMO authority on 15 June 2006, to refuse the experimentation of sorghum, a prized African heritage crop. The Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR), has now been given the go-ahead to proceed with the development of 'Super Sorghum' in a containment level three facility. The research is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's African Biofortified Sorghum (ABS) project. The Gates Foundation is also heavily funding the 'New Green Revolution for Africa', aimed at industrialising African agriculture.

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), which objected to the initial application by the CSIR, has condemned the decision, stating that experimentation with GM sorghum will inevitably result in the contamination of Africa's prized sorghum heritage. Haidee Swanby of the African Centre for Biosafety, comments: 'Sorghum is a key staple crop for over 500 million people on the continent. The risks posed by GM sorghum to wild and weedy relatives cannot be tolerated at all and the granting of this permit is tantamount to a licence to taint Africa's heritage.'

The ACB points out that the ABS project is being developed for commercial release and the CSIR will be seeking permission for field trials soon. The original objection of the GMO authority of 15 June 2006 was based on concerns regarding contamination of Africa's biodiversity. Containment in a level three facility will not negate these concerns for field trails, and the risks to African varieties remain.

Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, programme officer for GRAIN Africa, an organisation that promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity, concludes, 'It is not for the South African government to decide, on behalf of the rest of Africa, that they may approve an industrial project which will result in the inevitable contamination of Africa's astounding genetic diversity in sorghum. This crop has been developed and cared for by farmers for over 5 000 years.'

ENDS

For more information contact:

Haidee Swanby, African Centre for Biosafety, Researcher and Outreach Officer
+27 (0) 82 459 8548
haidee@polka.co.za
www.biosafetyafrica.net

Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, GRAIN Africa, Programme Officer
+27 (0) 82 413 0502
elfrieda@grain.org
www.grain.org

African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) is a non-profit organisation, working to protect Africa's biodiversity, traditional knowledge, food production systems, culture and diversity, from the threats posed by genetic engineering, biopiracy, agrofuels and generally, industrial agriculture. GRAIN is an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge.

South Africa: NGOs react to general release permit of GM potatoes in South Africa

Choike.org (portal on Southern civil societies), 11 September 2008. Source: African Centre for Biosafety

The African Centre for Biosafety objection challenged the results of the trials that say GM potato will benefit farmers, which it said were flawed both in their design and interpretation and questioned the socio-economic benefits of this potato to local commercial and small holder farmers in South Africa. September 2008. Download PDF: http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/portal/images/ACB/files/finalacbgmpotatoobjection.pdf

----

When in August 2002, the government of Zambia rejected a shipment of humanitarian aid because it contained genetically modified corn, it unleashed a new debate: Is the use of genetically modified foods justified in the alleviation of hunger in the world's poorest countries?

Genetic engineering of foods -a process whereby specific information is artificially transferred from one type of organism to another, regardless of the species- is one of the most disturbing and criticized aspects of biotechnological development. The industry that practices this technology claims that it is a way of contributing to feed the world, as if the hunger problem were the result of a lack of, instead of a maldistribution of, food.

The aim is to alter an organism's natural properties. For example, human genes have been spliced into pigs and fish to make them grow more rapidly. Genes are often transferred from one species to another; for instance, scorpion toxin genes have been inserted into corn in order for the plant to develop its own insecticide.

Pesticide-producing transgenic crops (e.g. corn) force pest populations to develop pesticide-resistance, which will lead to an increase in the use of toxic chemicals, whose residues will in turn accumulate in foods. Companies, for their part, are already preparing for such an outcome and demand that the authorized levels of residues be raised. All of this could bring about an uncontrollable situation.

Humans are already consuming GM foods, such as soy and corn. Both products are used in over 60% of the foods processed. Transgenic soy and corn can also be used unprocessed as feed for animals intended for human consumption.

This transgenic onslaught is headed by the transnational corporation Monsanto, the very same company that created and produced the Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war. Monsanto has developed, for example, the Roundup-Ready soy, designed to be resistant to the herbicide "Roundup", also manufactured by Monsanto. Some of this company's fields have been destroyed by activists opposed to genetic manipulation of foods.

Civil society is promoting a strong campaign against GM foods and in favor of protecting genetic resources, advocating food security and sovereignty. The campaign denounces the motives behind genetic modification as primarily commercial and political, and warns that it is not yet clear how GM food consumption will affect human health. The campaign calls for a moratorium on the marketing of GM products until the consequences of genetic manipulation are known.

Critics of genetic engineering say that the new patent laws are giving inventors of genetically modified crops a dangerous degree of control over food sources. In addition, several scientists have expressed their concern because they believe that genetic engineering is inherently hazardous and could produce new toxins in food crops or even generate new allergies among consumers.

At the same time, the campaign demands that all GM products that are already marketed be properly identified so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. Right now in many countries where GM products are sold -particularly in the South- it is not mandatory to label these products as such.

UN: Ban Lauds Fifth Anniversary of UN-Backed Biosafety Treaty

United Nations, 11 September 2008.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today commemorated the fifth anniversary of the United Nations-supported Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the first legally binding international treaty aimed at curbing possible harm from biotechnology to humans and biological diversity.

"It seeks to ensure that modern biotechnology is developed and applied in an environmentally sound manner, thus enabling humankind to derive maximum benefits while minimizing the potential risks to the environment and human health," Mr. Ban said in a message marking the occasion.

The pact, which he characterized as one of the world's key environmental agreements, also seeks to make the transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms safer.

The Secretary-General offered his congratulations to the 147 Parties to the instrument, calling on those nations who have yet to ratify or accede to the treaty to do so quickly.

