NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • April 2009

2009: Jan • Feb • Mar
2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2006: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec • 2004 • 2003

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

Disclaimer: The contents of this news section of our website are collected and published with great care to foster public awareness of GM food and farming issues. However, the GM-free Ireland Network does not accept any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any other quality of the information contained herein.

•

Democracy – i.e., at the very least, to get heard when stating one's preferences regarding food origin and production methods;

•

Precautionary (or preventative) principle – it implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk.

There is enough evidence that if food companies and retailers manage convincingly to demonstrate to their customers that they actively abide by these principles they will have created loyal and dedicated customers that will return to their products again and again, not minding some extra cost.

If marketing communications manage to get this position as well as respective action across to the public, a brand is on its best way to becoming very strong.

One thing consumer-voters in most EU countries find a little baffling is why so many farmer representatives take such a strong position in favor of green biotechnology. Perhaps the biotech industry should consider recruiting its PR staff from these farming circles.

25 April 2009

GMO Moratorium: The way forward for Europe

Final Declaration of the Fifth European Conference of GMO-free Regions, 25 April 2009:
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org

The participants of the 5th European Conference of GMO-Free Regions "Food and Democracy" call for an EU-wide moratorium on the authorization and the commercial planting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the wake of six EU member states banning the planting of MON810 and in light of the rapid increase in GMO-free regions in Europe, there has never been a better moment for a moratorium than now.

This moratorium should be used to:

•

rethink EU legislation and strengthen regional self-determination;

•

redefine risk assessment according to the precautionary principle while considering socio-economic impacts; and

•

support GMO-free, diverse agriculture and ensure food sovereignty.

We call upon agro-chemical companies to no longer abuse the problem of world hunger in order to justify the introduction of GMOs. Practical experience belies this misleading propaganda, which we consider to be false and unethical.

The participants of the 5th European Conference of GMO-Free Regions conclude in the closing session of "Food and Democracy" that:

•

GMO-free agriculture and food are in accordance with the will of the majority of citizens in Europe; and

•

sustainable food production which eschews the use of genetic engineering is the best strategy for farmers and consumers, both today and tomorrow.

We are grateful to the citizens of Switzerland, who point the way for all of Europe with their democratic decision to instate a moratorium on the cultivation of GMOs.

This final declaration was adopted by the conference's 250 participants from 28 countries.

---

Note: The conference was attended by 250 people from 28 countries,
including the following politicians:

•

Niki Berlakovitch, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Austria.

•

Karel Blaha, First Deputy Minister of the Environment, Czech Republic.

•

Roseanna Cunningham, Minister of the Environment, Scotland (by video message).

•

Chiara Simoneschi-Cortesi, Speaker of the Swiss National Council.

•

Simonetta Sommaruga, Council of States (Small Chamber of the Swiss Parliament).

•

Maya Graf, Member of the National Council of the Swiss Parliament.

•

Hansjörg Walter, Member of the Swiss National Council and President of the Swiss Farmers Union.

•

Adrian Borgula, President of the Parliament of the Canton of Lucerce, Switzerland.

•

Renate Küast, Chairperson of the Parliamentary group Bünis 90 / Die Grünen, Germany.

•

Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, German Member of the European Parliament.

Plenary sessions presentations:
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/food-democracy-april-2009/programme.html

Workshop presentations:
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/food-democracy-april-2009/workshops.html

Photo album:
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/food-democracy-april-2009/pictures.html

Concluding speech by Benny Haerlin,
Director, Foundation for Future Farming:

We, participants of the 5th European Conference of GMO Free Regions call upon the member States of the European Union to rethink their legislation and policy on the use of genetically engineered organisms in agriculture. A majority of citizens opposes the use of GMOs in agriculture and food. In the larger part of Europe regional and local governments, as well as farmers, have declared their territories GMO-free. The only GMO presently approved for cultivation, Monsanto's Mon810 maize, is formally banned in six member states and factually prohibited from planting in two more states. This maize variety is cultivated on less than 0.1% of the area dedicated to maize cultivation in but 7 member states and no other European countries. Of these 100,000 hectares, 75% are planted in a single country, Spain.

However, millions from taxpayers' money are spent on the introduction and promotion of GMOs. Thousands of farmers are threatened by unwanted contamination with genetically engineered traits, controls for labeling and identity preservation absorb resources in utter disproportion to the claimed benefits of these GMOs. Finally hundreds of millions from public funds are spent on genetic engineering research and development as well as propaganda for a technology, for which taxpayers have clearly indicated their opposition and have no need for its products. While the European Food Safety Authority is unable to present the required scientific re-evaluation of the long-expired approval of Mon810, the European Commission tries over and again to overrule the national bans of this GMO, claiming there is no evidence that this product might be unsafe, only to be overruled by bold two-thirds majority votes in the Council of Ministers.

In December 2008, the Council of Ministers unanimously agreed that the present legislation on GMOs requires a thorough revision with respect to risk assessment, and should also take into account socio-economic aspects. There was also agreement that the present procedures of imposing the cultivation of GMOs upon regions and nations is untenable. The Commission so far has not taken any steps to react to the Council's unanimous demands.

We call upon the governments of the European Union to put a halt to this farce, and to impose a moratorium on any further approvals of GMOs until regulations are established that reconcile these contradictions and pay due respect to the will of the people of Europe.

In addition to a credible, unbiased and precautionary assessment of the potential risks of GMOs to the environment and human health, an assessment of the socio-economic impacts of cultivation of GMOs and their impact on agricultural practices and policies should be taken into account. Furthermore, EU approvals should no longer constitute an obligation to accept GMO cultivation. Regions must have the right to determine the best agricultural practice and decide for themselves whether to allow the introduction of GMOs in their agriculture and food systems.

Whereas elections to the European Parliament will be held in June, we ask all candidates what their position is

•

on the introduction of GMOs into European agriculture and food;

•

on our demand for a moratorium on the cultivation of GMOs in Europe;

•

on regional self-determination and food sovereignty;

•

on patents on life, on plants, animals and even human genes;

•

on the purity of conventional seeds from GMO contamination.

We call upon agro-chemical multinationals Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, DuPont and others to no longer abuse the scandal of increasing hunger in a world of overproduction to defend the introduction of GMOs. We consider such misleading propaganda, which is belied by all practical experience, as unethical and intolerable. We also call upon them to refrain from patent claims on traits of plants and animals, especially those which might be of special importance to address the impacts of climate change. We believe that the control of a few multinationals over the heritage of seed and agricultural diversity poses a threat to its further preservation and improvement, and call for political action to stop and revert this trend.

We send our special greetings to

•

The region of Bavaria, which has played an important role in the German and European debate on GMOs recently. We would appreciate the Free State of Bavaria to join the Network of GMO-free regional governments.

•

The regions of Poland which have declared themselves GMO-free, and appeal to the Polish government not to tolerate the unregulated and illegal planting of Mon810 in its country.

•

The 8 regional governments and 94 municipalities of Spain which have declared themselves GMO free, and appeal to the Spanish government to rethink its unique pro-GMO policy in the light of increasing public resistance.

•

The small farmers of Mexico, who have maintained for so many generations the heritage of maize, and appeal to the Mexican government not to allow GM maize cultivation and thereby threaten GM contamination of the unique centre of origin of one of the world's most important staple crops

•

To the people, cantons and the government of Switzerland, which have shown with their GMO moratorium to the rest of Europe how truly democratic and wise decision-making, based upon the vote of the people, can prevent unnecessary risks to the environment and health as well as threats to traditional farming and agri-ecological innovation.

•

To Professor Arpad Pusztai, who is in hospital these days: Arpad we all owe you so much for your scientific integrity and courage – please stay with us!

The resistance to the cultivation of GMOs in Europe, which is represented by thousands of GMO-free regions, provinces, municipalities and farmers' associations, has been steadily growing now for ten years. It unites people from all realms of society and from all political and social movements and parties. It gives pride to regions, as it expresses their will to defend their food sovereignty well beyond the critical aspects of a single technology.

In times of environmental, social and economic crisis, regional self-determination and democratic defense of our ways of life, our food and agricultural diversity is a sign of hope: We will not surrender to global monocultures and we will do our best to address the enormous global and local challenges ahead.

20 April 2009

Food and Democracy - Fifth European Conference on GMO-free Regions
24 - 25 April 2009
Lucerne, Switzerland

http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/

When given the choice, people renounce genetically "enhanced" food. When they are given a say, they choose a form of agriculture that works with nature, and without manipulation. In Switzerland, we are rightly proud that the population has a democratic say in these important questions. For this reason, it is a particular pleasure for us to host the 5th international Conference of GMO-Free Regions in Europe.

You are cordially invited to join interesting discussions on topics such as:

•

strategies to facilitate citizen participate in European decision-making

•

solutions for sustainable agriculture

•

moratoriums on GMOs in other European countries.

Additionally, you can experience first hand how our movement for GMO-free agriculture is spreading all over Europe.

We look forward to meeting you!

Why attend?

Food and Democracy takes place in a critical phase of the debate about agro-GMOs in Europe. The battle for authorizations within the EU for the autonomy of member states and the creation of GMO-free zones is in full swing. Important decisions will be taken in the coming months. GMO opponents are organizing activities to accompany this process.

At the GMO-free regions' 5th European conference, "Food and Democracy", on April, 24th and 25th 2009, in Lucerne (Switzerland) you can find out about all these developments first hand, exchange views, create networks and - last but not least - meet like-minded people, again or for the first time.

The EU is moving

The EU is currently taking pioneering decisions regarding the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) plants:

Europe is to a large extent GMO-free. The cultivation of GMOs in Europe currently amounts to only 0.01% of cultivation worldwide and is limited to Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Since 1998, no new GMOs have been authorized for cultivation.

For the first time, the EU Commission now wants to authorize the cultivation of new GMO varieties. However, in February 2009, no agreement could be found among EU member states on new authorizations for the two GM Bt corn lines Bt11 and 1507. The vote in the "Standing Committee" ended without the requisite majority. Now EU ministers will have to decide.

Many EU countries have made use of so-called national safeguard clauses and have banned the cultivation of the only GM corn authorized in the EU (Monsanto's Mon 810) on their territories. The EU Commission wants to annul these bans.

In March, a 2/3 majority of EU ministers upheld the cultivation bans in Austria and Hungary, despite a proposal to the contrary by the Commission.

Whether the cultivation bans in France and Greece will also be upheld, will be decided in the coming weeks. The French government wants to maintain its cultivation ban in 2009.

The Austrian Minister of Agriculture, Nikolaus Berlakovich is demanding that, in future, member states should be able to decide themselves whether particular GM varieties can be cultivated or not.

The German Federal Government has also tightened its approach to agro-GMOs and now also intends to examine the possibility of a ban on cultivating GM corn. This was announced by the German Minister of Agriculture, Ilse Aigner, with the support of the Minister of the Environment, Sigmar Gabriel. In mid-February, the President of the German Farmers' Union, Gerd Sonnleitner, requested that the cultivation of MON810 should be banned. [Note: Germany's ban on GMO maize went into effect on 14 April].

In Bavaria the opposition to green genetic engineering has become a "popular uprising". Politicians have announced cultivation bans for genetically modified Bt corn. Field trials are to be banned as well. "We don't want any commercial use of green genetic engineering in Bavaria", the Bavarian Minister of the Environment declared in mid-February.

Stop the Crop

The internet action group Stop the Crop wants to prevent the cultivation of GMO plants in Europe.

The moratorium in Switzerland

Switzerland is the only country in Europe with a moratorium on the cultivation of GMOs that is anchored in the Federal Constitution (Article 197 Clause 7). At the time of the conference, Switzerland will be discussing a prolongation of the moratorium. Parliament wants to debate the issue in its summer session. The "Food and Democracy" conference will influence this decision.

The programme

[Programme details and related downloadable documents are available here:
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/food-democracy-april-2009/programme.html]

For two days, Food and Democracy will discuss the future of agriculture and food. We are expecting 300 participants from 30 countries to attend.

The conference opening will feature 11 prominent speakers from Switzerland and the EU. They include the highest-ranking Swiss woman, the President of the National Council, Chiara Somoneschi-Cortesi, the Austrian Minister of Agriculture, Nikolaus Berlakovich, the Scottish Minister of the Environment Michael Russell and the chair of the Bündnis 90/The Greens group in the German Bundestag, Renate Künast.

In session 1, leading representatives of the GMO-free movement will speak about the reasons for a Europe without agro-genetic engineering and possibilities for making this come true. New alternative perspectives will be discussed.

In session 2, twelve states from Europe [inclulding Ireland] will explain why "Food and Democracy" is important from the point of view of their countries.

On Saturday, 11 workshops will discuss democracy, food and freedom from GMOs.

In conclusion, we will formulate our common visions of a GMO-free and democratic Europe of the regions.

--

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Michael O'Callaghan will deliver GM-free Ireland's presentation on "Ireland as a GMO-free biosafety reserve for Europe" at the Food and Democracy Conference at 3pm on Friday 24 April.

Please sign petition against GM Soy - RTRS greenwash

GM Free Cymru (Wales), 10 April 2009.

Please sign this important petition against the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS).

RTRS is a damaging initiative backed by all the big GM seed and processing companies that will lead to the certification of GM and intensively produced soy as "responsible".

WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), to their shame, has been a leader in the RTRS process and is still backing it, as is the Dutch NGO Solidaridad - despite huge numbers of letters written by their supporters asking them to withdraw from RTRS.

The "responsible soy" certification is aimed at getting Europe and the rest of the world to end its opposition to GM soy (which is used mostly in animal feed) under a cover of environmental greenwash.

The RTRS criteria will be launched in May and already some certification programmes are in place to exploit the 'green' label that will result from it. WWF's endorsement will assist the big GM companies in persuading governments and retailers to accept GM and intensively produced soy.

Sign the petition: http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/Action/action.html

19 April 2009

Germany says no plans to impose further GMO bans

Reuters / EuroInvestor, 19 April 2009. By Jeremy Smith:
http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/shownewsstory.aspx?storyid=10319952

CISON DI VALMARINO, Italy, April 19 (Reuters) - Germany has no plans to restrict imports of EU-approved genetically modified (GM) food and feed products after it banned growing of a biotech maize some days ago, its farm minister said on Sunday.

"All things that we import have been approved (at EU level) and we're not going to look at that again," Germany's Agriculture and Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner said.

"This was just about one maize variety, where we had a study suggesting it was a danger to the environment," she said in an interview during a meeting of G8 and G5 farm ministers in Italy.

Germany last Tuesday announced a ban on cultivation and sale of MON 810 maize, developed by U.S. biotech comapny Monsanto, the sixth European Union member country to do so.

The other countries are France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg. The maize first gained EU approval for growing in 1998 and its licence is currently under review for a renewal.

The biotech maize, engineered to resist the corn borer insect, is the only crop that is as yet authorised for cultivation within the 27 countries of the European Union. But there are also a string of approved EU imports of GM products grown outside the bloc, mostly for use in food and animal feed.

Some of those products have also been subject to national bans, which a country may impose under EU law if it can justify scientifically invoking what is known as a "safeguard clause".

"We have a labelling provision in Germany for animal products," Aigner said. "We do import GM feed stuff but we want to make sure that consumers have choice through that label."

Germany's ban on MON 810 maize means farmers will be unable to sow the crop for this summer's harvest.

Law to punish makers of harmful GMOs sought

Inquirer Northern Luzon (Philippines), 19 April 2009. By Delmar Cariño:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090419-200263/Law-to-punish-makers-of-harmful-GMOs-sought

BAGUIO CITY, Philippines -- The country should pass a special law to define the liability of those responsible for injuries arising from the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), an environmental advocacy group recently said.

The Third World Network (TWN) said the government's current rules allowing victims to seek redress for harm caused by GMOs have been purely administrative remedies (with no civil and criminal liabilities) and could not provide sufficient relief for victims.

In a paper titled, "Liability and redress in GMOs in the Philippines," the TWN said even laws on criminal and civil liabilities were not prepared to confront GMO-related disputes since the kind of damage caused by GMOs have been uncommon.

Copies of the paper, authored by lawyers Lilibeth Aruelo and Elpidio Peria, TWN associates, and Elenita Dano of TWN Philippines, were distributed to participants of the Supreme Court-led forum on environmental justice held from April 16 to 17 at the University of the Cordilleras here.

The TWN is an international research and advocacy organization on trade, environment and agriculture issues. Its work focuses on monitoring policy developments on climate change, biodiversity, intellectual property and bio-safety in Southeast Asia.

"There is no provision in the Revised Penal Code or in any special law which defines as specific offenses acts related to the propagation of GMOs, thus, it will be futile to use these laws as a means to secure redress for damages," the paper said.

TWN said GMOs could cause damage to the environment, including ecosystems, human health, economic viability of farmers, food security and traditional livelihood.

It noted the existence of administrative laws that dealt with GMOs, like the Department of Agriculture's Administrative Order No. 8 and Executive Order No. 514 or the National Bio-safety Framework.

But AO No. 8 does not provide for remedies against companies that sell harmful genetically modified seeds. On the other hand, EO No. 514 provided civil and criminal liabilities but they must be pursued in accordance with existing civil and criminal laws, it said.

These laws are also difficult to apply to liabilities arising from the use of GMOs since the nature of GMOs as a product and the kind of damage they could cause required special attention, according to TWN.

The paper said the country formed bodies to ensure the entry of safe products, such as the National Seed Quality Industry Council, the Philippine Crop Insurance Corp. and various consumer groups.

But it said the laws that created these bodies would still have to be pursued within the regular provisions of damage laws in the Philippines, which themselves were not prepared for GMO-related injuries.

The TWN paper said under present laws, a farmer, who suffered any injury, illness or loss from the use of GMOs would usually be pitted against a corporation.

If there would be no special law to help the farmer claim for damages, it would be difficult for him to seek redress because of the unequal economic and political situation that exist between him and the corporation, the paper said.

18 April 2009

Consumers still unsure about GM wheat

Canadian Cattlemen - the beef magazine, 18 April 2009. By Alana Vannahme:
http://www.canadiancattlemen.ca/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=98938&PC=FBC&issue=04182009

(Resource News International) -- It has been five years since U.S. seed and chemical company Monsanto dropped its plans to introduce genetically modified (GM) wheat in the face of consumer opposition -- and while some attitudes have shifted since then, by and large many people still aren't certain they want GM wheat included in their bread.

Consumers are willing to accept many types of new technology without reserve but when it comes to GM food, feelings run very high, said Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Laurent Pellerin.

The CFA itself neither promotes nor opposes GM wheat, but as long as there is no market for it, as is currently the case, it is "going to be wary of the introduction of GM seeds," Pellerin said.

Farmers cannot afford to invest in crops they are not able to market, he continued.

Dustin Gosnell, director of strategic planning and corporate policy for the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), similarly said the board is neutral toward the prospect of GM wheat.

"We don't oppose the introduction of GM wheat but it has to be done in a manner that won't be disruptive of trade flows," Gosnell said.

CWB support for the commercial introduction of GM wheat would be conditional upon wide-spread market acceptance, achievable tolerance acceptance levels and an ability to segregate GM wheat from non-GM wheat also to a level that is acceptable to its buyers, Gosnell explained.

The board continually tries to gage attitudes towards GM wheat among its buyers and while reservations have likely eased some over the past few years, there is "still certainly strong concern," Gosnell said.

When asked whether the board sees the eventual introduction of GM wheat in Canada as inevitable, Gosnell replied, "It's hard to say. I would expect that likely over time there will be enough acceptance but that is really difficult to know."

As for the Western Canadian Wheat Growers' Association (WCWGA), they are open to technologies which improves wheat's competitiveness versus other crops but they are not particularly wedded to any one type of technology.

Western Canada has lost 10 million acres of wheat over the last 20 years even as summerfallow acreage declined. The land has shifted into GM canola and special acreage, WCWGA executive director Blair Rutter said.

At the same time, Canada faces increased competition internationally from low-cost wheat producers such as Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, he said.

"Proper systems"

"We have to look at ways we can either increase our yields or increase the premium that we get for our wheat. So we're certainly open to (GM technology) but it's probably about six to eight years before we see anything introduced on a commercial basis," Rutter said.

While the WCWGA feels there is growing consumer acceptance for GM wheat, concerns about the loss of marketing opportunities are certainly legitimate, he said.

"Obviously if you're going to introduce this technology you have to make sure that consumers are comfortable with it... that is a big piece of the puzzle. But we've got six to eight years likely to make sure we have the proper systems in place," Rutter said.

Looking ahead, caution and thorough consultations will need to guide the commercial introduction of GM wheat in Canada to ensure that all parties along the supply chain, from producer to consumer, benefit from GM wheat, the different groups agreed.

Committee hears sides on genetically altered crops

Sun Journal - McClatchy Tribune (Maine, USA). By Rebekah Metzler:
http://www.sunjournal.com/story/313271-3/MaineNews/Committee_hears_sides_on_genetically_altered_crops/

Genetically engineered crops will either save us or be the end of us, depending on whom you believe.

Supporters and opponents testified Friday before the Legislature's Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee's hearing on several bills dealing with the practice.

The proposals, each sponsored by Rep. Benjamin Pratt, D-Eddington, included:

•

Requiring annual reporting of the total acreage of genetically engineered crops grown in Maine;

•

Banning the open-air production of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops;

•

Establishing liability in the case of cross-pollination of a genetically engineered crop with another crop.

Proponents of the bills said genetically engineered crops -- those that have been given specific traits through scientific intervention -- have not been adequately tested for their effects on humans and the environment, and the state should move cautiously when it comes to allowing their production.

"It's something that worries me in terms of the food supply and to me, there's no more important homeland security concern than our food supply," Pratt said.

In his testimony on behalf of his bill to ban the open-air production of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops in Maine, he used the example of safflower plants, which have been altered so they produce insulin, a drug used to help diabetes patients.

"That's a good thing, which I support as long as it's done in a greenhouse and in a controlled, contained environment," Pratt said. To his knowledge, no one in Maine is farming such crops in an open-air field.

Others said they supported the ban on such crops because human error and the process by which crops naturally reproduce ensure cross-pollination would occur.

"It's too great a risk to our food supply," said Bob St. Peter of Sedgwick, executive director of Food for Maine's Future.

Logan Perkins of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association said the economic ramifications of an accidental cross-pollination of a pharmaceutical crop would also hurt Maine farmers, in addition to health concerns.

"Maine is uniquely positioned to see a great resurgence of our agricultural industries," she said. "All of this could be jeopardized by a single contamination event. Let us act prudently now to protect the Maine brand and the value of its appeal in the marketplace, so that Maine farmers can thrive for generations to come."

The committee will schedule work sessions on the bills in the coming weeks.

Germany sees no EU legal action on GMO ban

Reuters, 18 April 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSLI17762320090418

CISON DI VALMARINO, Italy, -- Germany does not expect the European Commission to seek to stop its ban on cultivation and sale of genetically modified (GMO) maize, German Agriculture and Consumer Protection Minister said.

But it does expect a legal action from U.S. biotech company Monsanto (MON.N) whose MON 810 maize will be affected by the ban which was announced this week, Ilse Aigner told reporters on the sidelines of the farm ministers meeting in northern Italy.

"I do not think that the EU Commission is going to start legal proceedings now...they hinted at the fact that they are not going to do so," Aigner said via an interpreter.

"But we are expecting legal proceedings from Monsanto," she said without giving more details.

Germany's decision contradicts the European Union rulings that the biotech grain is safe and the EU Commission, the bloc's executive arm, said on Tuesday it would examine the German move.

Monsanto has said it would consider legal options to enable GMO seeds to be planted for this year's harvest, if the ban was confirmed.

France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg have banned MON 810 maize despite its approval by the EU for commercial use throughout the bloc, and Aigner said the issue was being discussed with other EU countries.

Italy's Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia, an opponent of GMO crops, told reporters he welcomed Germany's decision.

Both ministers spoke on the margins of the first-ever meeting of farm ministers from the Group of Eight industrialised countries and major developing nations which runs from Saturday to Monday in northern Italy.

Aigner reiterated her position that the ban was an individual decision based on a scientific research and was not a political move against all GMO crops.

The MON 810 maize is resistant to corn borer, an insect whose caterpillars damage maize plants.

(Reporting by Svetlana Kovalyova)

Opponents of GM crops protest in Spain

EuroNews, 18 April 2009:
http://www.euronews.net/2009/04/18/opponents-of-gm-crops-protest-in-spain/

[Watch the video at the link above]

Thousands of people have taken to the streets of the Spanish city of Zaragoza calling for a ban on the use of genetically modified crops.

They want their government to follow Germany's lead in banning GM maize. Berlin's action is against EU rulings that the biotech grain is safe.

The use of GMOs in agriculture is a hugely controversial issue across the EU. Opponents say there are health concerns to be addressed while supporters say it is a perfectly safe and efficient way of meeting Europe's food needs.

Zaragoza is a major centre of GM research and production. Forty percent of 80,000 hectares devoted to GM maize in Spain are in the Zaragoza region.

State Senate passes taro bill

The Maui News (Hawai'i, USA), 18 April 2009. By Chris Hamilton:
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/517396.html

HONOLULU - The state Legislature this week finally indicated that it plans to say no to Hawaii taro GMO.

The "Taro Security Bill" was approved by the state Senate on third reading Thursday, after passing in the House last month. It will ban the controversial practice of using and developing genetically modified organisms for Hawaiian varieties of taro only.

The ban, which for four years has attracted crowds to the Capitol, slipped through almost unnoticed as lawmakers approved more than 300 bills this week.

The final version of House Bill 1663 and Senate Bill 709 will be hashed out next week in conference committee before being sent to Gov. Linda Lingle for her signature.

The bill passed both chambers with near-unanimous support, ensuring the ability for an override if a veto occurred. Only Republican Oahu Sens. Fred Hemmings and Sam Slom voted against the ban.

Governor spokesman Russell Pang said that the state Department of Agriculture opposed the bill, but that Lingle had not indicated plans for a veto.

The five-year ban is a significant victory for taro farmers, Native Hawaiians and GMO opponents in general, who have repeatedly said the science remains in its infancy and that the dangers of genetic modification of food are unknown. Native Hawaiians say it's a sacred plant that should not be altered under any circumstances.

However, University of Hawaii at Manoa researchers and Monsanto agriculture company officials have argued that nearly 700 government and private studies have been done on the safety of genetically modified foods for well over a decade; and they have a perfect track record.

"For me, this is about cultural integrity," said the House bill's author, Rep. Mele Carroll, D-East Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe.

Carroll is chairwoman of the Hawaiian Affairs Committee and grows dry-land taro herself. Sen. J. Kalani English, D-Upcountry, East Maui, Lanai, Molokai, Kahoolawe, who is also Native Hawaiian, introduced the bill on the Senate side.

English said it's not only personal for him, but also is a precautionary measure against an unproven science.

The bill's language prohibits the development, testing, propagation, release, importation, planting and growing of genetically engineered Hawaiian taro in the state. But non-Hawaiian taro, such as Chinese Bun-long, can be genetically engineered as long as it's done in the controlled environment of a laboratory, Carroll said.

All field testing would be prohibited.

Sen. Shan Tsutsui, D-Kahakuloa, Wailuku, Waikapu, Kahului, Lower Paia, said the bill was pragmatic since it allows the science to continue moving forward while respecting the cultural perspective.

"Wouldn't it be ironic if one of these genetically modified taro species saved Hawaiian taro someday from being wiped out," Tsutsui said.

Crops are genetically modified in order to better resist disease and insects and produce much higher yields while using less fertilizer and pesticides.

Carroll said that her position not only echoed the sentiments of many of her constituent taro farmers - many of whom also have called on the Maui County Council to create a genetic engineering ban - but also followed her own spiritual beliefs as a Native Hawaiian. In the host culture, taro, or kalo as it's called, is an ancestor to the people, she said.

The House and Senate may still debate whether to allow for open-field testing of non-native taro. Farmers and activists have concerns that genetically modified taro could accidentally crossbreed with crops.

The bill "sunsets" after five years, so in order for it to continue the Legislature will need to approve a new ban at that time.

Earlier this year, the Hawaii County Council instituted a similar GMO ban on the Big Island that included protecting taro and Kona coffee. And just this month, Maui County Council Member Bill Medeiros introduced a proposal to ban GMO taro in the county.

The GMO trade industries and agricultural researchers have expressed concerns that if the state agrees to ban taro testing it could lead to widespread prohibitions against genetic testing on corn, bananas and other common Hawaii crops.

"GMO crops are safe and well regulated," Harold Keyser, UH College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources county administrator for Maui, told the Maui County Council last month. "The accumulated area planted since 1996 (in 25 countries) now exceeds 2 billion acres, again with a perfect safety record."

The House passed a bill this session that would have precluded counties from instituting any GMO crop bans on their own. But HB1226, which was introduced by House Speaker Rep. Calvin Say, never got a hearing in the Senate. It died on the vine.

* Chris Hamilton can be reached at chamilton@mauinews.com.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

This is great news, but note the false claims by pro-GM proponents quoted in the article, and by its author. GM crops are not designed to - and do not - "have much higher yields", and are not designed to - and do not - "use less fertliser and pesticides". On the contrary, the use of toxic weedkiller has increased dramatically wherever weedkiller-resistant GM crops are grown. Also, GM crops do not have a "perfect track record" - they have caused major crop failures (as in India and South Africa), and have widely contaminated conventional crops in 57 countries! And contrary to what the article states, a growing number of scientific studies prove that GM crops are dangerous to the environment, wildlife and health. Not to mention the economic, food sovereignty and food security implications of GM crop patents - and the fact that contaminated farmers lose legal ownership of their seeds and crops!

£3.5m to fund the quest to cure potato blight
• Bid to beat disease that costs farmers £3bn annually

The Press and Journal (UK), 18 April 2009. By Joe Watson:
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1176217?UserKey=

Scientists in Tayside are to share in a £3.5million grant to help in the quest to cure potato blight.

The funding for the next five years will be used by teams at Dundee University and the Scottish Crop Research Institute to unlock the secrets behind late blight - a disease that costs agriculture £3billion a year.

They will work with colleagues at Warwick University to find out how the blight pathogens attack plants in the hope they might be able to come up with a remedy.

Project leader Professor Paul Birch was yesterday excited at the funding award by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

He hopes it will significantly advance scientists' understanding of a disease that is the scourge of growers globally.

Prof Birch said the work would focus on trying to discover which of the microbes in blight - Phytophthora infestans - target cells in a tattie plant.

The disease appears very clever in manipulating the immune system in the potato plant by giving off proteins called effectors that prevent it reacting.

The work will be carried out alongside an initiative that aims to discover the cause of downy mildew, another potato problem.

Research is also to be conducted on two other related diseases - Phytophthora ramorum and Phytophthora kernoviae. These have recently been found in the UK and pose a threat to native trees and shrubs.

Prof Birch said with a new strain of blight being discovered recently in the UK and the European Commission banning some of the agrochemicals used to tackle the disease, the work was vitally important.

A bad outbreak of blight can force growers to spray crop against it weekly over the summer months.

Prof Birch said: "There is, perhaps, far too much blight spray being used. This work might provide an alternative means of controlling blight, or it might provide alternative sprays."

The blight team at SCRI and Dundee University is 15-strong, while the group at Warwick numbers 10.

Prof Birch expects the research will take the scientific teams in many different directions. That could include helping breeders develop more blight resistant varieties but without resorting to genetic manipulation [emphasis added - Ed].

Warwick-based Professor Jim Benyon said identifying the host proteins that allowed blight to infect plants could lead to new disease prevention techniques.

He added: "Plant disease is a considerable obstacle to global food production, so we hope this research will have wide implications for food security.

"When we understand the molecular interactions in the plant cell and how microbes cause disease, we can work out novel strategies to control or prevent crop losses and environmental damage."

Potatoes are the world's third biggest food crop.

17 April 2009

Gates Foundation ag official gets USDA post

Grist magazine (USA), 17 April 2009:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-17-gates-agusda/

President Obama has named Rajiv Shah, the Gates Foundation's director of agricultural develpopment, as Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics at the USDA.

The Gates Foundation's agriculture efforts have been criticized for ties to Monsanto, the globe's largest seed company and dominant purveyor of genetically modified seed traits. In 2007, the Gates Foundation named Rob Horsch, a long-time Monsanto VP, deputy director of its agricultural development initiative.

Zambia should not accept genetically modified maize

Zambia Daiy Mail, 17 April 2009. By Munshimbwe Chitalu:
http://www.daily-mail.co.zm/media/news/viewnews.cgi?category=22&id=1239950979

GENETICALLY Modified (GM) maize is produced by scientists through genetic manipulation. Scientists take genes from other living organisms and put them into normal maize to convert it to genetically modified maize.

The sources of genes they put into normal maize include soil bacteria, viruses, fish and other sources. In producing GM maize, the source of genes can be any living organism including humans and other higher forms of life.

Monsanto, an American company, has been the leading producer of GM maize. Others are Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred International.

GM maize is not natural. Its production is only possible with manipulation by man. This is why even animal genes can be used to produce GM maize. This is unethical and is done against the order of nature.

Problems associated with GM maize

GM products pose several problems to humans, animals and the environment.

However, this write-up is restricted only to those which relate to eating GM food substances.

GM maize is not safe

GM maize is not true maize, and may be unsafe to humans and animals. It also poses serious environmental risks.

Products of genetic modification are not specific. Current levels of scientific knowledge are too low to predict the results of genetic recombination.

The 1958 Francis Crick theory of Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, which has been the guiding principle for understanding genetic expression and genetic modification, has been disproved.

It is now known that one gene can give rise to more than one protein and that interrupted genes can splice and give rise to multiple proteins.

Therefore, scientists do not know what other proteins are contained in GM maize because all along they have assumed that only one protein is produced when a gene is transplanted from one organism into another.

Jeffrey Smith has documented problems in farm animals and humans exposed to GM materials; 17 of them are reproduced below:

1.

Rats fed GM tomatoes suffered from bleeding stomachs and several died;

2.

Mice fed GM potatoes had intestinal damage;

3.

Workers exposed to GM cotton developed allergies;

4.

Sheep died after grazing in GM cotton fields;

5.

Farmers reported that pigs and cows became sterile when fed with GM maize;

6.

Twelve cows fed with GM maize in Germany died;

7.

Mice fed on GM soya (Roundup Ready soy) developed liver cell and pancrease problems;

8.

Mice fed GM soya (Roundup Ready soy) had unexplained changes in testicular cells;

9.

Inhaled GM maize pollen was suspected to trigger a disease in humans;

10.

Most offspring of rats fed on GM soya died within three weeks;

11.

Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced;

12.

Rats fed GM canola had heavier livers;

13.

Twice the number of chickens died when fed GM maize (Liberty Link corn);

14.

GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice;

15.

Eyewitness reports suggest that animals given a choice avoid Gm feed;

16.

A GM food supplement killed about 100 people; and

17.

GM (Roundup Ready) soya changed cell metabolism in rabbit organs.

GM maize contains genes which provide resistance to common antibiotics for treatment of human and animal diseases.

These genes could be passed to bacteria in the guts of humans or animals and render antibiotic medication void.

Even the British Medical Association has described the use of such genes as a completely unacceptable risk, however slight, to human health.

There seems to be a lot of mischief in European and American laws which forbid identification of GM materials through labelling.

If GM foodstuffs were novel, why should people decide to hide their identity? Only fictitious materials or copyrights hide under the name of authentic products.

Because GMs have questionable identity and authenticity; their producers are not comfortable to label food products as such.

Developed countries also oppose GM crops

Dealing in GM crops, and maize in particular, is not globally accepted. A Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' survey done in April, 1999 found that 58 per cent of land managers believe that growing GM crops could affect the value of the land.

In addition, 43 per cent thought that growing GM crops could affect the value of neighbouring land. And only one in 10 said they would advise their clients to grow GM crops.

The European countries are opposed to production of GM crops for safety and environmental reasons. France, Poland, Austria and Greece have continued with the complete ban of production of GMs in their countries for safety reasons and their unpredictable outcomes.

Should Zambia, a country with less advanced technology, blindly accept what she does not really know, especially that the writing is on the wall?

Zambia has a biosafety law

The Zambian biosafety law binds anyone who intends to deal, transport or transact in GM materials to follow the regulations and ensure that such action will not cause problems to neighbours.

The author is Chief Executive Officer of the Organic Producers and Processors Association of Zambia (OPPAZ). For comments, contact him on mchitalu@organic.org.zm

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The list of dangers of GM foods quoted above is fully referenced in Jeffrey Smith's book "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods". For details see http://www.geneticroulette.com/

Monsanto Mulls Legal Action as Germany Bans MON810

Bridges Trade BioRes, Volume 9, Number 7, 17 April 2009.
Published by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development:
http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/45175/

Resisting the will of the European Commission, Germany has become the sixth European country to impose a national ban on the cultivation of MON810, a genetically modified strain of maize. The country said the ban, imposed on 14 April, was based on environmental concerns, but agriculture giant Monsanto, which manufactures the pest-resistant strain, said that the fears were unfounded and that it was considering legal action on the matter.