"The Protocol was a major step forward in international efforts towards sustainable development," he said, adding that it will also play a crucial role in implementing Agenda 21, adopted in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The Protocol is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In May, over 2,000 people from nearly 150 countries gathered in Bonn, Germany, agreeing to work towards legally binding rules for liability and redress for potential damage caused by the movements of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

USA: New Generation of Drug-Producing GM Crops Could Threaten Food Supply and Devastate US Farmers

Natural News, 11 September 2008. By David Gutierrez.

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."

South Africa: GM potato "of no use" in SA

Supermarket.co.za, 11 September 2008.

A pest-resistant strain of genetically modified potato, earmarked for possible commercial release in South Africa, will be of no use to local spud farmers, said the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) this week. It will also increase risk to the farmer in an already volatile agricultural sector.

This statement was in response to the Agricultural Research Council's (ARC) application for permission to release the potato commercially.

A formal objection was made by the ACB to the Department of Agriculture (DoA) this week, and includes concerns expressed by key industry players, namely Potato SA, McCain Foods Limited, McDonald's, Spur, Simba and Fruit & Veg City. ACB director Mariam Mayet said the organisation objected to the proposed "general release" of the tuber moth resistant potato, SpuntaG2, for which the ARC was seeking permission to release under the Genetically Modified Organisms Act.

Should the ARC's application be approved, it will allow the ARC to make the SpuntaG2 potato available to South African farmers for general use, including commercial farming, thus allowing it to enter the food supply chain.

Farmers will be asked to participate in further tests on behalf of the ARC and monitor the potato's efficiency. "It is highly unusual for a GM rollout, and the first time we've seen this kind of application where agronomic assessments are done by farmers" said Mayet, from the ACB's offices in Johannesburg.

ACB and Potato SA questioned the appropriateness of the cultivar for South African conditions. "The tuber moth is not high on the list of problem pests for our farmers," explained Mayet. "This cultivar of potato appears to be a solution, developed in a foreign lab, to search for a problem that hardly exists in South Africa."

According to the ARC, this GM cultivar will help reduce tuber moth damage in the field as well as in stored potatoes. "But Potato SA tells us that this moth is ranked sixth in the list of priority pests and diseases, after leaf miner, late and early blight, scab and certain viruses. This is not a major problem for our farmers." Field trials have already been conducted locally on the SpuntaG2, which was engineered in the United States and contains a protein (CryIIa1) that kills the tuber moth. The ARC's permit application is on the strength of these trials.

The ACB objection challenged the results of the trials, which it said were flawed both in their design and interpretation. Furthermore, the lobby questioned the socio-economic benefits of this potato to local commercial and small holder farmers. Independent socio-economic studies found that this strain of

GM potato will not benefit the sector by reducing input costs of pesticides, nor reduce the resultant toxins in the environment, since the same chemicals used to control more serious pests are used to control the tuber moth. It will also increase risk for farmers because of a lack of consumer confidence in genetically modified organisms.

"Our farmers want new cultivars that are drought, pest and disease tolerant. But they don't list the tuber moth as a significant pest," concluded Mayet.

Consumer concern

A consumer petition was included in the ACB's objection submitted to the DoA, signed by over 2 100 people from around the country.

The overarching objection from the public is about the lack of labelling legislation in South Africa, in a context where GM foods are not proven to be safe.

"Consumers are outraged that they have no right to choose what they eat or feed their families because legislation does not require products to show on the labelling whether or not food contains genetically modified organisms," Mayet concluded.

Kenya civil society warns on dangers of importing GMOs

African PA, 11 September 2008

Nairobi (Kenya) - Ten civil society groups in Kenya on Thursday warned Kenyans that there is strong scientific proof that genetically modified foods (GMOs) are detrimental to human health.

The warning comes in the wake of government plans to import GMOs.

Last month, Agriculture Minister William Ruto told off civil society groups campaigning against the introduction of GMOs.

He said there is no scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful to human health and the government planned to import GMOs to save millions of Kenyans facing starvation.

Addressing journalists in Nairobi, the civil society groups slammed the government for not consulting the public while drafting the bio safety bill now before parliament to legalize the use of GMOs.

They warned the bill has serious loopholes that need to be addressed before passing it into law.

"The process of drafting the bill was both science and boardroom driven. The process involved only scientists and did not involve consumers or farmers," said Wanjiru Kamau, director of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition.

"The bill was called bio safety but the contents only referred to GMOs. We now want the government to address in the bill concerns of modern biotechnology on human health and environment," she said.

Kamau said clinical tests have shown that rats fed on potatoes that are genetically engineered later show signs of inhibited growth of brains and testicles.

She further explained that the bill does not even address compensation for farmer nor consumers in any case there is contamination between GMO and non-GMO plants.

The civil society groups warned that the introduction of GMOs would lead to the collapse of sustainable local agriculture.

They called, instead, on the government to increase support for agriculture and rural development.

Kenya hosts First All Africa Biotechnology conference
Nairobi, 21-27 September 2008

African Biotechnology Stakeholders' Forum [a spin off from ISAAA], press release.

Kenya, one of several African countries developing genetic modification (GM) technology to increase food production, is hosting the First All Africa Biotechnology conference. It's a forum for biotechnology scientists to work on some of the barriers to increasing GM farm products on the continent. One is the resistance to GM foods in Africa's important export markets.

The keynote speakers include some from countries where the technology is an anathema.

Thousands of municipalities and tens of thousands of farmers and food producers in Europe have declared themselves GMO free and refuse to allow the use of GM farm products in their areas. The technology is less controversial in the United States -- some 75 per cent of America's corn and soy are genetically modified -- and has mainly become an issue of whether GM products should be allowed in food labeled "organic."