"I have come to the conclusion there are just reasons to assume that the genetically modified maize MON810 represents a danger for the environment," Ilse Aigner, Germany's minister of agriculture, told reporters on Tuesday, AFP reported. "Therefore, the cultivation of MON810 is now banned in Germany."

Monsanto responded quickly to the move. "Monsanto is examining all available options and reserves the right to take legal steps so that German farmers can sow MON810 in the current season," said Ursula Luettmer-Ouazane, head of Monsanto's German division, in a statement.

"We are disappointed and frankly, we don't believe that they have justification to warrant this," Brad Mitchell, a spokesman for Monsanto, told the St. Louis Business Journal. "They have cited unconvincing evidence that it is unsafe for aquatic organisms. But the scientific committee of the European Union approved it."

The European Commission has approved the use of MON810 maize and Germany has allowed farmers to grow the strain since 2005. But EU members Austria, France, Greece and Hungary have all banned its use; Luxembourg announced its own prohibition of MON810 just last month (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 3 April 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/44622/).

Europe's aversion to GM products motivated the US, Argentina, and Canada to bring a complaint to the WTO in 2003. Three years later, the WTO ruled that the EU's de facto ban on genetically modified food imports between 1984 and 2004 violated world trade rules.

Since then, the WTO has called on the EU to pressure its member countries to allow farmers to produce the modified strain of maize. Earlier this year, the European Commission was unable to force France and Greece, and later Austria and Hungary, to allow the use of MON810. But both efforts were unsuccessful (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 20 February 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/41093/ and 6 March 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/42458/ ). The countries claim that current scientific studies do not provide adequate assurance that the genetically modified crop does no harm to humans, animals or the environment.

While the Monsanto maize is approved for use in all EU countries that have not imposed national bans, it is harvested in only seven of the bloc's 27 member states.

ICTSD reporting; "Germany banks Monsanto's GM maize," BBC NEWS, 14 April 2009; "Germany wants to ban Monsanto Corn," ST LOUIS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 15 April 2009; "Germany to join other European countries in ban against Monsanto's genetically modified MON 810 corn," EAT.DRINK.BETTER, 15 April 2009; "Monsanto mulls legal action over GMO ban," AFP, 15 April 2009.

Monsanto strikes back at Germany, UCS

Cleantech Group, 17 April 2009. By Emma Rich:
http://www.cleantech.com/news/4377/monsanto-strikes-back-germany-ucs

Biotech corn developer says it's pursuing all legal options to overturn Germany's new ban on genetically modified corn. St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto (NYSE: MON) said today it's pursuing "legal options" to overturn Germany's ban on genetically modified crops.

Germany has now officially enacted the ban, announced earlier this week, on MON 810-a strain of corn Monsanto genetically engineered to protect the crop against pests. MON 810 was previously the only genetically modified crop permitted in the country under German law (see Double-whammy hits genetically modified crops).

Germany was set to have 3,600 hectares (9,000 acres) of the MON 810 crop planted this year, but German officials questioned the environmental impact of the seed.

Biotech giant Monsanto isn't taking the ban lightly.

"We haven't decided what our next step is, but legal options are one of the things we're considering," said Brad Mitchell, director of public affairs for Monsanto, in an interview with the Cleantech Group.

The European Food Safety Authority has ruled that the Monsanto MON 810 strain is safe for commercial use in the European Union. The European Union designated the EFSA as the sole authority to make rulings about the safety of GM crops, but any member country wanting to overrule the EFSA would need to present scientific evidence to support a ban.

"There's no scientific evidence to support that decision," Mitchell said. "Europe, the U.S. and Canada have all approved this for planting. Adoption in South America has been huge."

Despite traction in those markets, Germany isn't the sole country expressing doubts about GM crops. Luxembourg, Greece, Austria and Hungary have banned MON 810 from being grown in their countries. France has also banned MON 810-despite a report from its public health agency, Agence FranÁaise de SÈcuritÈ Sanitaire des Aliments, assuring the safety of GM crops.

"The decisions over there, I think it's political," Mitchell said. "These decisions seem to be contradicting both the European Food Safety Authority, as well as in France their own scientific panels. We understand folks in Europe don't have the same comfort level with biotech as we see in North America, but it seems the government itself should follow the scientific advice and do what's best for its citizens."

The ban prompted a joint statement from German science organizations on green genetic engineering today, citing government-funded research in Germany that proved the benefits of GM crops.

"The ban poses the danger that unfounded fear could take the place of rational scientific information," the group wrote. "A complete rejection of green genetic engineering would do lasting damage to Germany as a location for research. Genetic engineering techniques derived from molecular biology offer a unique opportunity to develop more valuable, more environmentally friendly, more productive cash crops in this era of climate change."

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a study the same day Germany announced its ban, saying genetically modified crops offer little advantage over traditional crops. The report cited studies of GM corn and soybeans in the U.S. that show little gain in crop yields.

Mitchell said the UCS study was misleading.

"They cherry-picked the data to come up with that conclusion. More importantly, they missed the larger picture: Farmers have adopted this technology very widely, and they're not going to spend the extra money unless they see value from that," Mitchell said.

Mitchell noted that beyond yield, there are many other benefits to GM crops. By eliminating the need to spray pesticides, the farmer saves on the cost of pesticides, his own time to apply pesticides, and fuel for the tractor. Additionally, less plowing of fields means fewer carbon emissions, Mitchell said (see Biotech crops lower world's carbon emissions, says researcher).

"The main uses of GM crops are to make them insect tolerant and herbicide tolerant. They don't inherently increase the yield. They protect the yield," Mitchell said. "But in developing countries without good weed and pest controls, that's where you see the dramatic yield increases."

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech estimates that there were about 125 million hectares of genetically modified plants in 2008-a 10 percent increase over the previous year. That growth trend during the past decade has resulted in more than a 60-fold increase in adoption across the globe (see Global biotech crops up 13% in 2006, driven partly by biofuel).

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Note the admission by Monsanto Public Affairs Director, Brad Mitchell, that GM crops "don't inherently increase the yield"!

Terminating Food Sovereignty in Ecuador?
President opens door to Terminator seeds

ETC Group news release, 17 April 2009:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=740

Download this press release as PDF file: http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/740

On February 18, 2009, the Ecuadorian Congress approved a new Law on Food Sovereignty, which, among other important points, declared the country "free of transgenic crops and seeds." However, in spite of vocal popular opposition, the legislation left the door open to approvals of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in "exceptional" cases. Now, President Rafael Correa has proposed several changes to the legislation - in what is known in Ecuador as a partial-veto - and sent it back to the Congress. The president's changes dangerously weaken the law and open the door to Terminator seeds.

Terminator technology is designed to make "suicide seeds," genetically engineered to be sterile in the second generation. The technology has been widely rejected around the world by farmers' movements, governments, research institutions and UN agencies as dangerous, immoral and undesirable.

Alarmed by President Correa's proposals, civil society is now calling on him to drop his amendments and to explicitly ban Terminator technology.

"It's very disturbing that a law that aims to affirm food sovereignty could instead clear the way for a technology that was designed to prevent it," said Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group. "The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the companies that designed suicide seed technology did so explicitly to replace what they called peasants' 'old seeds.' Since 2000, when a de facto moratorium against Terminator technology was agreed at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], these companies have re-branded Terminator as a 'biosafety' tool. This is the interpretation reflected in the president's amended text. Ribeiro adds, "We're worried that this kind of language is showing up in several countries in the global South and we see it as a new push by the biotech industry to overturn the moratorium on Terminator at the CBD's meeting next year in Japan."

Article 26 of Ecuador's Law on Food Sovereignty, entitled "Regulation of biotechnology and its products," allowed for the import and processing of "raw materials containing transgenic inputs, provided they meet the requirements of health and safety, and that the reproductive capacity of the seeds is disabled by breaking [of grains] (...)"

The explicit clarification of "seed disabled by breaking" was included to ensure that if transgenic seeds were imported through food aid, or for processing, accidental gene flow from these grains would not contaminate crops in Ecuador, as has tragically happened in Mexico and other countries.

The partial-veto of President Correa removes the phrase "by breaking" [1] from this article, arguing that breaking the grains would mean increased costs. The result is that the amended wording now allows for the importation of GM materials provided only that the "reproductive capacity of seeds is disabled." Such language equals an acceptance of grains with Terminator technology.

Elizabeth Bravo of Acción Ecológica, an internationally-respected environmental civil society organization in Ecuador, comments, "Unfortunately, the president's changes to the legislation reflect the influence of his biotech industry-friendly advisors. Terminator is an experimental technology that has never been proven. Scientific reports submitted to the CBD demonstrate that the complexity and instability of Terminator seeds mean that, in practice, there will still be leakage of GM traits. We could face a worst-case scenario: Ecuador enabling both GM contamination and suicide seeds. That is a direct threat to agricultural biodiversity, an essential basis for food sovereignty in Ecuador."

Bravo added, "This text works against the provisions of article 73 of Ecuador's Constitution, which 'prohibits the introduction of organic and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic heritage.'"

Maria José Guazzelli from Brazil and the international Ban Terminator Campaign (made up of hundreds of organizations throughout the world), also voiced concern. "It would be outrageous for Ecuador, which always supported the international moratorium against Terminator, to open the gate to this terrible technology at the national level. Instead, Ecuador should legislate a ban on the import, development, trials and commercialization of Terminator seeds, as Brazil has already done."

For more information:

Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (México) etcmexico@etcgroup.org, tel +52 (55) 5563 2664

Elizabeth Bravo, Acción Ecológica (Ecuador) ebravo@rallt.org, tel + 593 (2) 254 7516

MarÌa José Guazzelli, Ban Terminator Campaign, (Brazil), mariajose.guazzelli@gmail.com

End Note:

[1] The second paragraph of article 26 of the Law on Food Sovereignty approved February 18th 2009, by the Ecuadorian National Assembly said : Las materias primas que contengan insumos de origen transgénico únicamente podr·n ser importadas y procesadas, siempre y cuando cumplan con los requisitos de sanidad e inocuidad y que su capacidad de reproducción como semillas sea inhabilitada por trozamiento, respetando el principio de precaución, de modo que no atenten contra la salud humana, la soberanÌa alimentaria y los ecosistemas. (...)

The text proposed by President Rafael Correa on March 19th says: Las materias primas que contengan insumos de origen transgénico únicamente podr·n ser importadas y procesadas, siempre y cuando cumplan con los requisitos de sanidad e inocuidad y que su capacidad de reproducción como semillas sea inhabilitada, respetando el principio de precaución, de modo que no atenten contra la salud humana, la soberanÌa alimentaria y los ecosistemas.(...)

PAN ALERT: TAKE ACTION - Tell Congress: Get GE Research Out of Foreign Aid

Pesticide Action Network North America, 17 April 2009:
http://action.panna.org/t/5185/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27074

Despite a mountain of evidence that genetically engineered (GE) crops have failed to deliver, a new multi-billion dollar aid bill before the Senate directs more money towards more GE research. This portion of the bill is a stealth giveaway to agribusiness in the name of feeding the world's poor. It will further de-stabilize the developing world's capacity to feed itself for generations to come.

Act Now! Urge your Senator to strip the biotech provision - it revises the 1961 Federal Assistance Act to mandate that US food aid include research on genetically engineered crops.

The Global Food Security Act (SB 384) represents the biggest project in U.S. agricultural aid since the original "Green Revolution" introduced pesticides to poor farmers throughout the world in the 1950s and 1960s. The bill sailed through committee last month based on hastily conducted, industry-friendly research.

With heavy agribusiness support, and a sweet-sounding name, the Global Food Security Act will likely be passed. The act has many merits, but its biotech research and development provision must be stripped if we are to avoid another failed "Green Revolution."

Now is the time to tell Congress to strip the GE provision.

Take action:

http://action.panna.org/t/5185/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27074

Global Food Security Act

Foreign Policy In Focus (USA), 17 April 2009. By Annie Shattuck:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6050

Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco

Editor's Note: This commentary was adapted from the report "Why the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act will Fail to Curb Hunger," by Annie Shattuck and Eric Holt-GimEnez. (Food First Policy Brief No. 18. Institute for Food and Development Policy. Oakland, California.)

A new bill before the Senate would create a federal mandate for genetically modified (GM) crop research as part of U.S. aid programs, despite evidence that these crops will fail to curb hunger.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the sweet-sounding Global Food Security Act (SB 384) last month with little fanfare. The legislation, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act for the bill's authors Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Robert Casey (D-PA), includes a provision sought after by aid groups that would allow food aid to be purchased - at least in part, locally. The bill aims to reform aid programs to focus on longer-term agricultural development, and restructure aid agencies to better respond to crises. While the focus on hunger is commendable, funding for agricultural development - some $7.7 billion worth of it - under the proposed law would be directed in large part to genetically modified crop research.

The bill is proving to be divisive among aid groups. But according to a new report by Food First that I co-authored, this bill is not an isolated piece of legislation, but a coordinated roll-out of the "new Green Revolution," - a project that includes the Gates Foundation's multi-billion dollar Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). In fact, the legislation is based on an industry-friendly report funded by the Gates Foundation. Initiated by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in fall of 2008 and drafted by the end the year, the hastily prepared report on which the new law is based calls for increasing research funding for biotechnology.

Ignoring the Evidence

In contrast, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a recent four-year study conducted by the World Bank and the Food and Organization (FAO) in consultation with more than 400 scientists and development experts, reached the opposite conclusions. The IAASTD found that reliance on resource-extractive industrial agriculture is unsustainable, particularly in the face of worsening climate, energy, and water crises. And it concluded that expensive, short-term technical fixes - including GM crops - don't adequately address the complex challenges of the agricultural sector and often exacerbate social and environmental harm. The IAASTD called for land reform, agro-ecological techniques (proven to enhance farmers' adaptive capacity and resilience to environmental stresses such as climate change and water scarcity), building local economies, local control of seeds, and farmer-led participatory breeding programs.

Evidence in favor of these alternatives is building. A 2008 study by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development found that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and...it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term." Numerous studies have documented these alternatives' ability not only to raise yield - but reduce poverty and inequality, the root cause of hunger.

Lessons from the First Green Revolution

The Lugar-Casey Act represents the biggest project in agriculture since the original Green Revolution industrialized farming in the 1950s and 1960s. The first Green Revolution increased global food production by 11% in a very short time, but per capita hunger also increased equally as much. How could this be? Green Revolution technologies are expensive. The fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, and machinery needed to cash in on productive gains put the technology out of reach of most small farmers, increasing the divide between rich and poor in the developing world. Poor farmers were driven out of business and into poverty-stricken urban slums.

The new Green Revolution the Lugar-Casey bill highlights suffers from all these same problems. This time, however, the genetically engineered seeds will be under patent and privately owned by the biotechnology corporations that monopolize the seed industry. Patented seeds can be up to 35% more expensive than traditional and hybrid varieties.

Moreover, while the first Green Revolution did significantly raise yields, genetic modification has yet to do so. A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that GM crops don't raise the potential yield of crops at all - the best they can do is marginally reduce losses, something improved farming practices, conventional pesticides, and agroecological techniques do as well. According to microbiologist Margaret Mellon, "After more than 3,000 field trials, only two types of engineered genes are in widespread use, and they haven't helped raise the ceiling on potential yields. This record does not inspire confidence in the future of the technology."

New Subsidies, New Markets

The funding the Lugar-Casey bill mandates is essentially a subsidy to private research and development goals: it has nothing to do with reducing hunger. Public money will go to U.S. corporations to produce patented products, essentially subsidizing risky projects and privatizing gain in the name of charity.

While funding from the Lugar-Casey Act may greatly expand current government-biotech partnerships, it certainly does not invent them. The U.S. government is already funding public-private private research partnerships with foreign aid dollars. One such partnership between Arcadia Biosciences, USAID (the U.S. agency responsible for delivering foreign aid), and Mahyco Seeds, an Indian seed company in which Monsanto has a significant ownership stake, will license the seeds - developed with public funds - to Mahyco.

Another partnership between USAID and Monsanto to develop a virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya failed to deliver any useful product for farmers. After fourteen years and $6 million, local varieties vastly outperformed their genetically modified cousins in field trials. Meanwhile, conventional breeders in Uganda developed a virus-resistant strain in a few years at a small fraction of the cost. What the USAID-Monsanto partnership did succeed in, however, was creating a legal framework to open Kenya to conventional biotech products. In 2001 Kenyan legislators passed the Industrial Property Act, which according to patent expert Robert Lettington "may actually place very little restriction on the patenting of life forms at all." Lettington was right; this year Kenya approved a biosafety law that will allow for commercialization of genetically modified crops.

Currently, GM crops are legal in only three African nations. India and the Philippines are the only Southeast Asian nations that allow biotech plantings; Honduras is the only Central American nation to permit GM crops. Once attached to a pool of foreign aid money, the pressure to open markets to biotechnology will be substantial. The countries targeted for initial projects - Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Malawi, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Guatemala, and Honduras - are all nations where the biotech industry has made significant inroads. They also represent significant potential markets - and a windfall for U.S. seed and chemical companies.

One thing is clear: The Global Food Security Act isn't just about feeding the hungry - it's about advancing the interests of U.S. agribusiness. The IAASTD found that agroecological techniques, stricter regulation of multinational agribusiness, and increased democratic control of the global food system can address the root causes of hunger in a way that a biotechnology never will. Lugar-Casey's renewed focus on agricultural development is welcome but that focus must come with a commitment to put the interests of small farmers before that of industry.

Annie Shattuck, a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor, is a policy analyst at the Institute for Food and Development Policy, also known as Food First, in Oakland, California.

Euro News poll on GM food and farming, 17 May 2009:
http://www.euronews.net/news/you/

Should genetically modified organisms be banned in Europe?

•

Yes: 79%

•

No: 18%

•

I don't know: 3%

GM at the elections
Food for thought

The Hindu, 17 April 2009. By Meena Menon:
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/04/17/stories/2009041755041200.htm

Mumbai - While the Congress is silent in its manifesto on genetically modified crops, other parties have dealt with it in their own ways.

The BJP manifesto declares: "No genetically modified seed will be allowed for cultivation without full scientific data on long-term effects on soil, production and biological impact on consumers. All food and food products produced with genetically modified seeds will be branded as 'GM Food.'"

The CPI says: "With regard to GM crops/foods, we will take a precautionary approach and will demand a moratorium until all pending issues are resolved satisfactorily.

"Further, the CPI will demand a review of the Indo-U.S. Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA)."

The CPI (ML) too says: "No introduction of genetically modified (GM). Immediate stop to all field trials of GM crops."

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) also targets the KIA. The Pattali Makal Katchi (PMK) says it will oppose all GM seeds and GM foods, and demand a moratorium on GM crop field trials, apart from opposing collaborations between MNCs and agricultural universities.

Even the manifestos of the TRS, the AIADMK and the MDMK have touched on GM food. Only one party seems silent.

Germany - Concerns over GM Corn

Farming UK, 17 April 2009:
http://www.farminguk.com/news/Germay-Concerns-over-GM-Corn.14967.asp

German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner will announce in the coming weeks whether her office will impose a ban on the commercial use of a type of genetically modified corn produced and marketed by the American biotech giant Monsanto (MON).

But the idea has sparked a war of words between normally allied German conservatives. Aigner is a member of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union. Since Bavaria is an agricultural region, a CDU official has condemned the CSU's push for the ban as populism-or, more precisely, as "irresponsible, cheap propaganda."

Monsanto, the world's largest producer of seeds, manufactures the only GM plant still approved for use in commercial farming in Germany, a corn used for animal feed. The primary benefit of the plant, called MON 810, is that it produces a toxin to fight off one of its worst enemies, the voracious larvae of the corn borer moth. The seed was introduced in the EU in 1998.

Aigner is under pressure from Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CSU, to push through the ban so he can use the issue to gain votes for his party in the upcoming EU and German elections. The electoral boost would come from the many voters in Germany that have fiercely resisted GM plants and Monsanto. These include organic farmers, beekeepers, church groups and anti-capitalism protesters.

But Aigner is also feeling pressure not to impose the ban-which would contradict EU law-from within her own ministry, from other political parties and ministers, and from members of the scientific community.

Experts in Aigner's ministry warn that it will be hard to prove that MON 810 damages the environment, which could let Monsanto win a court case opposing the ban and expose the government to €6-€7 million ($7.9-$9.2 million) in damages.

Katherina Reiche, deputy chairwoman of the CDU/CSU's parliamentary group, has complained of the "CSU's irresponsible, cheap propaganda," claiming that it could harm German industry. She argued that anti-GM sentiment was one reason a subsidiary of the German chemical giant Bayer AG decided to move its facilities for genetic engineering from Potsdam, near Berlin, to Belgium.

Aigner told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper that GM corn "has so far not yielded tangible benefits for the people." She has an ally in German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabrial, of the rival Social Democrats. "I don't see why we should pursue the interests of a single American corporation," Gabriel has said.

He was one of the majority of EU environment ministers who successfully blocked a move by the European Commission in early March to force Austria and Hungary to lift their bans on genetically modified corn.

Some members of the scientific community, though, have complained about the repercussions of a possible ban. Wolfgang Herrmann, president of Munich 's Technical University, has said that the CSU's actions risk precipitating "an exodus of researchers."

Nevertheless, the Nürtingen-Geislingen University of Economics and Environment discontinued field trials of GM corn after its fields were destroyed. Other organizations, such as the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, based in Potsdam, and the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics in Gatersleben, are not risking field trials right now. In 2008 the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety listed 39 such field trials. This year, only one has been listed so far.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Farming UK is out of touch with reality. Germany's GM ban has already come into effect 3 days ago!

16 April 2009

Frankenfood Ban Is 'Neither Populism nor Panic-Mongering'

Spiegel Online, 16 April 2009. By Michael Scott Moore:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,619347,00.html

A German ban on genetically modified corn has found broad support in the German public, and protests against a patent on a strain of pig made headlines on Wednesday. German commentators wonder if this is just European technophobia or whether genes are a natural resource which no patent should restrain.

It's been a tough week in Germany for proponents of genetically engineered farm products. First Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner announced a ban on cultivating a strain of genetically modified (GM) corn. Then on Wednesday, demonstrations were held in the Bavarian capital of Munich and the Hessian capital of Wiesbaden against a patent on a breed of pig.

Around 400 people demonstrated on Munich's central Marienplatz square before moving on to the nearby headquarters of the European Patent Office, driving a small herd of swine. Their placards featured slogans like "no patents on life" and "stop the patent on the poor pig." Bavaria's Environment Minister Markus Söder, who has positioned himself as a prominent critic of genetic engineering in recent years, addressed the crowd. "We don't believe in the future of GM foods," he said to great applause.

The pig patent, EP 1651777, is an attempt by the US-based company Newsham Choice Genetics to register a faster-growing meat pig within the European Union. The line of corn, Monsanto's MON810, has been protected by a patent for years, and produces a toxin that kills the potentially devastating corn borer moth. The corn seed has faced bans in a few European countries – against the European Commission's will – and the German decision to ban it just before farmers are due to plant their crops is an anti-Brussels gesture that should go down well in Aigner's home state of Bavaria.

Aigner's party, the CSU, is a Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats. It has reason to worry about winning seats in the European Parliament this June and in the German parliament in September's national election. But the reason Aigner gave for the ban is simple: Monsanto, the corporation that sells the corn seed, can't guarantee that it will have no adverse effect on the environment. Recent tests from Austria suggest MON810 could reduce fertility in mice.

The swine patent likewise stems from Monsanto research, although Newsham bought the patent and its related corporate group from Monsanto in 2007. The protesting farmers in this case worry about an encroachment of patents into their fields and stalls, where traditionally no one has been able to demand money from them for cross-breeding.

German papers on Thursday are simmering over whether popular resistance to genetically modified corn and patented swine is a matter of kneejerk mistrust of US corporations, or an example of good science trumping hasty legislation.

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"To the four small EU countries that have so far banned MON810, two large ones have added their weight: first France, and now Germany. This development can't be ignored in Brussels. For the time being, the EU bureaucrats will follow the results of a legal proceeding in France brought by (Monsanto), an international corporation. If the plaintiff wins, the EU will have a problem: It will then not be a simple matter of protecting consumers, but also, potentially, of protecting seed producers – a group that may also include farmers."

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:

"Opponents of genetic engineering rejoiced when Aigner banned MON180 seed on Tuesday. The joy is justified; the corn won't be planted in German soil this year. But it's a temporary triumph – unfortunately nothing more."

"Aigner is not at all convinced that the trans-genetic corn seed is truly dangerous. Before she came to the ministry last November, she argued in favor of the technology as a research expert before the German parliament. Now she's flipped 180 degrees, within a few months, by referring to new hints of risk to the environment. But similar research has existed for years."

"What's new, however, is that the CSU are afraid of missing the nationwide 5-percent hurdle in the June elections for the European Parliament. Aigner fears that a pro-GM food position would cost votes, as polls in Bavaria predict. After the election, however, this motive will fall away."

The conservative Die Welt, in a signed editorial by Stefan M–rsdorf, a Christian Democratic environmental minister from the state of Saarland, argues:

"As long as doubts remain about this strain of corn and its potential danger to humans and the environment, it is our duty to ban it. This is neither populism nor panic-mongering. It is an act of reason – first to test the genetic process, then to gather facts. The existing studies raise questions that need to be answered before the ban can be lifted. The security of the consumer, of everyone who works in agriculture, and of the environment itself must have absolute priority – even above the economic interests of a genetic-engineering concern."

"The state of Saarland is free of genetically modified plants, and it will remain so in the future – not out of populism, panic or fear of technology, but as a sign of quality in Saarland agriculture, which it is our duty to provide to consumers."

The center-left S¸ddeutsche Zeitung gives the most comprehensive argument against patented GM crops and breeds:

"Farmers fear with some justification that they might be sued by a patent owner. For years Monsanto has set its lawyers loose in the US against farm owners who supposedly have used genetically modified seed without paying. The protesting farmers in Munich fear a world where they can only raise patented breeds – and then only with the consent of certain companies."

"A problem with all patents is that they assert a right to forbid. A patent owner, using intellectual property protection, can block out competitors by demanding huge fees. In the case of animals and plants, this infringes on the freedom to breed. Unrestrained access to genetic resources has been a right of all farmers for centuries."

"Politicians have been arguing about the regulations for the last 10 years. They should broach the issue one more time and unambiguously rule out patents on plants and animals – because even the fattest pig is not a machine."

G8 Urged to Reject Another 'Green Revolution'

• U.S. working group on the food crisis urges G8 to reject failed green revolution policies for Africa
• "'Business as Usual' Will Not Solve Global Hunger Crisis"

The U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis, 16 April 2009:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/16-19

WASHINGTON - April 16 - The U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis, a group representing anti-hunger, family farm, community food security, environmental, international aid, labor, food justice, consumers and other food system actors, urges the G8 at the upcoming Agricultural Ministerial in Treviso, Italy to reject the failed policies of the Green Revolution. A recent landmark report backed by the UN and World Bank argues for agroecological and sustainable agriculture, rather than reliance on chemical-intensive practices and genetic engineering.

The U.S. Working Group is deeply disappointed by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hasty passage of the Global Food Security Act (S. 384) on March 31. This bill would mark a significant shift in U.S. policy by specifically mandating foreign agriculture research for genetic engineering. Previously, we had criticized the Committee's March 24 hearing on "Alleviating Global Hunger" that relied on testimonies from "Green Revolution" advocates for the industrial agriculture system. We urge the G8 summit to resist pressure from the biotech industry and embrace genuine solutions to the food crisis.

The U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis's vision for reforming agriculture policy to help end the global food crisis calls on governments to:

•

Re-regulate commodity futures markets to end excessive speculation

•

Halt expansion of industrial agrofuels in developing countries

•

Stabilize commodity prices through international and domestic food reserves

•

Establish fairer regional and global trade arrangements

•

Direct farm policy, research, education and investment toward agroecological farming practices.

The United States should reject the approach of the Global Food Security Act, sponsored by Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Bob Casey (D-PA), and instead bring our agricultural research and foreign aid strategy in line with the findings of the acclaimed International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), backed by United Nations agencies, the World Bank and over 400 contributing scientists from 80 countries. The IAASTD found that the most promising solutions to the world's food crisis include investing in agroecological research, extension and farming.

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist at Pesticide Action Network and a Lead Author of the IAASTD report said, "Today's global food crisis demands immediate action. But the Lugar-Casey Global Hunger Bill takes us in exactly the wrong direction. As numerous scientific reports from the UN have confirmed, African productivity can be most effectively increased through investment in organic and agroecological farming." Ishii-Eiteman further cautioned the G8 not to focus simply on production: "The bigger, more fundamental challenge today is about restoring fairness and democratic control over our food systems. It is about increasing the profitability, well-being and resilience of small-scale and family farmers in the face of massive environmental and global economic challenges."

Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy has released a policy brief on "Why the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act Will Fail to Curb Hunger" (attached). Eric Holt-Gimenez, Executive Director of Food First, said, "The Global Food Security Act, while commendable for its renewed focus on investing in agricultural development in Africa, mandates funding for genetically modified (GM) crop research. Past public-private partnerships on GM crops for Africa have proven to be colossal failures. The failed GM sweet potato project between Monsanto, USAID and a Kenyan research institute is a good example of 14 years' worth of wasted money and effort. The G8 Conference should focus on solutions that actually work."

Anti-hunger groups also criticized the Global Food Security Act's approach and warned about the effects of promoting biotechnology on the poor. Bill Ayres, Executive Director of World Hunger Year, said, "The recent Global Food Security Act to improve the U.S. response to the world food crisis starts from a flawed premise. Indeed, the world - and the U.S. in particular - must refocus antihunger efforts to support aid and agricultural research for small farmers throughout the world. But the emphasis on genetically modified crops is misplaced. We saw Germany this week ban genetically engineered maize based on health and environmental grounds. GM maize has also been banned in France and Greece. We should focus on helping African farmers maintain control over their land and seeds, earn a living wage, and enhance - not degrade - the quality of their land and water."

Faith groups also recommended a new approach to eliminating global hunger and warned that the G8 should not emphasize biotechnology. Andrew Kang Bartlett of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) said, "While the intentions behind the Global Food Security Act may be laudable, the question is whether poorer farmers left behind by the last Green Revolution will again be swept aside by a top-down approach that benefits mostly transnational corporations." Dave Kane, of Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, a Catholic missionary organization with priests, brothers, sisters and lay people working in Asia, Africa and Latin America, added, "We have found GM technology to be disastrous for small farmers and rural communities. Our missioners in Latin America and Asia have seen farmers get deeper and deeper into debt as they struggle to pay for all the seeds, fertilizers and herbicides that GMO technologies require. The result: farmers lose their land and with it, the ability to feed themselves and their families."

The National Family Farm Coalition, a North American member of La Via Campesina, the international peasants movement, will be pressing the G8 to reconsider policies that advocate for food sovereignty. Ben Burkett, a Mississippi farmer and president of NFFC said, "Farmers both here and in Africa know that the current industrial agriculture model-and the push to fast-track trade liberalization-has failed to alleviate global hunger and denied family farmers a sustainable livelihood. A recently released report this month by Union of Concerned Scientists titled "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops," showed that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields while only driving up costs for farmers. In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results. The G8 needs to move away from Green Revolution monoculture practices and instead implement the IAASTD's most promising options: support ecologically sound practices, more equitable trade rules and local food distribution systems to empower family farmers."

###

The US Working Group on the Food Crisis is an ad hoc group of organizations from around the US, representing various sectors of the food system, including anti-hunger, family farm, community food security, environmental, international aid, labor, food justice, consumer, and other groups. We do not view the food crisis as an unexpected, sudden emergency of the last year, but as the inevitable consequence of the development of a long list of misguided agricultural and food policies over the last 30+ years.

Contact:

CONTACT: US Working Group on the Food Crisis
Eric Holt-Gimenez, Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy,
510-654-4400 x 257, eholtgim@foodfirst.org

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, Pesticide Action Network North America,
415-981-6205, ext.325; mie@panna.org

Dave Kane, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns,
202-832-1780, dkane@maryknoll.org

Andrew Kang Bartlett, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),
502-569-5388, Andrew.KangBartlett@pcusa.org

Katherine Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition,
202-543-5675, kozer@nffc.net

Christina M. Schiavoni, World Hunger Year,
212-629-9788, Christina@whyhunger.org

Luxembourg says no to genetically modified rice

Food Democracy, 16 April 2009:
http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/luxembourg-says-no-to-genetically-modified-rice/

In a statement prior to next week's European Council meeting, Luxembourg's Minister for Health, Mars di Bartolomeo, has said that Luxembourg will vote against the proposal to allow genetically modified rice to be made available for sale in the EU.

The proposal concerns specifically Bayer's LL62 genetically-modified (GM) product. Luxembourg's stance is in the same vein as when it opposed the introduction of a GM sweetcorn from Monsanto.

According to local opinion polls, around 75% of Luxembourg's residents oppose growing or selling genetically modified food.

Joint Statement by German Science Organisations on Green Genetic Engineering

Helmholtz Association (Germany), 16 April 2009:
http://www.helmholtz.de/en/news/press_and_news/artikel/detail/joint_statement_by_german_science_organisations-1/

Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
DFG - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
DAAD - Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
FhG - Fraunhofer Gesellschaft
Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren
HRK - Hochschulrektorenkonferenz
WGL - Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
MPG - Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Wissenschaftsrat

Germany's Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Ilse Aigner, has banned the cultivation of genetically modified maize. The ban took effect immediately on 14 April. The minister noted that the ban is an isolated decision on a particular case, not a fundamental rejection of green genetic engineering. Europe's highest licensing authority, the EFSA, had previously expressed no reservations about the cultivation of genetically modified maize. Germany's science and research community is very concerned that this decision will reinforce the tendency to approach this technology in an irrational manner and cause irreparable damage to Germany's potential as a location for the further development of what is likely to be an important technology in the future.

The German Science Organisations fully support an exploration of the opportunities and possible uses of green genetic engineering in Germany. Such exploration includes the impartial investigation of safety issues and potential risks. A broad range of in-depth scientific research of this kind has been taking place in Germany for years. This research is largely funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the state governments - either directly, or indirectly via organisations they fund - or is carried out in a special research department at the Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. This research has never produced reliable findings that would even remotely suggest the need to abandon the technology.

A complete rejection of green genetic engineering would do lasting damage to Germany as a location for research. Genetic engineering techniques derived from molecular biology offer a unique opportunity to develop more valuable, more environmentally friendly, more productive cash crops in this era of climate change. This view is consistent with findings from research funded by the federal government and with research findings from abroad concerning the risks of green genetic engineering versus classical plant breeding methods.

The ban poses the danger that unfounded fear could take the place of rational scientific information. The minister's comment that the ban is an isolated decision on a particular case cannot compensate for the negative impact it will have on Germany's status as a research-friendly country and the fact that it is diametrically opposed to future-minded advancement.

For all these reasons, we are fully opposed to any general ban on genetically engineered products. We urge politicians to lead a more logical discussion of the topic and to create reliable framework conditions for research into and scientific consultation on the future uses of green genetic engineering. We therefore enthusiastically endorse Federal Research Minister Annette Schavan's proposal for a roundtable discussion that would include scientists and politicians and send a clear signal regarding future research into genetically modified crops.

Contact:

Max Planck Society - Administrative Headquarters
Martin Steins
Head of Department research law
Hofgartenstrasse 8
80539 Munich
Tel: +49 (0) 89 2108 1263
steins@gv.mpg.de

1,500 Indian Farmers Commit Mass Suicide:
Why We Are Complicit in these Deaths

• Crop failure may have pushed farmers over the edge, but American companies have been leading them to the cliff for years.

AlterNet, 16 April 2009. By Tara Lohan:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/137059/1%2C500_indian_farmers_commit_mass_suicide%3A_why_we_are_complicit_in_these_deaths/?page=entire

The headline has been hard to ignore. Across the world press, news media have announced that over 1,500 farmers in the Indian state of Chattisgarh committed suicide. The motive has been blamed on farmers being crippled by overwhelming debt in the face of crop failure.

The UK Independent reported:

The agricultural state of Chattisgarh was hit by falling water levels.

"The water level has gone down below 250 feet here. It used to be at 40 feet a few years ago," Shatrughan Sahu, a villager in one of the districts, told Down To Earth magazine.

"Most of the farmers here are indebted and only God can save the ones who do not have a bore well."