A prominent Kenyan scientist, Dr. Florence Wambugu, sees this resistance as the European biotech lobby's effort "to keep safe and nutritious food out of the hands of starving people." The president of A Harvest Biotech Foundation International in Kenya said in a 2003 address to the United States Congress that the African continent, more than any other, urgently needs agricultural biotechnology, including transgenic crops, to improve food production. "This is why the debate over providing genetically modified (GM) corn in food aid shipments is so troubling." she added.

The genes incorporated into crops include those that confer insect, fungal, viral and bacterial resistance, protein quality improvements, herbicide tolerance, and salt and drought resistance. Applications have been performed on 21 crops in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Egypt and South Africa, according to a 2004 report, but the results have been mixed.

There are reports that biotechnology scientists in Africa also have to deal with the slow passage of GM crops from experimental to commercial stages and difficulties in meeting regulatory requirements.

Global companies and other regional companies dealing with biotechnologies relevant to Africa's development needs are encouraged to exhibit at the congress. The official theme -- "Harnessing the Potential of Agricultural Biotechnology for Food Security and Socio-Economic Development in Africa" suggests there is little room for GM opponents on the agenda.

General Enquiries

Professor Norah Olembo - Executive Director, ABSF
Tel: +254 20 4444 558
Cell: +254 720 223 244
+254 734 333 283
Fax: +254 20 444 8762
E-mail: absf@absfafrica.org

Muscat: Sultanate to mark anniversary of enforcing Cartagena Protocol

Oman Tribune, 11 September 2008.

Muscat -- The Sultanate will mark the fifth anniversary of enforcing the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on September 11.

The Sultanate is keen to ensure food safety in general and genetically modified foods, particularly in the light of the restrictions and obligations imposed by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

These obligations emerged from the Convention on Biological Diversity which was signed by the Sultanate in June, 1992 during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and was signed by over 80 countries.

The protocol calls for transparency in trade in food and agricultural products produced in accordance with bio-technology frequently used in several areas, including food processing.

This protocol requires exporters to provide sufficient information on food products before exporting to any state.

The protocol also provides that any country has the right to refuse such products if they are supplied without scientific proofs.

More than 140 countries have ratified the protocol and many of them have embarked on developing legal, administrative and other measures to facilitate the implementation of the protocol.

The governing body of the protocol, the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP), has adopted more than 60 decisions elaborating operational rules, procedures and mechanism to enable parties to implement the protocol.

The fifth anniversary presents an opportunity to review the progress, experiences and lessons learned in the implementation of the protocol and the challenges encountered so far and reaffirm the global commitment to ensuring its continued implementation.

The theme of the anniversary is: "The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Five years of global cooperation towards sustainable development."

10 September 2008

Two Governments call for Ireland to become a GM-free zone

Minister Trevor Sargent: 'We have to negotiate the establishment of Ireland as a GM-free zone'
Minister Michelle Gildernew: 'GM-free is a unique selling point for Irish food'

GM-free Ireland press release, 10 September 2008.

Agriculture Ministers from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland confirmed their plans for the island of Ireland to be declared a GM-free zone [1] at a conference attended by Carlo Petrini, the President of Slow Food International, and the Irish President Mary McAleese, in Waterford last week.

In keynote speeches [2] at the Terra Madre Ireland 2008 conference on food and farming policy [3] organised by Slow Food Ireland [4] on Friday, the Irish Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent TD, and the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Michelle Gildernew MP called for the island of Ireland to be declared off-limits to the release of GM crops [5]. This follows similar calls by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly.

In a section of his speech which drew rousing applause from the audience, Minister Trevor Sargent said:

"The whole GM debate is for me, like for many people here, at the heart of sustainability and the empowerment of people to grow food. If that power is taken away – and the corporate spin is certainly very strong in the direction of some kind of silver bullet being available through GM – we'll have gone beyond the point from which it's very difficult to come back. So we are in this generation, I believe, holding a very important responsibility. And when we look at the experience of farmers – and I think it's important to talk to farmers rather than to their corporate masters and their professionally-paid spin doctors – the farmers are saying GM is not the panacea for them. Whether you go to the universities which have been carrying out these studies – in Nebraska and Kansas, from Iowa to India – they tell you that farmers have been experiencing not greater but less yield, losing money, and losing market share. The exact opposite of the spin that is being put out there.

And that's before we talk about the health risks (and they do have to be talked about), the superweeds, the fossil fuel dependency (which Colin Sage [6] eloquently pointed out here we cannot continue with - we have to move on from our short-term flirtation with fossil fuels, they are not going to be around to get us out of this particular hole that we have dug for ourselves).

So I do feel that the GM debate is, in that context, a dangerous distraction from the fundamental challenges that have to be faced up to. And the option for us in Ireland is very clear: Ireland – the food island: we can sell that! The green clean food island - they really want that in Germany, as we heard from Professor Hamm [7] last night at the organic conference. Anywhere you go where our main markets are, they want that green clean food island. How about if Bord BÌa [the Irish Food Board] tries to sell Ireland – the GM laboratory? I wonder how that would go down. Well let me tell you, that would be the end!

So I am particularly glad that Minister Gildernew [the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs] is here because – she will speak for herself but I have some idea of her opinions on this from the discussions we've had in the past – the Programme for Government does not mince its words but also does not take anything for granted. We have to negotiate the establishment of Ireland as a GM-free zone. And that means live GMOs, that means release.

The Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Michelle Gildernew MP, said:

"We must protect the diversity of both plants and animals, and avoid damaging natural resources and contributing to climate change... Once we go down the GM route there is no going back: we need to keep Ireland GM-free. And I think that issue - we might not fully recognise it now, but in a very short period of time we could have a unique selling point that nobody else in the world has. And I think as an island economy, we have to protect our status."