While many may have been shocked by these deaths, farmer suicides in India, and increasingly across the world, are not new.

In the last ten years, the problem has been reaching epidemic proportions. In one region of India alone 1,300 cotton farmers took their own lives in 2006, but the culprit cannot rest solely on a falling water table.

As the Independent article continues:

Bharatendu Prakash, from the Organic Farming Association of India, told the Press Association: "Farmers' suicides are increasing due to a vicious circle created by money lenders. They lure farmers to take money but when the crops fail, they are left with no option other than death."

But there's more to the story than that. Farmer suicides can be attributed to, "something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops," the UK's Daily Mail reports.

Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.

Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiraling debts – and no income.

So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.

And no company has been as notorious in the business as the U.S. agra-giant Monsanto. As Nancy Scola explained in a piece for AlterNet:

Here's the way it works in India. In the central region of Vidarbha, for example, Monsanto salesmen travel from village to village touting the tremendous, game-changing benefits of Bt cotton, Monsanto's genetically modified seed sold in India under the BollgardÆ label. The salesmen tell farmers of the amazing yields other Vidarbha growers have enjoyed while using their products, plastering villages with posters detailing "True Stories of Farmers Who Have Sown Bt Cotton." Old-fashioned cotton seeds pale in comparison to Monsanto's patented wonder seeds, say the salesmen, as much as an average old steer is humbled by a fine Jersey cow.

Part of the trick to Bt cotton's remarkable promise, say the salesmen, is that Bollgard® was genetically engineered in the lab to contain bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that the company claims drastically reduces the need for pesticides. When pesticides are needed, Bt cotton plants are Roundup® Ready – a Monsanto designation meaning that the plants can be drowned in the company's signature herbicide, none the worse for wear. (Roundup® mercilessly kills nonengineered plants.)

Sounds great, right? The catch is that BollgardÆ and RoundupÆ cost real money. And so Vidarbha's farmers, somewhat desperate to grow the anemic profit margin that comes with raising cotton in that dry and dusty region, have rushed to both banks and local moneylenders to secure the cash needed to get on board with Monsanto. Of a $3,000 bank loan a Vidarbha farmer might take out, as much as half might go to purchasing a growing season's worth of Bt seeds.

And the same goes the next season, and the next season after that. In traditional agricultural, farmers can recycle seeds from one harvest to plant the next, or swap seeds with their neighbors at little or no cost. But when it comes to engineered seeds like Bt cotton, Monsanto owns the tiny speck of intellectual property inside each hull, and thus controls the patent. And a farmer wishing to reuse seeds from a Monsanto plant must pay to relicense them from the company each and every growing season.

The cycle of debt continues into a downward spiral. And to be sure, water problems are adding to the crisis. In this most recent instance dam construction nearby was a significant contributor. While changes in water availability may be the jumping point for some farmers in India, it has been the globalization model of agriculture hyped by companies like Monsanto and Cargill that have led farmers to the cliff in the first place.

As renowned physicist and anti-globalization activist Vandana Shiva (who has also fought against big dam construction) said in an interview with Democracy Now! in 2006:

A few weeks ago, I was in Punjab. 2,800 widows of farmer suicides who have lost their land, are having to bring up children as landless workers on others' land. And yet, the system does not respond to it, because there's only one response: get Monsanto out of the seed sector – they are part of this genocide – and ensure WTO rules are not bringing down the prices of agricultural produce in the United States, in Canada, in India, and allow trade to be honest. I don't think we need to talk about free trade and fair trade. We need to talk about honest trade. Today's trade system, especially in agriculture, is dishonest, and dishonesty has become a war against farmers. It's become a genocide.

The recent mass suicide in India should be a wake up call to the rest of the world. The industrial agriculture model is literally killing our farmers.

1,500 farmers commit suicide in India
• The Indian states where people heavily depend on agriculture are named the 'suicide belt'.

PressTV, 16 April 2009:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91625§ionid=351020403

More than 1,500 farmers in central India have reportedly committed mass suicide in the wake of crop failure and increasing debt.

The suicides took place in the agricultural state of Chattisgarh, where people mainly depend on seasonal crops, Earth Magazine reported.

Local residents told the magazine that many of the farmers felt that death was the only option in the face of their insurmountable debt.

The state of Chattisgarh was hit by falling water levels and droughts.

"Most of farmers here are indebted and only God can save the ones who do not have a bore well," residents said.

Bharatendu Prakash, from the Organic Farming Association of India, said the farmers fell victim to money lenders who impose their own conditions for lending.

"Farmers' suicides are increasing due to a vicious circle created by money lenders. They lure farmers to take money but when the crops fail, they are left with no option other than death," Prakash said.

At least 10,000 debt-ridden farmers in different parts of the country have committed suicide over the last decade.

A November survey revealed that 125,000 farmers have also taken their own lives as a result of a ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.

The government recently announced a $15 billion waiver of farmer loans; however, the waiver may not help a large number of farmers who have taken loans from private lenders.

The suicide issue was among those that dominated campaigning for the recent general election.

GM Toxic soy is not 'responsible'!

La Soya Mata (Soy Kills) campaign
Supported by ASEED Europe and Corporte Europe Observatory
16 Aril 2009:
http://www.toxicsoy.org

Can genetically engineered soy - grown with large amounts of agri-chemicals - ever be called 'responsible'? You probably consider this to be impossible. The damage that Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy has done in countries such as Argentina and Paraguay is enormous. Despite that, by the end of May this very same soy will be labelled 'responsible' by The Round Table on Responsible Soy.

Because this Round Table is supported by the World Wildlife Fund and the development organisation Solaridad GM toxic soy will be provided with a green image. By supporting this Round Table these two organisations think that they will help reduce the damage done by the soy industry. But it will have the opposite effect. Declaring GM products 'responsible' is a dangerous step that legitimises the further growth of toxic soy cultivation. The destruction of rainforests, instead of being halted, will still be permitted.

Read more about this on our website http://www.toxicsoy.org.

Sign our appeal to representatives of WWF and Solidaridad to withdraw their support for toxic soy. This petition will also be sent to the president of the RTRS, and a number of supermarkets that are RTRS member.

http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/Action/action.html

Help us and forward this mail- preferably with an added personal message- to friends and family. If you want to circulate wider, a version in French is attached. Spanish below.

Thank you!

The world must feed its hungry

Financial Times (editorial), 16 April 2009:
The world must feed its hungry

As we agonise about the recession, we should remember that humanity's greatest economic problem is more basic: how to get enough food, a challenge still faced by millions.

This weekend the Group of Eight leading countries gathers in Italy for its first ever meeting of agriculture ministers. Their goal must be to move food policy up the global political agenda to a position where it is treated as the vital international security matter it is.

Last year's record-high food commodity prices sparked riots as 100m people needed help from the World Food Programme. Thousands of desperate people in dozens of countries took to the streets in upheavals potentially far more destabilising than any reactions the financial meltdown has yet provoked. This danger will not go away.

Prices have come down, but remain higher than in decades. Even short disruptions cast long shadows: malnutrition in infancy can permanently impair children's physical and cognitive development. Climate change, decades of declining investment in agriculture, and current policy mistakes conspire to make the crisis structural.

All countries share an interest in food security - their own, and for the sake of stability, that of others. But they must not confuse security with self-sufficiency. The world can produce enough food for all: as the economist Amartya Sen points out, famines are caused not by lack of food but by income inequality. The poor must get help - in ways that do not undermine food production.

Food exporters and importers alike need well-functioning international markets in food, which encourage efficient global production patterns. The responses to the crisis, sadly, have been in the opposite direction: export bans, land grabs of arable territory and secretive bilateral barter deals. These policies must stop. They are self-destructive and costly, and for poor countries ruinous. They do harm to others, as they undermine trading systems that benefit all.

Governments must provide global public goods. Research is needed to boost productivity, especially for African crops, and must not be hampered by opposition to genetically modified food. Mechanisms must be found to hedge against price volatility that discourages production even when prices are high.

The G8 has rightly invited important emerging countries to the table. But are agricultural ministers, who usually see their job as helping their own farmers, up to the task? Food security is the greatest threat to human well-being today. It should not be lost in quibbles about the branding of Parma ham.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

More research on GM crops - as advocated by the Financial Times - will only benefit Monsanto et al, but is clearly not the answer to food security according to the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) http://www.agassessment.org - the U.N. / World Bank report on the global food system that Monsanto and its industry colleagues walked out on when their arguments for GM weren't accepted.

15 April 2009

Germany bans Monsanto's maize

Greenpeace International, 15 April 2009:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/germany-bans-monsanto-s-maize

Brussels, Belgium - We're thrilled with an historic victory against genetically engineered crops. Germany has just announced that it will become the sixth EU country to ban the cultivation of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) maize MON810 - the only GE crop that can be commercially grown in the region.

The German Minister for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Ilse Aigner, said "I have come to the conclusion that there are legitimate grounds to accept that genetically modified corn from the MON810 strain constitutes a danger to the environment."

MON810 is mostly cultivated in the EU for animal feed - and is now due for re-authorisation under EU rules after the expiry of its ten-year license. Besides Germany, five countries have already banned the planting of it: France, Greece, Austria, Hungary and most recently, Luxembourg.

Any government that seriously examines the risks associated with growing this maize can only reach one rational conclusion: it must be banned. Instead of trying to force countries to lift national bans on this crop, the European Commission needs to face the reality of scientific findings. We're calling on Commissioner Dimas to stop the re-authorisation of Monsanto's maize in the EU.

One step for Germany, one giant stride for mankind

The recent announcement from the German Agriculture Minister has resulted in our phones ringing off the hook. An EU ban on this maize is something we have been working towards for years and having the two strongest countries in the EU, France (as of last year) and now Germany, agreeing on ban has brought us a lot closer to our goal. This is a victory for the environment, for consumers and farmers who want to avoid GE crops as well as for independent science.

Scientific studies have demonstrated that the pesticide-producing MON810 maize, has negative effects on the environment and on biodiversity. The Minister based her decision on a safeguard clause in EU law which allows Member States to use the precautionary principle and prohibit gentically modified organisms (GMOs) in light of new evidence. Aigner's decision sends a powerful message to bio-tech corporations like Monsanto against taking control of our global food chain.

Monsanto's not the only threat

In another bid to control our food, Bayer, the German chemical giant is hoping to get EU approval for the import of their GE rice variety LL62. Most countries have shied away from allowing risky experimentation with rice - the world's most important staple crop and at present, no GE rice is grown commercially anywhere in the world. Bayer has genetically manipulated rice to withstand higher doses of a toxic pesticide called glufosinate, which is considered to be so dangerous to humans and the environment that it will soon be banned from Europe.

In the coming weeks, the European Union will also decide whether or not this GE rice can enter EU countries, appear on supermarket shelves and end up on our dinner plates. If the European Union approves the import of Bayer GE rice, farmers in the US and elsewhere may soon start planting the manipulated crop. Keeping rice GE-free is not just about consumer choice or the environment - it's a lot bigger than that. It's a matter of global food security, human rights and survival.

We hope that governments around the world will follow the examples of countries like Germany and France and ban all risky GMOs.

Take Action

Ask all governments around the world to protect consumers and farmers, their crops and fields by rejecting Bayer's GE rice, and stopping GE rice field trials. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice/hands-off-our-rice?homebanner

Support Us!

Our vision of a GMO-free future is only as strong as the people who support us. Join Greenpeace today and add your voice to the movement that's committed to defending our food and planet. Your support will make all the difference. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/supportus

The World From Berlin: 'There Was No Reason to Accept The Risks of GM Corn'

Spiegel Online, 15 April 2009:
http://www.congoo.com/news/2009April15/World-Berlin-Reason-Accept-Risks

The German government's decision to ban the cultivation of genetically modified corn has been welcomed by most media commentators in Germany as an overdue step in response to fears that it poses unforeseeable risks. One paper, however, scoffs that "progress has become a dirty word" in Germany.

The news Tuesday that Germany was joining five other European Union countries in banning the cultivation of genetically modified corn met with mixed reactions. Environmentalists were delighted, while supporters of GM foods warned it c ould lead to an exodus of research efforts from the country.

German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner told reporters she had legitimate reasons to believe that MON 810, a GM corn produced by the American biotech giant Monsanto, posed "a danger to the environment," a position which she said the Environment Ministry also supported. In taking the step, Aigner is taking advantage of a clause in EU law which allows individual countries to impose such bans.

German media commentators have broadly welcomed the decision, although they say political factors may well have played a part. Aigner is a member of the conservative Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, and the CSU is keen to tap popular opposition to genetically modified crops in the heavily agricultural Alpine region in the run-up to September's German general election. The center-left S¸ddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The ban is a severe defeat for industry and research. Agriculture Minister Aigner is being accused of having taken a purely political decision. There are no serious studies that prove the corn poses a danger, its supporters say. But anyone who uses that argument merely proves that they haven't understood the problem. As long as the crop's usefulness hasn't been established, there is no reason to accept the risks involved in farming it. Aigner had to issue a ban. Anything else would have been a gigantic open-air experiment with unforeseeable consequences."

The left-wing Frankfurter Rundschau writes:

"Genetically modified corn is a risk to our environment, is totally superfluous in farming, represents industrial agriculture, causes pointless costs to food production in Germany and can even ruin beekeepers. All this has been discussed at length. The fact that this has finally led to an official ban is to be welcomed."

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"Progress has become a dirty word, even with the Social Democrats who once defined themselves as a party of progress. Apart from a meek FDP (eds. note: the opposition liberal Free Democrats), no one dares to argue in favor of technical innovation if the activists shout 'fear' loud enough. Just think of all the innovations that have been blown up into bugaboos in recent years – mobile phones, PET bottles, PVC window frames, computers, the Internet, the Transrapid magnetic-levitation train, medical gene technology and much else. But in the case of green gene technology, the fearmongers are able to score their biggest triumph since the phase-out of nuclear power.

"They persuaded people that the food we currently eat is completely natural – and that nature is always a good thing. But 'conventional' agriculture involves exposing seeds to radioactive rays or making it mutate with the help of poisons. There's nothing natural about these coarse and unfocussed methods. Genetic technology offers, for the first time, the possibility to precisely select a desired gene."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"The fact that only water fleas and butterflies have been damaged doesn't disprove the warnings about unforeseeable effects. Who knows the extent to which humans may be affected in the long term by something that immediately kills off small creatures?

"Rejecting this type (of GM corn) isn't the pet project of peripheral social groups but is government policy in five EU countries."

The left-wing Berliner Zeitung writes:

"Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner was right to ban the type of GM corn that originated in the US and has been approved in Europe for 11 years. Growing and selling MON 810 is irresponsible because no one can predict the risks to animals, other plants and not least human beings.

"The government did the right thing – but for the wrong reasons, and very late. Countless questions regarding the impact and dangers were unanswered even when Brussels approved MON 810 despite existing doubts and when then-Agriculture Minister Horst Seehofer permitted its use in Germany. Consumers and environmentalists protested at the time but were labeled enemies of progress.

"The new studies don't show any new risks – they simply prove that the old warning about the risks was justified. It's a scandal that the subsequent ban was even necessary because the farming of genetically modified plants had been permitted without a thorough examination of all the possible dangers."

Farmers demonstrate in Munich against patents on animals and plants
"Stop the patent on the poor creature"

No Patents on Seeds, 15 April 2009:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=28&lang=en

Munich - Over a thousand farmers joined by environment and development aid organisations today demonstrated against patents on animals and plants in Munich. Over 5,000 people and some 50 organisations have filed a joint opposition to a patent on breeding pigs originally registered by the US agricultural corporation, Monsanto. The No Patents on Life organisation is handing over the objection today at the European Patent Office in Munich.

Those taking part in the protest march, being made under the heading "Stop the patent on the poor creature", are calling for patents on life to be prohibited by law. Greenpeace yesterday presented new research on patent applications authorised by the EPO, showing these now ranged from the breeding of cows to milk. Today's demonstration against patents on life is reckoned to be the biggest so far in Europe.

"Farmers and breeders are dispossessed by patents on life," says Rudolf Buehler from the Schwaebisch Hall farmers' association, which has today led a herd of its traditional breeding pigs to the patent office. "Corporations like Monsanto want control over agriculture and food, from piglets to cutlets." The animals being claimed in the pig patent (EP 1651777) are no different from other breeding pigs. Nor is any new technical invention described in the application. Monsanto has just modified breeding procedures that are already known.

The demonstration is also supported by the German dairy farmers alliance, the BDM, and the AbL farmers' cooperative. "There are new patent applications that range from cows to milk and yoghurt," says Romuald Schaber at the BDM. "The German government must set limits to big companies' greed for living creatures."

The development-aid organisation Misereor fears farmers in developing countries are losing the rights to their own seeds through such patents. Patents on seed further aggravate the global situation for food by making cultivation more expensive.

The demonstrators in Munich have already chalked up an initial success for the independence of agriculture. The Hesse state government and the Greens in the German Bundestag last month called for a change in European patent laws prohibiting such patents being granted in future.

Sierra Club and OCA urge President Obama to halt a huge experiment

Sierra Club & Organic Consumers Association press release, 15 April 2009:
http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2009-04-13a.asp

The Sierra Club and the Organic Consumers Association call on President Obama to halt a huge experiment on the ecosystem and its inhabitants

In light of the recent ruling by U.S.D.A. Secretary Tom Vilsack to approve the release of inadequately tested genetically engineered sugar beets into the ecosystem, Sierra Club today sent a letter to President Obama calling for a change from the previous administration. The Sierra Club has submitted numerous extensive science-based comments to the U.S.D.A. regarding the release of genetically manipulated (GM) crops, only to have these critical issues fall on deaf ears at the USDA.

Laurel Hopwood, Chair of Sierra Club's Genetic Engineering Action Team, explains, "This past decade we are seeing new releases into the environment that we have never before seen on this planet. Genetic engineering involves the artificial transfer of genes from one organism into another, made by crashing through the protective species barrier. These new life forms are spreading their GM traits on a massive scale, an event unprecedented in the 3.8 billion year history of life on this planet."

Neil Carman, Ph.D., scientific advisor for Sierra Club's Genetic Engineering Action Team, explains, "The ecosystem is not a dumping ground for untested GM crops. Mandatory environmental impact statements must be performed for every ecosystem into which any new GM crop is to be introduced, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. To the dismay of the American public, the U.S.D.A. continues to fail to prepare Environmental Impact Statements."

The Organic Consumers Association agrees that the risks posed by the current trajectory of genetic engineering in the fields of agriculture are profound. Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association laments, "Pollen blowing in the wind or carried by pollinator species transfer genetically engineered traits to organic crops, posing enormous dilemmas for organic farmers."

Cummins adds, "The American people aren't the only guinea pigs in this huge, untested experiment. Mr. Vilsack intends to play GM promoter when he leads a delegation to the upcoming G8 meeting at talks to reduce world hunger. Gene technologies will destroy the diversity and the sustainable agricultural systems that farmers have developed for millennia and will thus undermine the capacity for those in developing countries to feed themselves."

Until rigorous research is conducted to identify and address the long term impacts of GMOs, such organisms should not be released into the environment. Sierra Club, with 1.3 million members and supporters, and the Organic Consumer Association, with 850,000 network members, urge President Obama to keep his word to protect the land and food for the people of the world.

Sierra Club's letter to President Obama:

http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2009-04-13.asp

Contact:

Laurel Hopwood, Chair, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Action Team - lhopwood@roadrunner.com
Neil Carman, Ph.D., scientific advisor to Sierra Club GEAT 512-472-1767
Ronnie Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association 218-226-4164

EU to 'reflect' on Germany's GM maize ban

EU Business, 15 April:
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1239807722.48

Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said Wednesday the European Union would "reflect" on Germany's decision to ban a type of genetically-modified maize produced by US biotech giant Monsanto.

"We will reflect on the issue and we should take the right decision," Dimas said after an informal meeting of EU ministers for the environment in Prague.

On Tuesday, Germany outlawed the cultivation of MON 810 maize – the only GM crop permitted until now in the country – on environmental and health grounds.

Germany is the sixth EU country to introduce a provisional ban on MON 810, following similar action taken by France, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg and Greece.

The European Commission sought to force Austria and Hungary to reverse their bans on the crop but its ruling was overturned by a majority of EU nations last month.

A source close to the European Commission told AFP the German ban might bring a revision of the European legislation on GM crops.

Throughout Europe, the public opinion is now against and if the people were asked one more time, "there would be a rejection," the source said on condition of anonymity.

"The spirit has changed, the legislation in a way is operating like an automatic pilot and we have to put some direction in it," the source added.

Monsanto mulls legal action over GMO ban

AFP, 15 April 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i7_X3P2Z06_ENbnaGhUp5Po2vYLw

BERLIN (AFP) – US biotech giant Monsanto said Wednesday it was considering legal action against Germany's decision to ban a type of genetically modified maize – MON 810 – manufactured by the firm.

"Monsanto is examining all available options and reserves the right to take legal steps so that German farmers can sow MON 810 in the current season," said Ursula Luettmer-Ouazane, head of Monsanto's German division, in a statement.

MON 810 is "safe for human health, animals and the environment, which has been proved by an overwhelming number of scientific studies," the firm added.

On Tuesday, German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner told reporters she was outlawing the cultivation of the MON 810 maize – modified to be super resistant against crop-destroying insects – on environmental grounds.

"I have come to the conclusion there are just reasons to assume that the genetically modified maize MON 810 represents a danger for the environment," Aigner said.

"Therefore, the cultivation of MON 810 is now banned in Germany."

The environment ministry had undertaken a "rigorous study to weigh the pros and cons," she said, adding that "new scientific elements" had come to light justifying the decision to ban the GM crop.

Fields containing genetically modified corn make up a mere 0.2 percent of Germany's total maize-producing land – with only 3,700 hectares (9,100 acres) of land sown with GM maize.

Monsanto pointed to the fact that the safety of MON 810 has been demonstrated by the United States, Japan, Canada and the European Commission.

"Farmers worldwide have been benefiting from the advantages of insect-resistant maize for 10 years – and the trend is growing," the firm said.

Around 125 million hectares contained genetically modified plants in 2008, a rise of almost 10 percent on the previous year, according to statistics from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech.

German ban on MON810 maize: will the courts now decide?

GMO Compass, 15 April 2009:
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/stories/433.german_ban_mon810_maize_will_courts_now_decide.html

[Image caption 1:

Horst Seehofer, former agriculture minister and current Bavarian Minister President, welcomed the ban on MON810. The CSU is strongly in favour of a "gene technology-free Bavaria".]

[Image caption 2:

[Federal Research Minister Annette Schavan (CDU) regretted the decision of her cabinet colleague Aigner. "Green gene technology is an important technology of the future, which neither Germany nor Europe should dismiss."]

Following the ban on cultivating MON810 Bt maize in Germany, Monsanto is considering taking legal action. At the moment, it is not known how long the ban will be in force.

"As soon as we have received the decision, we will examine the arguments. Then we can start taking legal action," a spokesman for Monsanto told the dpa news agency. The aim is to make it possible for farmers who have already bought MON810 seed to plant it this year. "We think the chances are very high that this temporary ban will be rescinded," said Monsanto.

German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner defended her ban as being based on "expert opinion". There were reasonable grounds to believe that "MON810 maize presents a danger to the environment". She referred, among other things, to studies upon which Luxemburg had based its recently enacted ban on cultivation. Possible impacts of MON810 maize on certain ladybugs and butterflies had been examined. The studies had previously been dismissed by scientists as being insufficient. In some cases only lab tests with Bt protein, the active agent in MON810, had been carried out. The insects concerned had been fed Bt protein in amounts that were far higher than what would have been encountered under natural conditions.

Other EU countries had already tried to base their cultivation bans on some of the studies which Aigner had used for her decision. Time and again some American study on the impact of MON810 maize on aquatic animal life, such as the caddisfly, would be cited.

Scientists from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also dealt with these studies when reviewing national bans. None of them were scientifically sound enough to justify a ban on cultivation.

Even the German ban would hardly be able to stand up to a review by the EU Commission and EFSA. However, this process takes some time and would come all too late for this cultivation season. Also, there are not enough political majorities in the EU at the moment who can stop national cultivation bans not accepted in scientific circles. A court decision, such as the one Monsanto is considering, would be significantly faster.

The EU, moreover, must fear that the trade conflict with the USA will now become critical once again. The Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation ruled at the beginning of 2006 that scientifically unfounded cultivation bans in individual EU Member States were to be considered illegal violations of world trade agreements. The USA has yet to impose punitive tariff duties on European goods. The new U.S. Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, criticised the EU's genetic technology policy in his latest report. He explicitly referred to national cultivation bans in France, Austria, Greece and Hungary.

Scientists Reveal Effects of Glyphosate

Inter Press Service (IPS), 15 April 2009. By Marcela Valente:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46516

BUENOS AIRES - Glyphosate, the herbicide used on soybeans in Argentina, causes malformations in amphibian embryos, say scientists here who revealed the findings of a study that has not yet been published.

"The observed deformations are consistent and systematic," Professor Andrés Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires medical school and lead researcher on the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), told IPS.

Reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, an increase in the death of cells that help form the skull, and deformed cartilage were effects that were repeatedly found in the laboratory experiments, said the biologist.

The news was reported Monday by the Argentine newspaper Pagina 12.

The scientist explained to IPS that the conclusions were from "a research study that came up with precise data," but that the final report was not yet ready for publication.

Nevertheless, he believed it was necessary to make the results public due to "a question of general interest."

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide produced by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, which developed Roundup Ready Soy, genetically modified to withstand high doses of the non-selective weed-killer.

Monsanto's head of communications in Argentina, Fernanda Perez Cometto, told IPS that the company has "several studies that show that the herbicide is harmless to humans, animals and the environment."

But the company "will not issue an opinion" until the University of Buenos Aires study is published, she said.

"It is essential to know what kind of methodology was used, which is why we have asked the laboratory for a copy of the study," said Pérez Cometto.

She insisted, however, that Monsanto's herbicide was tested in 1996 by authorities in Argentina, who reported that it was unlikely to pose an "acute risk."

"Obviously it is a substance that must be used correctly, with the safeguards listed on the label, just like insect repellent or bleach. You can't drink a glass of herbicide and expect it to have no effect," she added.

Carrasco explained that in the first phase of the experiment, amphibian embryos were submerged in a solution of herbicide diluted in water in a proportion that was 1,500 times weaker than that used today on genetically modified soybeans in Argentina - the country's main crop. The embryos suffered head deformations.

In the second stage, embryonic cells were injected with glyphosate diluted with water, without the additives that go into the commercial product. The impact was even more negative, showing that the active ingredient accounts for the toxicity, rather than the additives, the biologist said.

"One should be able to suppose, with certainty, that the same thing that happens to amphibian embryos can happen to humans," said Carrasco, whose team of specialists in biology, biochemistry and genetics has been working on the study for 15 months.

"It is clear that glyphosate is not innocuous and that it does not degrade or break down, but accumulates in cells," he said.

A potent mix of glyphosate sprayed from airplanes is one of the tools used by the Colombian government to eradicate illegal coca crops.

But the destructive effects of the spraying on crops, livestock and people in areas across the border in Ecuador have prompted complaints by the Ecuadorean government.

Some 200 million litres a year of glyphosate are used in Argentina.

Soybeans cover around 50 percent of all farmland - nearly 17 million hectares - and are the country's main export product. The herbicide is mainly applied by aerial spraying.

Agronomist Jorge Gilbert with the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) told IPS that glyphosate, like other chemicals used to combat weeds or pests, "is not good or bad in and of itself, but depends on how it is applied."

INTA, a government agency that provides technical advice to farmers, has never taken a critical position towards genetically engineered soy. To the contrary, many of its professionals believe the introduction of herbicide-resistant seeds represented an advance in rural development.

But environmental and social organisations have been complaining for at least five years that populated areas near fields of genetically modified soybeans have suffered a sharp increase in the number of cases of cancer, birth defects, lupus, kidney disease, and respiratory and skin ailments.

The Grupo de Reflexión Rural (GRR - Rural Reflection Group), a local NGO that launched a "Stop the Spraying!" campaign in 2006 in the provinces where soybeans are most extensively planted, published a report this year based on the accounts of rural doctors, experts and the residents of dozens of farming towns.

GRR lawyer Osvaldo Fornari told IPS that the federal courts were presented with the report and asked to investigate the approval process for herbicides and pesticides. He also said that based on the cases of people whose health has allegedly been affected, the "precautionary principle" should be applied, and the use of Roundup should be preventively banned.

President Cristina Fernández ordered the creation of a committee made up of staff from the Health Ministry, the Secretariats of the Environment and Agriculture, and INTA, to investigate the health and environmental impacts of glyphosate.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

We apologize for seeming to focus on possible negative side effects of Monsanto's Roundup spray herbicide. The problem is, the respective news items just keep coming in these days.

At first, just a few days ago, Purdue University publishes a study indicating seriously negative ecological repercussions and today it is birth defects. And the Argentine Health Ministry has already launched a formal investigation into the matter in four provinces. Too bad practically all of the Argentine soybeans are the Roundup Ready trait.

Agricultural producers but also commodity buyers ought to be very alert to the development of this issue. The Purdue study coined the word overreliance in this context. That seems indeed well said.

Political Plunder of the Week
Tell Obama Not to Appoint Former Monsanto Lawyer on White House Food Safety Panel

Organic Consumers Association (USA), 15 April 2009:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27042

President Obama announced on March 14th the creation of a White House Food Safety Working Group to improve and coordinate the governments approach to the nationwide food safety crisis. Included in President Obama's short-list of working groups members is Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto executive who has a long history of lobbying for Monsanto and fast tracking Monsanto's controversial rBGH while at the Food and Drug Administration. Taylor is a case study of the "revolving door," having worked within the USDA and FDA, as well as Monsanto.

Take action now. Tell President Obama and Secretary Vilsack to appoint true champions for food safety, not shills for Monsanto.

Learn more and take action:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27042

Sign against GM corn in Mexico

Network in Defense of Maize (Mexico), 15 April 2009:
http://www.endefensadelmaiz.org

Dear friends,

We are seeking signatures in support of the attached declaration of the Network in Defense of Maize (in Mexico) to demand the stop of GM maize trials in Mexico, its center of origin.

If you agree, please send your name, organization, country and email to ceccam@ceccam.org.mx, before April 30th.

Please disseminate among your contacts.

---

NETWORK IN DEFENSE OF CORN
No to transgenic corn!

To the people of Mexico
To the peoples of the world
To the Mexican government
To the Convention on Biological Diversity / Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
To the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations / FAO

The indigenous and peasant organizations and communities, environmental organizations, popular education organizations, base organizations, ecclesiastical communities, groups of producers, members of urban movements, scholars, scientists, and political analysts of the Network In Defense of Corn vigorously repudiate the planting of transgenic corn in Mexico. It is a historic crime against the peoples of maize, against biodiversity and food sovereignty, against ten thousand years of indigenous and peasant agriculture that bequeathed this seed for the wellbeing of all the peoples of the world.

We assert that the presidential decree of March 6 2009, which allows the planting of transgenic corn, intentionally fails to consider that:

Mexico is the center of origin and diversity of corn. There are over 59 known races and thousands of varieties, which will be inevitably contaminated.

It is indigenous and peasant peoples who created and preserve this genetic treasure of corn, one of the main crops on which human and animal nourishment depends around the globe.

Corn is the basic food source for the Mexican population. Nowhere has its everyday consumption in large quantities been studied like here. There are scientific studies which, at much smaller levels of consumption, report allergies and other negative impacts on the health of humans and animals fed with transgenic food.

The varieties of transgenic corn which are being proposed for planting in the country do not solve Mexico's agricultural problems: They are more expensive, since the cost of seeds and licensing are greater than those associated with conventional crops; they do not have a greater rate of return: it is equal or less, unless there is a strong incidence of pests which are not common in Mexico; they require more pesticides since they constantly emit Bt toxins, which generate resistance and secondary pests that must be controlled with other pesticides.

These crops will damage biodiversity and the environment. Since Mexico is an extremely biodiverse country, no research undertaken in other environments is applicable because the variables and interconnections increase exponentially.

Since corn is an open pollinated crop, avoiding transgenic contamination is impossible when cultivated in open fields. Contamination also occurs in warehouses, during transportation, and in industrial facilities.

Transgenic crops are useless for peasant or organic agriculture, but they will unavoidably contaminate native and criollo varieties of corn, while threatening organic production, which will lose its market niche.

All transgenic seeds are patented and are controlled by six multinational companies (Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, BASF), which results in a complete dependence of peasants and farm workers on these multinationals and criminalizes the victims of contamination.

The native peoples of Mexico created corn and they have been the guardians and creators of the diversity of varieties currently in existence. Food sovereignty and the preservation of this diversity depend on the integrity of their rights. Because of that, transgenic contamination is an assault on the identity of Mesoamerican peoples and is an act of aggression against ten thousand years of agriculture. The planting of transgenic corn is a frontal attack against native and peasant peoples and a violation of their rights.

For the peoples that constitute Mexico, corn is not merchandise, but the origin of a civilization and the foundation of the livelihood of peasant lives and economies.

We will not let our seeds be lost or contaminated by transgenes owned by transnational companies. We will not comply with unfair laws that criminalize seeds and peasant lifestyle. We will continue protecting corn and the life of our peoples.

We place responsibility for the loss and damage of Mexican corn on the companies that produce transgenic seeds; on the legislative powers that approved the Law of Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms ('Monsanto Law') for the benefit of corporations; on the Mexican government; on the secretaries of Agriculture, Environment and the Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety and GMOs (CIBIOGEM), who are responsible for the final measures to eliminate all legal protections of corn.

For all of those reasons:

•

We repudiate the experimental or commercial cultivation of transgenic corn and demand that it be banned in Mexico.

•

We repudiate the 'Monsanto Law,' its bylaws, and any other mechanism to criminalize peasant seeds.

•

We repudiate government monitoring of peasant cornfields, because it is a pretext for eliminating even more peasant seeds.

•

We commit ourselves, and call on all indigenous and peasant communities and peoples to do likewise, to defend native seeds and to continue planting, storing, exchanging, and distributing their own seeds, as well as exercising their right over their territories and preventing the cultivation of transgenic corn.

•

We call on the population to demand that all produce we consume on a daily basis is GMO-free.

•

We call on international agencies to condemn the government of Mexico for this violation of peasant ancestral rights, biodiversity, food sovereignty, and the precautionary principle in centers of origin of basic crops for world nourishment and economy.

NO TO TRANSGENIC CORN!

NETWORK IN DEFENSE OF CORN

More information: http://www.endefensadelmaiz.org

Mexican farm expert lobbies for NAFTA change

The Oregonian, 15 April 2009. By Gosia Wozniacka:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/04/mexican_farm_expert_lobbies_fo.html

[Extract only]

Why did so many Mexican farmers migrate to the U.S.?

NAFTA undermined traditional agriculture methods and created a dependence on pesticides. It took away government price guarantees for corn and other products. It left the free market to regulate prices. To keep up, Mexican farmers sowed more corn. Diversified crops were substituted with monocrops. The government and agrobusinesses encouraged farmers to use pesticides to increase yield from the fields.

The Mexican government also approved the experimental planting of GMO corn [GMW: This is recent. The previous problem has been the planting of US GM corn dumped in Mexico as cheap grain for food part of NAFTA]. Our native corn was contaminated with genetically modified corn and farmers stopped using native seeds.

As a result, farmers abandoned traditional, sustainable farming practices. Their soil was contaminated by the use of agrochemicals. It became dependent on the pesticides, so farmers had to pay more to buy them. Many could not make ends meet. They abandoned their lands, left to work in maquiladoras, and emigrated to the United States.

Because farmers were no longer cultivating diverse crops and they couldn't compete with market prices, Mexico started to import food from the U.S. Now, Mexico is completely dependent on U.S. foods. In 2003, out of every 100 agricultural products that Mexicans ate, 93 were bought from the United States -even corn, beans, and rice, the staples of Mexican diets. Despite the free trade agreement, the U.S. continues to subsidize its farmers, allowing them to dump huge amounts of corn into Mexico and driving Mexican farmers to abandon their crops

GM food products need to be labeled

The Independent Florida Alligator (Letters), 15 April 2009. By Jason Ludlow, 4AG:
http://www.alligator.org/articles/2009/04/15/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/090415_let2.txt

While I agree with the heading of Amanda Sookdeo's article from Tuesday's letter to the editor, "GMOs represent technology of the future," new technologies shouldn't invalidate good old American values.

Since its inception, America has experienced unprecedented change primarily due to technological advances analogous to that of GMOs: From cars and color TVs to the Internet and the iPhone. However, even in the wake of such enormous change, the fundamental rights our forefathers granted us have all but disappeared: The rights to vote, speak freely and even write opinion editorials. Why, then, are we suddenly being denied the right to know whether the food we eat has been genetically modified or not?