A new approach to agriculture

Slow Food International President Carlo Petrini (author of Slow Food Nation) complemented the Ministers' GM-free policy statements and those which resulted from some of the 40 conference workshops, adding "On this historical day, great work has been done by the small-scale farmers, fishers, artisan producers chefs, students and citizens who have come here to reaffirm the need for a new approach to agriculture". [8]

No GM crops are grown in Ireland, and there is no realistic prospect for this to change. The only GM crop authorised for cultivation in the EU – Monsanto's patented MON810 maize - is modified to produce a pesticide against the European corn borer which does not exist in Ireland. In two regions of Spain (the only place in the EU where it is grown commercially) the GM maize has contaminated conventional and organic crops and seeds, leading to economic losses and patent infringement lawsuits against contaminated farmers.

GM animal feed

Ireland is the EU's biggest importer of GM animal feed, widely used to produce non-organic meat, poultry and dairy produce (sold without a GM label). The industrial mass-production of the two main animal feed crops, GM soya and maize, requires large-scale monocultures and increased use of toxic weedkillers, pesticides and fungicides, with devastating agronomic, health, environmental, economic and social consequences at the far end of the food chain. In South America, soy production for EU livestock has caused the destruction of 21 million hectares of forest in Brazil, 14 million in Argentina, and two million in Paraguay. The Irish cattle, sheep, pig and poultry sectors are eating up the Amazon!

Speaking of animal feed imports, Minister Michelle Gildernew said that Ireland's food production strategy requires "the sustaining of our land and resources to ensure that primary ingredients are available without having to resort to costly imports that increase food miles, and the environmental consequences that come with that."

In relation to sourcing GM-free animal feed, Minister Trevor Sargent said:

"I know there are issues, and I spoke with Vincent Carton [9], Derek Dean [10] and many others about the difficulty of finding [animal] feed that is GM-free. But GM-free feed is not where the heart of this debate is. The heart of this debate is Ireland being able to say "We are GM-free" when it comes to release, to crops, to the food we produce from our own primary resources. More and more people hopefully will be encouraged by that market for GM-free produce to grow more tillage that is GM-free."

Contary to agri-biotech industry propaganda disseminated by the Irish Grain and Feed Association, Teagasc and the Irish Farmers Journal, certified non-GMO animal feed is available, affordable, and widely used in the majority of EU member states that have banned or restricted the cultivation of GM crops, and in the 43 EU Regions that have adopted Quality Agriculture strategies which avoid the use of GM animal feed. [11]

Michael O'Callaghan, who co-ordinates the GM-free Ireland Network [12] said:

"Instead of competing in a race to the bottom against cheap GM-fed meat imports, Ireland can become the EU market leader for quality GM-free meat and dairy produce. Phasing out the use of GM feed imports would give Irish meat, poultry and dairy produce a unique selling point in the world food market. The grass-based diet of our cattle and sheep gives us a lead start in this regard, since most Irish farmers rely less on GM feed than their competitors in many other EU member states. Together with our green image, our geographic isolation (which minimises the risk of transboundary contamination from wind-borne GM pollen), and the least polluted topsoil in Europe, this policy would give us the most credible GM-free food brand in the world – a sustainable competitive advantage that would benefit our food, farm and tourism sectors for generations to come."

Policy recommendations

Michael O'Callaghan of the GM-free Ireland Network urged both governments to implement their GM policy with:

•

a ban on the cultivation of MON810 maize (as in Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland and de facto in Germany) and a moratorium on the release of GM crops (as in France and Switzerland); [13]

•

strict measures to prevent the importation of live GM seeds (including oilseed rape) which are approved by the EU only for use as animal feed and/or processing into agrofuels, to prevent the irreversible contamination of related cultivated crops and wild species that would result from inevitable seed spills that would occur during unloading, storage and transportation;

•

mandatory labelling of GM food sold in restaurants, hotels, pubs etc. (as in the UK);

•

mandatory labeling of meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed; [14]

•

an all-island public conference to inform stakeholders about the agronomic, ecological, environmental, health, economic, legal and food security aspects of GM food and farming, with international experts from both sides of the debate;

•

measures to ensure that members of the Irish Grain and Feed Association and other animal feed importers make certified non-GM feed available to Irish farmers on both sides of the border; [15]

•

a non-GMO certification scheme for top quality meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed a GM-free diet.

[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: www.gmfreeireland.org

Notes to the editor:

1. The European Commission refuses to recognise the democratic right of member states and regions to set up GM-free zones to ban the cultivation of GM crops, but 10 member states, 143 EU Regions and 4,500 smaller areas in 22 EU member states have already done so (including Scotland and Wales). See maps of GM-free zones in Ireland at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/map/ and in Europe at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/EUmap.php.

Earlier this year, the Irish Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley TD, said "Ireland is the best place for a GM-free zone in the EU."

Last Wednesday, the German Agriculture Minister Horst Seehofer said EU member states should have the power to block genetically-modified crops in their countries, adding that he intends to give power to decide on GMO cultivation to small local government authorities rather than taking decisions at federal or state level.

The European Network of GMO-free regions will hold its fifth annual conference in Lucerne, Switzerland on 24-25 April 2009 on the theme "Food and Democracy". Download programme at http://www.genet-info.org/fileadmin/files/genet/Lucerne_2009/Food_and_Democracy.pdf

For more information see http://www.gmo-free-regions.org, http://www.genet-info.org and >http://www.planet-diversity.org

2. Listen to the speeches by Trevor Sargent and Michelle Gildernew (16MB MP3 download): http://www.4shared.com/file/62311211/6eda7319/Sargent_and_Gildernew.html

3. The Terra Madre Ireland 2008 conference took place at the Waterford Institute of Technology, with 40 workshop seminars and plenary sessions on the theme of "A Sustainable Future for the Irish Food Industry". See http://sloweb.slowfood.com/sloweb/eng/dettaglio.lasso?cod=5700E3EA1631c2AF4BQWs370A3DA and http://sloweb.slowfood.com/sloweb/eng/dettaglio.lasso?cod=C101B8FE1618c2EE78sJmVuE2DD0

An online public discussion forum on GM food and farming may be found on the Terra Madre Ireland website at http://www.terramadreireland.org (login from their home page).

4. Slow Food Ireland is part of Slow Food International, a non-profit, eco-gastronomic member-supported organisation founded in 1989 to counteract fast food and fast life, the disappearance of local food traditions and people's dwindling interest in the food they eat, where it comes from, how it tastes and how our food choices affect the rest of the world. Slow Food has over 85,000 members in 132 countries. For more info see http://www.slowfood.com and http://www.slowfoodireland.com. See also the book "Slow Food Nation: Why Our Food Should Be Good, Clean, And Fair" by Carlo Petrini, with a foreword by Alice Waters: available from Amazon.com.

5. The agreed programme for the Irish Government, announced by the Minister of State for Food and Horticulture Trevor Sargent TD in June 2007, is "to seek to negotiate to declare the island of Ireland as a GM-free zone." The policy, which has not yet been implemented, aims to introduce legislation to prevent the environmental release of GM algae, bacteria, seeds, crops, trees, insects, crustaceans, fish, and livestock. (The policy would also discourage, but not prohibit, the importation of GM animal feed that has been approved by the EC regulatory bodies, but would not have any effect on the contained use of GM bacteria for the production of medicines in sealed vats in biosecure laboratories.) The Government's commitment to the policy has been repeated in subsequent statements by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Brendan Smith TD, and by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley TD, who said "Ireland is the best place for a GM-free zone in the EU."

6. Colin Sage is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Geography at University College Cork, teaching courses such as the Geography of the Global Food System and Environmental Policy: http://www.ucc.ie/academic/geography/pages/staff/sage_c.htm. He also is Director and Research Associate with Eco-Innovation: http://www.eco-innovation.net/colin-sage and Associate Editor of the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability: http://www.earthscanjournals.com/ijas/default.htm

7. At the National Organic Food Conference organized by Bord BÌa at the Waterford Institute of Technology on 4 September, Professor Ulrich Hamm (Agricultural & Food Marketing, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Germany) gave a presentation on the size, trends and growth within the German organic sector. Topics included the main consumer drivers fuelling growth, the route to market trends, and potential opportunities for Irish companies, barriers to entry and key learnings / recommendations for companies interested in targeting this market. For conference details see: http://www.bordbia.ie/eventsnews/events/Pages/NationalOrganicFoodConference2008.aspx

8. Slow Food International opposes the use of GM food and farming. See http://www.slowfoodireland.org, http://www.slowfood.com, and interview with Slow Food Vice-President Vandana Shiva at http://multimedia.slowfood.com/index.php?lng=2&method=multimedia&action=zoom&id=24086

9. Vincent Carton is CEO of the 200 year-old company Carton Bros, the owner of Manor Farm, the largest processor of chicken meat in the Republic of Ireland. The Carton Group processes over half a million chickens a week, both conventional and free-range, without the use of antibiotic growth promoters and genetically modified feedstuffs.

10. Derek Deane is Deputy President of the Irish Farmers Association: http://www.ifa.ie

11. In December 2007, the EU Committee of the Regions and the European Network of GMO-free Regions co-hosted the European Conference on GM-free Animal feed: Quality production and European regional agricultural strategy, in Brussels. Regional Governments, farmers organisations, animal feed importers, feed compounders, food retailers and consumer groups representing 43 European Regions and key players from Switzerland, Brazil, the USA, Canada, India and China met to co-ordinate agreed Quality Agriculture strategies for the production of meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified Non-GMO soya products, including, marketing, supplies, certification, eco-social considerations, retail strategies, and related aspects of CAP reform.

The conference found that Europe produces a surplus of GM-free maize, and can also meet its requirement for certified GM-free soya feed from global markets, but that security of supply requires regional coordination and forward planning. Participants called for CAP reform to include an EC label to support the market for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified non-GMO feedstuffs. Download conference report by GM-free Ireland (large 3.2MB pdf file): http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/GMFI-GM-free-Soya-conf.pdf

Interested stakeholders should attend the 2nd International Non-GMO soy Summit from 7-9 October in Brussels: http://www.nongmosoysummit.com

12. The GM-free Ireland Network is a coalition of 130 food and farming organisations, restaurants, chefs, food businesses, NGOs, doctors, students, citizens, and local authorities collaborating to keep Ireland free of GM food and farming. We have the largest number and broadest diversity of stakeholders of any Non Governmental Organisation on this island. As of September 2008, our 32,000 organisational members and the counties and towns which oppose the cultivation of GM crops represent over one million citizens. Please support our lobbying and public awareness campaigns. Annual membership fees are €25 for individuals, €100 for non-profit organisations, €500 for businesses. Larger contributions are welcome. Please make out your cheque to "GM-free Ireland" and mail it to us at this address: GM-free Ireland Network • Little Alders, Knockrath, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow, Ireland • tel +353 (0)404 43885 • email: mail@gmfreeireland.org • website: http://www.gmfreeireland.org

13. For details of country bans on GMOs see http://www.gmo-free-regions.org, http://www.genet-info.org and http://www.planet-diversity.org

14. In 2007, a million citizens of EU member states signed a petition demanding mandatory labelling of GM-fed animal produce, based on the fundamental right to information for consumer choice. In 2008, leading EU retailers began extending their existing GM food bans to exclude such produce. 43 European Regions have since adopted Quality Agriculture non-GM strategies to add value to their meat and dairy produce, which may now carry a GM-free label in Germany. The good news is that Ireland's mostly grass-fed beef and sheep consume less GM feed than many of their EU competitors. This gives our farmers a valuable head start in the transition to a GM-free food chain.