Opponents of genetically-modified-food labeling argue the added cost of differentiating between GM and non-GM foods is unnecessary. Sookdeo takes this argument a step further, suggesting people would view GM foods as "a harmful substance and not buy the product." But since when is the profitability of a biotechnology company of a higher priority than the freedom of choice?

As Peter Phillips put it in his article, "A Survey of National Labeling Policies of GM Foods," in the 2000 edition of The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, "There appears to be universal agreement that consumer choice needs to be enhanced through effective labeling, to allow consumers to choose between competing GM and GM-free food products." Apparently we've missed the memo.

High Yield Claims for Biotech Crops Disputed

Environment News Service, 15 April 2009:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2009/2009-04-15-092.asp

WASHINGTON, DC, April 15, 2009 (ENS) - Genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields in the United States, while insect-resistant corn has improved yields only marginally, new research by the Union of Concerned Scientists concludes.

The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

"The biotech industry has spent billions on research and public relations hype, but genetically engineered food and feed crops haven't enabled American farmers to grow significantly more crops per acre of land," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biologist in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program and author of the report. "In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results."

After 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, the report, "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops," is the first to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies.

The UCS report reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States.

It comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity.

Biotechnology companies claim that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal.

Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its "advanced seeds... significantly increase crop yields."

The UCS report disputes that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

"After more than 3,000 field trials, only two types of engineered genes are in widespread use, and they haven't helped raise the ceiling on potential yields," said Margaret Mellon, a microbiologist and director of UCS's Food and Environment Program. "This record does not inspire confidence in the future of the technology."

But the many U.S. growers who use genetically engineered varieties are not complaining. Indiana producers have accepted biotech seed en masse. During the 2008 crop season, 96 percent of the soybean and 78 percent of the corn acres in Indiana were planted with hybrids containing one or more biotech traits. That equals more than 9.6 million acres of corn and soybeans.

Purdue Extension entomologist John Obermeyer has witnessed the advent of biotech traits designed to resist damage done to corn by European corn borer and corn rootworm-the two most devastating corn pests. He says the introduction of genetically engineered Bt corn in the mid-1990s was a dream come true.

"Before the first Bt corn came along, the only thing that we could do to control corn borer and rootworm was throw an insecticide at them," Obermeyer says. "With Bt we now had a tool in our integrated pest management toolbox that targeted a specific pest and left other insects, especially beneficial ones, alone. We'd always wanted to do that with insecticides but only had broad spectrum products."

The Bt genes to control corn borer have been 100 percent effective, Obermeyer says and the insect has not developed resistance to the genetically modfied Bt corn.

The Union of Concerned Scientists report does not discount the possibility of genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop yields. But it suggests that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries.

"If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields," said Gurian-Sherman. "Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down."

Recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.

The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields, such as modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs.

The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.

14 April 2009

The other side of the coin

Wicklow News (Ireland), 14 April 2009. By Kim McMenamin
http://www.wicklownews.ie/

[Extract]

Fear

Fear has been used as a tool by governments and companies for years to push some form of legislation that would not normally get passed or instigated. Let's explain the Hegelian dialectic otherwise known as Problem Reaction Solution. You may have heard of this concept before, but if you haven't you wil have certainly come across it before in some form or another.

Basically the solution is presented to us after our reaction to the problem that has been created in the first place by the same people now offering the solution.

Say a government for instance wants to impose genetically modified food (GMO) on the people as a form of control. What better way than to cause a food shortage (problem) by over emphasis on the growing of Bio-fuels, paying farmers not to grow food via trade agreements, commodity speculation pushing the prices up etc. An alleged food shortage then occurs which we react to (reaction) which then paves the way for the imposition by the Government of GMO foods (solution) (to solve the food crisis of course). Problem - Reaction - Solution!

BIO debunks myths in anti-industry report

Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO) press release, 14 April 2009:
http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=2009_0414_01

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Crops improved through biotechnology are being adopted by farmers around the world because of the benefits this science delivers. Biotech traits, such as insect and herbicide tolerance, help to increase yields by protecting plants that would otherwise be lost due to insects or weeds. Many experts agree that agricultural biotechnology has an important role to play in helping to feed and fuel a growing world.

A report titled "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops," released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) questions biotechnology's ability to increase crop yields. Despite impressive increases in crop production statistics since the introduction of agricultural biotechnology in 1996, UCS claims these successes are not due to genetic engineering.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, Executive Vice President, Food and Agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), issued the following statement in response to the report:

"Biotech crops help to provide for more sustainable agricultural production. The benefits include a reduction in the environmental impacts of agriculture, increased production on the same amount of acreage, improved food quality, and increased farmer incomes.

"It's absurd to deny biotechnology's contribution, among other factors, to increased crop production. Since the introduction of agricultural biotechnology in 1996, we have seen double-digit growth in corn and soybean yields.

Specifically, according to the USDA Annual Summary Crop Production Report, 2009:

•

In the United States, where today 80 percent of the nation's corn acreage is planted with biotechnology varieties, yields have increased 36 percent since 1995, the last year before biotech varieties were commercially planted.

•

With about 92 percent of the U.S. soybean acreage now planted with biotech varieties, soybean yields have increased 12 percent since 1995.

"The fact is, marker-assisted breeding has nearly doubled the rate of yield gain when compared to traditional breeding alone. In developing countries, where resources to effectively control weeds and insects are often limited, these traits have increased yield substantially.

"When you look at the rising number of acres of biotech crops planted each year (309 million in 2008) and the increasing number of farmers who have chosen this technology (13.3 million in 2008), it's obvious that biotech crops are delivering value to more and more growers around the world.

"When farmer surveys have been conducted on yield benefits from biotech crops, the results have been overwhelmingly positive, with farmers finding their crop yields have increased. These benefits accrue to farmers with both large and small farms.

"At a time when the United States and the world are looking for science-based solutions to help meet the demands of a growing population, agricultural biotechnology is able to deliver heartier crops that yield more per acre in a more environmentally and economically sustainable way. The biotechnology industry is committed to providing solutions to enlist in that effort."

About BIO

BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the world's largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world.

Contact:

Contact Karen Batra 202-449-6382

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Note the sleight of hand to achieve a false argument: marker-assisted breeding (an aspect of biotechnology which can increase yields along with traditional non-technological breeding methods) does NOT involve genetic modification in any way! Once again, the biotech industry must resort to the big lie that opponents of GM crops are against biotechnology in general, implying that we are somehow "anti-science".

Comments on new UCS report "Failure to Yield"

Oxfam America, 14 April 2009:
http://www.oxfamamarica.org

Washington, DC ò With the occasion of the launch of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report, "Failure to Yield: The Unmet Promise of Genetically Engineered Crops in the US," Kimberly Pfeifer, Head of Research at Oxfam America, made the following statement:

"The UCS offers a useful report for emphasizing and demonstrating what is commonplace knowledge:

1.

That genetically engineered (GE) crops to date do not increase intrinsic yield

2.

They are limited in improving yield (with the exception of Bt varieties)

3.

Other approaches have demonstrated improvements to yield

"With this review in hand UCS rightly questions why GE technology receives such privileged attention over other approaches.

"The report is also timely for highlighting the shift in focus and the concerns that come with it. That research and development (R&D) in GE crops is shifting focus to address the current crises capturing the attention of policy-makers and the public -- namely, the food prices crisis and climate change -- there is a focus on crops to deal with drought tolerance, flooding, salinity, etc. But the jury is still out and we are not sure how soon this will change. Additionally, we will need to be cautious due to new complexities.

"While the report focused on US data, the findings complement and contribute to current thinking on issues of concern in considering the role of agriculture and how to invest for poverty reduction in developing countries. These concerns include:

1.

Up to this point GE crop varieties have been largely irrelevant to significant portions of poor populations in developing countries as they do not address the production challenges or yield constraints resource poor farmers face; nor do they target the staple crops under cultivation (such as cow pea, millet, sorghum/cassava, quinoa, etc). About 40% of developing country farmer population lives on marginal lands and current varieties do not address their realities.

2.

R&D and adoption of GE crops is very expensive and considering that over the past 2 decades investment in agriculture has actually been in decline, it would be a challenge or considerably risky for most developing countries to invest in a tool that has not proven significant yield improvements. Developing countries do face difficult challenges in deciding how to best invest in agriculture with scarce resources (or very constrained budgets).

3.

Other approachesòsuch as low external input technologies, organic, integrated pest managementòoffer more affordable methods and hence more economically sustainable methods with the added benefits of being more environmentally sustainable.

"While Oxfam does not have a position on GE crops, it has publicly expressed in regards to food aid that governments and citizens receiving food aid have a right to decide whether they want to accept or not GE crops (foodstuffs) and if not they have a right to receive non-GE food assistance.

"From such a stance it would follow that supporting multiple local options in agricultural methods as UCS recommends for improving food availability in developing countries is a sound approach. Developing countries should have the policy space to make such decisions as they determine."

Contact:

Laura Rusu (202)459-3739 or lrusu@oxfamamerica.org

Oxfam America is dedicated to finding long-term solutions to poverty, hunger and social injustice around the world.

For more information, please visit http://www.oxfamamerica.org.

Failure to Yield
Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops

Union of Concerned Scientists (USA), 14 April 2009:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

Dowload: Failure to Yield (2009):
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield – the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its "advanced seeds... significantly increase crop yields..." The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results.

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential – or intrinsic – yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop's ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors.

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

In addition to evaluating genetic engineering's record, "Failure to Yield" considers the technology's potential role in increasing food production over the next few decades. The report does not discount the possibility of genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop yields. It does, however, suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.

The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.

"If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields," said Gurian-Sherman. "Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down."

Germany Bars Genetically Modified Corn

New York Times, 14 April 2009. By James Kanter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/business/global/15gmo.html?_r=1&ref=business

Germany announced plans on Tuesday to ban the only genetically modified strain of corn grown in the European Union, dealing a new blow to the American manufacturer, Monsanto, and raising the specter of trade tensions with the United States.

The German agriculture minister, Ilse Aigner, said that the move was intended to protect the safety of consumers and the environment. But she underlined that it would not represent a blanket ban on genetically modified crops.

"My decision is not a political decision, it's a decision based on the facts," Ms. Aigner said. "I have come to the conclusion that there is a justifiable reason to believe that genetically modified maize of the type MON 810 presents a danger to the environment."

Kari Matalone, a spokeswoman for Monsanto, said the corn – which is engineered to resist pests – had been approved for cultivation in Europe more than a decade ago and that no ill effects had been detected since then.

"We don't really understand where this decision is coming from," Ms. Matalone said.

Skepticism among consumers about the safety of genetically modified products and about their effect on the environment has made Europe one of the most difficult markets for Monsanto and for other makers of such crops.

A particular headache for biotechnology companies is that countries retain the right to impose their own bans on cultivation of products approved by the European Union, while they examine new scientific findings. It can take years for a company to force those governments to lift such bans.

The European Commission, the executive body, has been pushing member governments to ease rules on genetically modified crops to enable greater quantities of lower cost foods and animal feeds to be grown in Europe.

The commission has also been seeking to ease tensions with Argentina, Canada and the United States, where modified crops are grown.

Those countries won a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization in 2006 obliging the European Union to ease remaining bans on the import and cultivation of genetically modified products. The United States still could impose punitive duties on the Europeans for continuing to block trade.

Spain grows about 80,000 hectares of the genetically modified corn, the largest quantity in the European Union. Germany grows 3,000 hectares out of its total corn crop of about 2 million hectares, making the move to ban the crop in Germany highly symbolic.

The Czech Republic, Portugal and Poland are among countries still growing the crop, while France and Luxembourg are among countries to have recently imposed bans on cultivation.

The European Food Safety Authority currently is reviewing the Monsanto product because European Union consent to market the product has expired. Even so, E.U. rules allow the product to remain on the market during the authority's assessment.

Greenpeace files complaint against Mexican leader

The Associated Press, 14 April 2009:
http://tiny.cc/eDvsSv

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Greenpeace says it has filed a criminal complaint against the Mexican president and other Cabinet members for allowing genetically modified corn to be planted for experimental purposes.

The organization says it filed the complaint with Mexico's federal Attorney General's office, alleging the government has not set up safeguards to protect the crop's genetic diversity, as Mexican law requires.

Mexico has more than 200 varieties of corn.

Mexico last month changed its laws to allow growers to seek permission to plant experimental plots from the Agriculture Department.

Corn originates from pre-Hispanic Mexico. Greenpeace, which announced its actions Tuesday, supports a total ban.

Germany joins GMO maize ban

EuroNews, 14 April 2009:
http://www.euronews.net/2009/04/14/germany-joins-gmo-maize-ban/

[Click link above to see video]

Germany has banned the only type of genetically-modified crop grown there, the highly insect-resistant MON 810 maize. Germany is the sixth EU country to introduce a provisional ban on the US biotech corn, after France, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg and Greece.

Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said a "rigorous study to weigh the pros and cons," had revealed "new scientific elements", justifying the decision.

Aigner said: "The many open questions regarding the only genetically modified organism currently legal in Europe make clear the necessity for more stringent research."

German environmental groups welcomed the announcement.

The cultivation of genetically modified crops has long divided the 27-member EU, but, failing unity, the European Commission has the power to authorise GMOs Europe-wide, and argues that moratoria are not scientifically justified.

So the bans face action from the Commission to get them lifted.

It said it would analyse Germany's ban before taking appropriate steps, but EU diplomats say this is likely to be only after the European elections.

Monsanto uprooted
Germany Bans Cultivation of GM Corn

Spiegel Online, 14 April 2009:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618913,00.html

[Image caption: Greenpeace activists take a sample from a Monsanto test site near Borken in North Rhine-Westphalia: The GM crop MON 810 has been banned in Germany.]

Germany has banned the cultivation of GM corn, claiming that MON 810 is dangerous for the environment. But that argument might not stand up in court and Berlin could face fines totalling millions of euros if American multinational Monsanto decides to challenge the prohibition on its seed.

The sowing season may be just around the corner, but this year German farmers will not be planting gentically modified crops: German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner announced Tuesday she was banning the cultivation of GM corn in Germany.

Under the new regulations, the cultivation of MON 810, a GM corn produced by the American biotech giant Monsanto, will be prohibited in Germany, as will the sale of its seed. Aigner told reporters Tuesday she had legitimate reasons to believe that MON 810 posed "a danger to the environment," a position which she said the Environment Ministry also supported. In taking the step, Aigner is taking advantage of a clause in EU law which allows individual countries to impose such bans.

"Contrary to assertions stating otherwise, my decision is not politically motivated," Aigner said, referring to reports that she had come under pressure to impose a ban from within her party, the conservative Bavaria-based Christian Social Union. She stressed that the ban should be understood as an "individual case" and not as a statement of principle regarding future policy relating to genetic engineering.

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) both welcomed the ban. Greenpeace's genetic engineering expert, Stephanie T–we, said the decision was long overdue, explaining that numerous scientific studies demonstrated that GM corn was a danger to the environment.

However the ban could prove costly for the German government. Experts in Aigner's ministry recently told SPIEGEL that it will be hard to prove conclusively that MON 810 damages the environment, which could enable Monsanto to win a court case opposing the ban and potentially expose the government to §6-7 million ($7.9-9.2 million) in damages.

Monsanto said Tuesday that it would look into the question of whether it would take legal proceedings as quickly as possible. Andreas Thierfelder, spokesman for Monsanto Germany, said the matter was very urgent as the planting season was just about to start.

Aigner has recently come under pressure from Bavaria to ban GM corn. Bavaria's Environment Minister Markus S–der wants to turn Germany into a "GM food-free zone." Environmental groups have long called for a ban on GM crops in Germany, arguing that they pose a danger to plants and animals.

However, supporters of genetic engineering argue that a ban could prompt research companies and institutes to pull up stakes and leave Germany. Wolfgang Herrmann, president of Munich's Technical University, has said that a prohibition risks precipitating "an exodus of researchers."

The issue has exposed a split between Bavaria's CSU and its larger sister party, Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union. Katherina Reiche, deputy chairwoman of the CDU/CSU's parliamentary group, has complained of the "CSU's irresponsible, cheap propaganda," claiming that it could harm German industry. She argued that anti-GM sentiment was one reason a subsidiary of the German chemical giant Bayer decided to moved its facilities for genetic engineering from Potsdam, near Berlin, to Belgium.

MON 810 was approved for cultivation in Europe by the European Union in 1998 and is currently the only GM crop which can be grown in Germany. The plant produces a toxin to fight off a certain pest, the voracious larvae of the corn borer moth. The crop was due to be planted this year on a total area of around 3,600 hectares (8,896 acres) in Germany. The cultivation of MON 810 is already banned in five other EU member states, namely Austria, Hungary, Greece, France and Luxembourg.

Aigner bans planting of GM corn

A last-minute stop: Just before the planned sowing, Federal Minister of Agriculture, Ilse Aigner, has prohibited the cultivation of biotech corn in Germany. She sees these genetically modified plants as a danger to the environment.

Süddeutche Zeitung, 14 April 2009:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/337/464931/text/

Agricultural Minister Ilse Aigner has banned the genetically modified corn variety MON810 in Germany. This makes the cultivation as well as any further sales of seed or corn kernels of this variety illegal, the CSU politician explained in Berlin on Tuesday. "The L”nder [states] will be informed immediately and they will watch over the compliance with this ban", Aigner added.

As a reason, Aigner declared that she had arrived at the conclusion "that there is good cause to assume that the genetically modified corn of the MON810 line is dangerous to the environment". According to her ministry, there are risks for certain butterflies, ladybugs and aquatic organisms. This opinion has been confirmed also by the Federal Ministry for the Environment.

"Contrary to different statements, my decision is not a political one", the minister emphasized. It is a technical one and that is what it must be." This is not a policy decision regarding the future handling of green biotechnology.

Earlier on, Aigner's ministry had evaluated a report submitted by U.S. seed corporation Monsanto about the application of this corn variety in Germany. Time for a decision was running short İbecause the planting season starts in the end of April.

So far, corn of the MON810 variety of the American agricultural group Monsanto is the only genetically modified plant approved in Europe for commercial cultivation. However, countries such as Austria, Hungary or even France have already prohibited the sowing of biotech corn.

As a reaction to the French ban, Monsanto has sued the government of that country. A decision is pending. In the cases of Austria and Hungary, the group has forgone litigation, probably because these markets are too small.