15. Monsanto, Cargill and other transnational agri-biotech corporations and commodity traders, together with Teagasc, the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Grain and Feed Association –and their friends in government, academia and the media– continue to claim that non-GM animal feed is unavailable or unaffordable. European maize is abundant and 99% GM-free; Brazil can supply the entire EU market for soy meal from certified sustainable non-GM sources. And peak oil will soon favour local production over expensive imports. Five steps are required for Ireland to kick the GM habit:

•

Feed importers must stop witholding non-GM feed used by our EU competitors;

•

Security of supply requires regional coordination and forward planning;

•

A non-GM certification scheme is needed for meat, poultry & dairy produce;

•

Our food security requires local self-reliance for food and feed production;

•

Retailers, food processors, restaurants and consumers can take the lead by supporting GM-free farmers and food producers.

_______________________

EU: Euro Coop Critical towards European Commission's Approval of GM Soybean Strain

Euro Coop press release, 10 September 2008.

Brussels - Euro Coop, the European Community of Consumer Cooperatives, criticises the European Commission (EC) decision to authorise the import of the GM soybean strain known as A2704-12 and developed by the German group Bayer CropScience. The bean can now be imported into EU markets and processed by European companies for use in food and animal feed. In this regard, Euro Coop remarks that the scientific community is still very much divided over the mid and long-term effects that the use of GMOs could have on human health and the environment, as well as on their economic and social impacts. It then considers this choice taken by the EU's executive as rash as it fails to comply with the application of the precautionary principle in scientific-based policies.

Euro Coop also recalls that a strong majority of European consumers have repeatedly shown concerns about GM biotechnology and considers accordingly that a similar decision could undermine their confidence in the EC's capacity to respond to their needs and wishes. Euro Coop is also worried about increasing difficulties which could be encountered to ensure strict traceability of food and feed products containing the A2704-12GM bean and the consequent danger that this could represent for a true consumer choice. In this respect, it believes that it is time to start a more open debate with consumers on such a delicate topic. Euro Coop also wishes to stress that EU agriculture ministers themselves remain sharply divided over this subject and puts into question the EU provision allowing the EC to rubberstamp GMO authorisations when ministers cannot agree after a certain time.

Euro Coop ultimately believes that consumers concerns and demands should always be at the heart of European decision-making processes. It emphasises the need for further independent research stemming from increased public funding and advises caution until the scientific community overcomes divisions on mid and long-term risks deriving from GMOs in human health and the environment.

EURO COOP is the European Community of Consumer Cooperatives, whose members are the national organisations of consumer cooperatives in 18 European countries. Created in 1957, EURO COOP today represents over 3,200 local and regional cooperatives, the members of which amount to more than 25 million consumers across Europe.

For further information, please contact:

Rosita Zilli, Policy Adviser, Euro Coop
Tel: +32 (0)2 285 00 72 - Fax: +32 (0)2 231 07 57
E-mail: rzilli@eurocoop.coop

Kenya halts first field trials of GM maize

Bio-Medicine, 10 September 2008.

Kenyan authorities began destroying the country's first genetically modified (GM) maize growing in open field trials.

The government halted the research and ordered the destruction after discovering that a technician had sprayed a restricted pesticide on maize modified to resist attack by insects called stem borers.

Wilson Songa, Kenya's agriculture secretary and chair of the National Biosafety Committee, said this could compromise the validity of the trial's results.

On 25 August, the committee ordered the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service to destroy the crops.

Songa was quoted in Kenya's Sunday Nation newspaper on 28 August as saying that local scientists had yielded to pressure from international organisations and were "rushing projects".

The maize was being grown in Kiboko by the Insect Resistance Maize for Africa (IRMA) project, a joint initiative of the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute, the US-based Syngenta foundation, and the Mexico-based Center for Maize and Wheat Research.

In July, IRMA staff had notified the biosafety committee that the maize had been sprayed with the insecticide Furadan.

Stephen Mugo, IRMA's project coordinator, says the incident was unfortunate and a major setback to Kenyan research, but that GM maize field trials would continue.

"This is just like a battle we lost," said Mugo. "But the main war will continue until we help African maize farmers overcome the pest".

Stem borers destroy up to 12 per cent of maize growing in Kenya, amounting to US$76 million in lost harvests per year.

The IRMA project, which began six years ago, aims to develop both conventional and GM maize varieties to resist the pest.

The GM plants, which incorporate genetic material from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, have already been grown under experimental conditions in IRMA's US$12 million 'biosafety' greenhouse (see $12 million greenhouse signals Kenyan GM commitment).

When the first IRMA maize seeds were sown outside in May, Kenya became the first African country after South Africa to plant GM maize in open fields (see Kenya begins first open field trials of GM maize). The IRMA researchers had hoped to release the maize to farmers by 2010 (see Revision of plans delays Kenya's GM maize).

Source: SciDev.Net, 5 September 2008.

USA - Hawaii: County moves to ban GMO taro and coffee

Hawaii Tribune Herald, 10 September 2008. By Jason Armstrong.

Local effort undertaken in absence of state action

Genetically engineered taro and coffee would be outlawed on Hawaii Island under a bill endorsed Tuessday by a County Council committee.

Testing, planting or growing of the specific genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, would trigger up to a $1,000 fine, a year in jail or both, according to the bill that received a supportive 8-0 vote from the council's Environmental Management Committee.

North Kona Councilman Angel Pilago, the bill's author, said he will propose amendments, including removing the prohibition on GMO facilities.

The measure now goes to the full council for expected passage.

A county law banning GMOs would be trumped by any state ordinance permitting GMO taro or coffee crops, Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self told lawmakers.

"The state hasn't done that yet," she said.

Earlier this year, the council voted to support a state bill calling for a 10-year moratorium on the testing, growing and development of genetically modified taro. The bill failed.

The council's anti-GMO stand received a "dismal" reception at the state Legislature, South Kona Councilwoman Brenda Ford said.

"We all know if this goes to the state Legislature, they're not going to do anything as a body," she said.

Numerous people testified Tuesday in support of the proposed islandwide ban, especially for taro. Unlike other plants, taro, also called kalo, is considered to have almost human qualities by many Native Hawaiians, who see the traditional staple as an ancestral older brother. That's why they don't want University of Hawaii scientists injecting it with disease-resistant genes as has been done with at least two varieties of papaya.

"You must protect we the people of this island. The state is not doing it," Moanikeala Akaka said in support of the council bill.

Presenting each lawmaker with a taro stock was Jim Albertini of the Malu Aina Center for Non-violent Education and Action, a nonprofit group that sells taro to help pay for its expenses.

"For me, the kalo is sacred," Albertini said. "The kalo, the aina, and the people are one. In my judgment, and based on my experience of more than 35 years growing kalo, GMO is tampering with the sacred."

Hilo Councilman Stacy Higa was absent when the vote was taken.

Africa: Genetically modified seeds pose more problems than natural varieties

Currents, 10 September 2008.

The processes of hybridization involving repeated combinations of genetic material were limited for a long time by the fact that natural reproduction only takes place between plants of the same species. But Genetic Engineering took off with the unravelling of the full structure of the DNA 20 years ago. It became possible to insert a gene of one species into the DNA of another, thus offering immense agricultural possibilities.

Some examples include the modification of plants that fix the nitrogen of the air without belonging to the Leguminous family, plants resistant to certain diseases or to dry environments; the possibility of producing drugs and vaccines by genetically modifying bacteria, and many others.

Farmers were thus promised higher incomes; traders were promised lower costs of production and better quality of produce; and the companies producing such foods saw huge profits appearing on the horizon through monopolies and patents of such modified foods. Naturally, their research showed that there was no difference between the natural and engineered foods, that these were safe, and that they would solve the problem of famine in the world.

But if GM foods were all that their producers claimed them to be, why was the process conducted by stealth and sprung on the public without notice? This policy of the fait accompli began with the US government, which neither informed nor consulted its citizens about GM crops nor, worse still, did it require GM foods to be labelled, so as to give the public the democratic choice of whether to buy or not. After this GM foods were imposed on one country after another, in the same utterly undemocratic atmosphere of secrecy.

For a full understanding of the import of GM foods, two sets of results need to be considered: social results on the countries that have adopted them and biological results of the genetically modified foods. Further, GM foods must be analysed as part and parcel of the much touted globalization,to which we now turn.

Dr Vandana Shiva is an India physicist, founder and president of the Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology, and one of India's leading activists. She describes in one of her papers how the transformation of peasant agriculture in India to a globally industrialized model, which has GM foods as a supporting pillar, has reduced food security, threatened local businesses and biodiversity, driven farmers off their lands, and opened the door for global corporations to take over the nation's food processing.

The common claim by globalization enthusiasts is that it is natural, inevitable, and evolutionary. Dr Shiva sees it otherwise. Globalization is not a natural process of inclusion. It is a planned project of exclusion that has siphoned the resources and knowledge of the poor of India onto the global marketplace, stripping people of their life-support systems, livelihoods, and lifestyles.

Global trade rules, as enshrined in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) and in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement, are primarily camouflaged rules of robbery.

The WTO's overall goal: promoting market competition serves two purposes. First, it transforms culture, biodiversity, food, water, livelihoods, needs, and rights into commodities for sale to be conveyed to markets. Second, it justifies the destruction of nature, culture, and livelihoods in terms of rules of competition.

Its officials attack ethical and ecological rules that sustain and promote life, dubbing them as protectionist barriers to trade.

Globalized food and agriculture in effect, means the corporate takeover of the food chain, the erosion of food rights, the destruction of the cultural diversity of food and the biological diversity of crops, and the displacement of millions from land-based, rural livelihoods.

Australia: The GM battle

Augusta / Margaret River Mail, 10 September 2008. By Ian Parmenter.

IF GM foods are safe (Anti-GM advertisement misleading: academic The West 5/9), perhaps Professor Michael Jones could explain why a multi-million dollar experiment, run by the CSIRO in Tasmania and part-funded by chemical giant Monsanto-in which genes from green beans were spliced into those of peas-had to be abandoned because of tissue damage and auto-immune problems suffered by laboratory animals fed with the resultant pea?

Indeed, Professor, we are consuming GM foods-which are not labelled as such, and that's another problem-but there is still no evidence that they are safe.

On the contrary, there is every possibility that GM foods could contribute to the increased number of allergies and other of today's medical problems arising from what we eat and drink.

There simply has been no adequate long-term testing of GM foods on humans anywhere in the world.

And as with thalidomide, asbestos, DDT, and other man-made products which eventually have proved harmful, it often takes many years for problems to be recognised.

As to the assertions of those who believe that GM foods are the answer to world hunger (R Krasnoff, The West Letters 3/9), they are not.

There is enough food in the world, it is simply not where it is needed, and no amount of increased production is going to address this.

It is unfortunate that there are scientists - many of whom are funded by multinational chemical corporations-who continue to promote the use of GM foods.

Quite simply, they are not the answer.

And state governments which have opposed the growing of GM foods are to be applauded for putting the safety of people first.

That's not hysterical, it makes sense.

EU: Stop the European Court of Justice

EU Observer, 10 September 2008. By Roman Herzog and Lüder Gerken.

[Image caption: The European Court of Justice is overstepping its role, argues former German President Herzog]

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - Judicial decision-making in Europe is in deep trouble. The reason is to be found in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), whose justifications for depriving member states of their very own fundamental competences and interfering heavily in their legal systems are becoming increasingly astonishing. In so doing, it has squandered a great deal of the trust it used to enjoy.

Hence, it is only logical that the German Federal Constitutional Court recently decided to intervene. Very soon it will have to render a judgement that will be of fundamental importance for the further development of European jurisdiction, since it concerns the question of whether the excessive legal practice of the ECJ should in future once again be subject to stricter controls by the German Federal Constitutional Court, or whether the Federal Constitutional Court should resign once and for all from its watchdog position.

What triggered this decisive case was a lawsuit staged by two lawyers. In the course of the labour market reforms established under the red-green coalition (Social Democrats with the Alliance 90 and the Green Party), at the end of 2002, the age limit at which employees are entitled to enter into temporary employment contracts without restrictions had been temporarily reduced from 58 to 52 years. The aim was to increase the chances for older unemployed people to find a job. The high level of protection against unwarranted dismissal in Germany combined with the concern of many employers that the performance of older people might weaken, meant that people over fifty often had no real opportunity for reintegration into the labour market.

In 2000, the European Union (EU) passed a non-discrimination directive which prohibited the unequal treatment of people in "employment and occupation" on account of age. Of course this EU directive also contains an explicit provision that member states may discriminate against people due to age if such practice serves to foster employment. The manner in which this provision is realised is largely left to the member states.

However, two lawyers in Munich held the view that this reduction of the age limit constituted an infringement of the said EU directive, and so they brought the case to court in 2003. The ECJ judged as follows: The German labour market reform was in fact deemed incompatible with the EU's non-discrimination directive, since it could not be "proved" that the German reform provisions were "objectively required" for the stimulation of the employment of older employees. This so-called "Mangold Judgement" is disputable for various reasons.

Firstly, both labour market policy and social policy are still core competences of the member states. However, this case clearly demonstrates to what extent EU regulation and EU jurisdiction nevertheless interfere in the governing of these core competences.

For even though the EC Treaty allows for a European regulation of non-discrimination, the question of why the EU regulates age discrimination on the labour market at all is raised in all its seriousness. According to the principle of subsidiarity, the EU may take action only if it really has a better solution to a problem than the member states.

According to law as it exists, a basic criterion for such a situation is that the problem must concern an issue of transboundary impact. However, unlike the question of nationality, age discrimination does not have any transboundary relevance and can therefore be easily dealt with by the member states themselves. Yet, the court blithely ignored it.

At least the EU directive does declare unequal treatment on account of age as expressly admissible for the purpose of promoting employment in the member states, but even this did not concern the ECJ. Despite everything, it overthrew the German employment promotion measure.

Secondly, EU directives do not apply to member states directly, but first have to be transposed by the national legislature, which may resolve on the form and methods of the relevant measure independently. Germany had to transpose the aforementioned non-discrimination directive by 2 December 2006. Therefore, there was no obligation to transpose it. Moreover, the lowering of the age limit was due to expire anyway by 31 December 2006, in other words a few days after the expiry of the enforcement deadline. This was also ignored by the ECJ.

Thirdly, to justify its judgement, the ECJ resorted to a somewhat adventurous construction. The ECJ believed it had found a ban on age discrimination within the "constitutional traditions common to the Member States" and "various international treaties". So it was not actually the non-discrimination directive (as yet to be enforced) which caused the German reform provision to breach EU law, but a "general principle of community law".

However, this "general principle of community law" was a fabrication. In only two of the then 25 member states - namely Finland and Portugal - is there any reference to a ban on age discrimination, and in not one international treaty is there any mention at all of there being such a ban, contrary to the terse allegation of the ECJ. Consequently, it is not difficult to see why the ECJ dispensed with any degree of specification or any proof of its allegation. To put it bluntly, with this construction which the ECJ more or less pulled out of a hat, they were acting not as part of the judicial power but as the legislature.

Fourthly, in its judgement the ECJ ordered the German reform provision to remain "not applied" with immediate effect. In fact, it was declared null and void. This also constitutes a highly questionable paradigm shift. The EC Treaty stipulates that member states are not directly bound by EU directives. This means that it is not the EU directives but the national transposition laws that must first create rights and duties for citizens.

The ECJ used to respect this, too: If the national law of a member state was not compatible with an EU directive, the ECJ confined itself to pointing out the inconsistency. Although the member state concerned then had to revise its law, the former version (incompatible with EU law) remained in effect until that was done. Hence, citizens could rely on the binding effect of their national laws. This has now changed: As a consequence of the ECJ judgement, all temporary employment contracts concluded during the German labour market reform were converted into regular employment contracts overnight - resulting in the subsequent material damage incurred by the affected companies.

With these four dubieties, the "Mangold Judgement" provoked almost unanimous and massive criticism among legal experts.

A change of scene: again in 2003, a company based near Hamburg entered into a temporary employment contract with a 53-year old employee under the German labour market reform. Shortly before his contract expired, the employee took legal action. He claimed that the reform was not compatible with EU law. The responsible labour court dismissed the case, as did the court of appeal. Thereupon, the complainant took his case to the German Federal Labour Court. Meanwhile, the Mangold Judgement had been reached. The German Federal Labour Court adopted the reasoning given therein and, despite the questionable nature of the judgement, denied the right to resubmit the judgement either to the ECJ in order to clarify it, or to the German Federal Constitutional Court, and further annulled the lower court judgements. Subsequently, the company filed a constitutional complaint against this decision. It asserted several infringements of the German Constitution