Genetically modified corn carries a gene of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis one usually finds in the ground; it is able to form a protein causing damage to certain insect larvae. The corn plant thus protects itself against the larvae of certain pests, such as the corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) and the Westphalian corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera).

Bavarian Environmental Minister Markus S–der (CSU) has welcomed the ban. Bavaria can now become a "zone free of biotech cultivation", he said. The [NGO] Bund f¸r Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) declared that the suspicious facts indicating that biotech corn damages environment and fauna are so numerous that a ban was mandatory. Feeding studies have shown that this biotech corn damages the immune system of mice. Greenpeace called for Ilse Aigner to vote in Brussels against new approvals of similar GM corn varieties in the EU.

Proponents of the cultivation, however, warned in advance against a migration of research companies because of the ban.

Comment by TraceConsult™

"Not a political one" is what the German Agricultural Minister calls her decision to follow five fellow EU Member States in banning Monsanto's MON810 corn. This decision is only a logical consequence of Germany's recent vote in the EU's Council of Ministers helping to uphold the MON810 ban in Austria and Hungary. The next candidates in this procedure are France and Greece. Meanwhile, Luxembourg has announced that it, too, will ban MON810. These honorable and mature countries all must have their scientific reasons for the bans imposed. So Aigner's decision must be purely technical, at least this is what one should think.

Yes and no. As some of our readers learnt on April 7, the Bavarian conservative party CSU is facing a possible desaster in the upcoming elections for the European Parliament. As a result, both Aigner, who happens to be from that party, as well as her environmental colleague from the Bavarian State Government are doing everything in their power to accommodate the preferences of consumers and (Bavarian) farmers - after all, they all are both voters and consumers, too. And it so happens that the vast majority of Bavarians, even more so than the rest of Germany, is opposed to green biotechnology. And they don't even have to have any technical or scientific reasons for their choice. But it also helps Ms. Aigner that the coalition partner of the conservatives in the Federal Government entirely agrees with the ban.

All in all, whether "technical" or political, and whether one likes this or not, today's ban of MON810 by the German Government is likely to pave the way to a yet firmer stand against GMOs in the EU Council of Ministers.

Germany to ban cultivation of Monsanto GMO maize

• GMO maize banned for sowing for this year's crop
• Decision not fundamental obstacle to GMO crops
• Germany on conflict course with EU Commission

Reuters UK, 14 April 2009. By Michael Hogan and Thorsten Severin:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKLE21844320090414

BERLIN/HAMBURG - Germany will ban cultivation and sale of genetically modified (GMO) maize despite European Union rulings that the biotech grain is safe, its government said on Tuesday.

The ban affects U.S. biotech company Monsanto's (MON.N) MON 810 maize which may no longer be sown for this summer's harvest, German Agriculture and Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner told a news conference.

The move puts Germany alongside France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg which have banned MON 810 maize despite its approval by the EU for commercial use throughout the bloc.

"I have come to the conclusion that there is a justifiable reason to believe that genetically modified maize of the type MON 810 presents a danger to the environment," Aigner said, stressing the five other EU states have taken the same action.

The decision to ban was based on scientific factors and was not a political one, Aigner said. It was an individual case and not a fundamental decision against GMO crops, she added.

The EU Commission, the bloc's executive arm, has tried without success to get the bans in other countries lifted and on Tuesday warned it would examine the German decision.

"The Commission will analyse the ban by Germany with the adequate scientific information support and the Commission will decide on the most appropriate follow-up toward this situation," Commission spokeswoman Nathalie Charbonneau told a regular briefing.

Monsanto spokesman Andreas Thierfelder said the decision was unjustified and no supportable scientific reasons for the ban had been given. Should the ban be confirmed, Monsanto would consider legal options with the goal of enabling GMO seeds to be planted for this year's harvest.

The MON 810 maize is resistant to corn borer, a butterfly whose caterpillars damage maize plants.

Aigner said her ministry would now prepare a report into Germany's strategy on GMO crops.

Aigner, who took office in October 2008, said previously she would review approval for cultivation of GMO maize in Germany before this year's sowing took place in late April.

Monsanto gave German authorities a report on compliance with cultivation rules at the end of March.

German authorities had given Aigner differing assessments of the report, the minister said. But the Environment Ministry also believed GMOs presented a threat to the environment.

Decision welcomed

The south German state of Bavaria welcomed the decision and now planned to become a GMO-free zone, Bavarian state Environment Minister Markus Soeder said.

Aigner's decision was also welcomed by German environmentalist association BUND.

"The suspicions that genetic maize damages nature and animals are so widespread that a ban is absolutely necessary," BUND chairman Hubert Weiger said.

Environmental group Greenpeace called on Aigner to work inside the EU to stop further approvals of GMO maize.

German farmers have registered intentions to cultivate some 3,600 hectares of maize for the 2009 harvest, up from 3,200 hectares in 2008.

But the total is an insignificant part of Germany's annual maize cultivation of around 1.8 to 2.0 million hectares. German farmers' association DBV did not support or criticise the decision in a short statement, saying it expected the decision to have been made according to scientific principles.

"As in the public there is a deep divide between those who favour and oppose (GMO crops)", the DBV said.

Ferdinand Schmitz, chief executive of the association of German seed producers, said the decision was arbitrary and would damage Germany as a location for research.

Schmitz accused Aigner of trying to score points with voters in the upcoming European parliamentary elections and said banning seeds already approved as safe could generate legal action for compensation. (Additional reporting by Julie Lois in Brussels; editing by James Jukwey)

Germany to ban US biotech giant's genetically modified corn strain

Deutsche Welle, 14 April 2009:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4176790,00.html

[image caption: Ilse Aigner calls time on GM crops in Germany]

Germany has decided to ban genetically modified corn, Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner announced Tuesday, amid concerns over its environmental and economical impact.

Aigner announced a ban on the cultivation of US biotech giant Monsanto's genetically modified corn strain MON 810 after considering a number of studies.

The MON 810 strain is the only genetically modified (GM) crop approved in the European Union and was approved for commercial use in the EU in 1998. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said the strain of corn was safe despite widespread doubts.

MON 810 seeds are the only genetically modified seed currently allowed on German soil.

Monsanto's seed was due to be planted on 3,600 hectares (9,000 acres) of German farm land this year, predominantly in the east of the country.

MON 810 includes a gene which protects it against a pest, the European corn borer butterfly.

Aigner, who has the support of environmental federations and politicians across party lines, had reviewed several critical studies on the environmental consequences of planting the seed, as well as drawing on a report by Monsanto which had declared their product safe.

Calls for German-wide ban across party lines

Politicians from Aigner's own Christian Social Union (CSU) party, the Bavarian sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), as well as from the Green Party and the Left Party, have called for a long-term ban on the cultivation of GM crops with Bavarian Environment Secretary Markus Soeder (CSU) leading the calls for Germany to become a "GM-free zone."

Opponents of GM crops say that they fear the effects the crops may have on the environment and animal life. They are also concerned that pollen from GM crops could be dispersed far from the land where they are grown, contaminating conventional crops.

Europe remains divided on whether GM corn is safe and whether to allow its widespread use across the continent despite it being given a green light at by the EU's executive body to be grown in the block.

The EU in December adopted a series of measures aimed at overcoming the differences and reaching unified decisions.

The member states notably recommended that the EFSA should be Europe's final arbiter on the safety of GM crops, but with input from national bodies. They also agreed that decisions should take into account the medium- and long-term environmental impact of any decision, not just the health aspects.

Commission facing on-going mutiny over GM crops

However, the European Commission has been struggling with a mutiny within the EU where a number of countries have retained bans on the growing of GM crops despite its best efforts to persuade them to comply.

Only last month, Germany, along with at least 20 other EU member states, voted down a European Commission attempt to have Austria and Hungary lift bans on growing maize.

EU environment ministers, meeting in Brussels on March 2, voted against forcing Vienna and Budapest to allow Monsanto's MON810 GM grain to be grown in their countries.

Only four EU nations – Britain, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden – supported the Commission's effort to have the Austrian and Hungarian bans lifted.

Under EU law, member states can legislate a national ban on genetically modified organisms (GMO) if the government in question can justify the prohibition.

It was the third time that the Commission had tried to force Austria to lift its ban, and the second time for Hungary. Austria also has a "safeguard" ban on Germany's Bayer AG's T25 GM corn.

Both varieties have been approved for use in the EU by the Commission, but debate in Europe continues over the potential of GM seeds to accidentally spread and adversely affect natural surroundings and adjacent farms.

Greens urge vigilance against Commission efforts

[image caption: Monsanto is facing stiff opposition in Europe]

The March defeat followed a similar vote in February, which foiled the European Commission's attempts to force France and Greece to allow GM corn from Monsanto to be grown in their fields.

Nine of the 27 EU nations supported the Commission's call for the ban to be lifted, while 16 opposed it or abstained.

Monica Frassoni, co-leader of the Green group in the European Parliament, urged vigilance against the Commission's attempt to make member states allow GM crops to be grown.

"We must remain vigilant because it is not the first time that the Commission has tried to force the hand of those member states that are most resistant to the growing of genetically modified maize," she said. "The challenge now is to secure a majority big enough to reject the commission's proposal."

French watchdog contradicts Sarkozy on ban

Only a week before the February vote, France's food watchdog AFSSA concluded that genetically-modified corn from Monsanto was safe, contradicting an earlier report that had led to a ban.

[Comment from GM Watch: In fact, there was no contradiction between the reports. This is because the "serious doubts" reported by the French Government's panel of experts were primarily about environmental impact, whereas the food watchdog was giving its view on food safety. The latter's conclusions were leaked pre-publication to the right-wing French newspaper Le Figaro in a deliberate attempt to embarrass the French Government.]

The AFSSA report, which became public after it was revealed in the daily Le Figaro, angered environmentalists and embarrassed President Nicolas Sarkozy's government, which had resorted to a special EU measure to outlaw the crops.

The agency said there was no evidence to support the view that MON810 posed a health risk. It was the only strain of GM corn under cultivation in France before the ban.

Sarkozy's government slapped a ban on GM crops in February last year after a panel of experts said in a separate report that they had "serious doubts" about the Monsanto product.

France invoked a European Union safeguard giving member states authority to ban a GM crop provided there was scientific evidence to back the decision.

Germany deals blow to GM crops

Agriculture minister Ilse Aigner joins European mutiny over genetically modified crops by banning corn variety MON 810

The Guardian (UK), 14 April 2009. By Kate Connolly in Berlin:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/germany-gm-crops

Germany has thrown its weight behind a growing European mutiny over genetically modified crops by banning the planting of a widely grown pest-resistant corn variety.

Agriculture minister Ilse Aigner said there was enough evidence to support arguments that MON 810, which is the only GM crop widely grown in Europe, posed a danger.

"I have come to the conclusion that genetically-modified corn from the MON 810 strain constitutes a danger to the environment," Aigner told reporters in Berlin.

Germany's move, which has immediate effect, goes against the European Commission's decision to support the lifting of bans on planting MON 810 which have been imposed by governments in France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg.

In the UK, the Welsh Assembly has declared the country GM-free. Supported by Britain, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden, the Commission argued last month that moves to outlaw the corn on the grounds that it is dangerous were unjust because it has been deemed safe by scientists at the European Food Safety Authority.

MON 810 was first approved for commercial use in the EU in 1998 and has been permitted as a commercial crop in Germany since 2005. More than 70 per cent of German consumers support a ban on GM crops for food.

The US biotechnology firm Monsanto which markets the maize did not return calls but industry observers said the ban by Europe's largest country with a strong agricultural lobby, was a blow to the company.

MON 810 was developed to resist a moth larva which bores into the stem of the corn and against which there is only one approved insecticide.

Monsanto has repeatedly argued that MON 810 crops are safe and has tried to encourage their use as a cheap and plentiful food. They are widely grown in the US, Latin America and China.

But opponents insist that too little is known about GM crops and their long-term genetic impact on wildlife and the food-chain.

The German ban will now be analysed by the Commission, amid fears it could trigger trade tensions with the US. Under World Trade Organisation rules, the US administration has the right to retaliate.

Nathalie Charbonneau a spokeswoman for the Commission said it would scrutinise the German decision and "decide on the most appropriate follow-up".

Lobbyists for the biotechnology industry in Germany described the decision as a setback for science and for the economy. They warned that it would prompt biotechnology companies to relocate to other parts of the world.

Germany bans genetically modified corn

Associated Press / Forbes, 14 April 2009. By Rachel Nolan:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/04/14/ap6287113.html

Germany on Tuesday banned a genetically modified strain of corn that the European Union has deemed safe for planting.

Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said U.S. seed maker Monsanto's MON810 genetically engineered corn product "presents a danger for the environment."

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are common in the U.S. but controversial in Europe, where activists have protested their use and torn up GMO crops.

In 2004, the European Union authorized the planting of MON810 seeds, which produce a toxin to ward off insects. Monsanto claims this genetic trait precludes the need for dangerous pesticides, but opponents fear the seeds will spread and alter the natural surroundings.

France, Greece, Austria and Hungary have also imposed "safeguard" bans on the MON810 variety, citing studies that find it unsafe to the environment.

In March, EU environment ministers defeated a European Commission proposal that would have forced Austria and Hungary to lift their bans. Germany will join France and Greece in facing scrutiny from the Commission for their bans.

Aigner, a member of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, had been criticized for caving in to pressure from her heavily agricultural constituency to support the ban.

"Contrary to some assertions, my decision is not a political one," Aigner said.

Environmental groups hailed the decision.

Hubert Weiger, president of the German branch of Friends of the Earth, praised Aigner for "not buckling under pressure from a large biotech company."

Germany: Minister Aigner bans MON810 Bt maize

GMO Compass, 14 April 2009:
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/432.docu.html

German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner (CSU) has banned the cultivation of MON810 Bt maize in Germany with immediate effect, invoking a safeguard clause in European genetic technology legislation.

The approval of MON810 maize is suspended with immediate effect. "With that, any cultivation and any further sale of MON810 maize in Germany is prohibited," said the agriculture minister in a press release. The German states are responsible for monitoring the ban.

Aigner based her decision on a safeguard clause of the EU's release directive. According to that, a Member State may temporarily restrict the sale of a GMO product, when "new or additional information" gives "reasonable grounds to believe" that the GMO product concerned presents a risk to either human health or the environment.

As to what the risks are in the case of MON810 or on what new scientific evidence Aigner has based her decision, she didn't say.

She referred to five other EU countries which had invoked the safeguard clause for banning the cultivation of MON810 maize. However, up to now, these national bans have not been upheld in the scientific assessments called for in the EU directives. The scientific GMO Panel of EFSA again came to the conclusion that there is no new scientific-based evidence to justify a national ban on MON810.

These national cultivation bans, though, have received some political support recently. In a vote of the Council of Ministers there was no qualified majority reached to force Austria or Hungary to rescind their bans on MON810. The EU Commission had suggested the vote, as there was no scientific indication of any safety issue.

Monsanto has announced the possibility of taking legal action against the ban. According to a report from SPIEGEL online, the Federation could be faced with damage claims of six to seven million Euros, should the ban not stand up to a judicial examination.

Germany bans Monsanto's GM maize
• Greenpeace has long campaigned against the planting of GM maize

BBC News, 14 April 2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7998181.stm

Germany is to ban the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) maize - the only GM crop widely grown in Europe.

The decision, announced on Tuesday by German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner, is a blow to the US biotech firm Monsanto, which markets the maize.

Monsanto's variety, called MON 810, is resistant to the corn borer, a moth larva which eats the stem.

MON 810 is controversial in the EU. Several countries have banned it, defying the European Commission.

Ms Aigner, a member of the conservative Bavaria-based Christian Social Union (CSU), said she had concluded that "there is a justifiable reason to believe that... MON 810 presents a danger to the environment".

The variety has been allowed in Germany since 2005. Ms Aigner said the decision to ban it now, based on new data, was purely scientific, not political. She also said it was a specific case, and not a fundamental decision against all GM crops.

In March EU governments resisted European Commission pressure to get bans on MON 810 lifted. The commission wanted Austria and Hungary to allow cultivation of MON 810. The variety is also banned in France and Greece.

The UK was among a handful of countries that supported the commission's position, the AFP news agency reports.

Germany was planning to sow MON 810 on just 3,600 hectares (8,892 acres) for this summer's harvest, mostly in its eastern states.

Opponents of GM crops say more scientific data is needed, arguing that their long-term genetic impact on humans and wildlife could be harmful.

The biotech industry says the crops are as safe as traditional varieties, and that they would provide plentiful, cheaper food.

Germany bans farming of genetically modified corn

CBC News (Canada), 14 April 2009:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/04/14/tech-090414-germany-corn.html

Genetically modified corn can no longer be grown commercially in Germany.

German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner announced Tuesday that the government is banning the cultivation of MON 810 maize. That strain of corn is the only genetically modified crop that Germany had allowed to be cultivated in the country.

Aigner said she has concluded the crop poses a danger to the environment.

The change in rules means that MON 810 may not be sown in Germany this upcoming growing season.

Germany had allowed the strain's cultivation since 2005.

MON 810, also known as YieldGuard Corn Borer, is a strain of corn extremely resistant to European and southwestern corn borers, caterpillars that eat and damage corn plants before becoming adult moths.

The strain was developed by Monsanto, a multinational agriculture technology company headquartered in the U.S.

The corn has already been banned by five other European Union countries:

•

France.

•

Austria.

•

Hungary.

•

Luxembourg.

•

Greece.

The European Commission has tried to overturn those bans, but has so far been unsuccessful. The crop has been approved as safe by the European Food Safety Authority, and the commission is concerned about potential trade disputes arising from the bans.

Opponents of genetically modified foods say their long-term effects on human health and the health of the environment have not been studied enough. However, producers of genetically modified crops, such as Monsanto, say the plants are as safe as traditional varieties and promise higher yields at a lower cost to farmers and consumers.

Germany to ban cultivation of GMO maize – Minister

Reuters, 14 April 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLE16356920090414

BERLIN/HAMBURG – Germany is to ban cultivation and sale of maize with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said on Tuesday.

The ban affects MON 810 maize which may no longer be sown for this summer's harvest, Aigner told a news conference.

Aigner, who took office in October 2008, said previously she would review approval for cultivation of GMO maize in Germany before this year's sowing took place in late April.

MON 810 maize, developed and marketed by U.S. biotech company Monsanto (MON.N), is the only GM crop that may be commercially grown in the EU after the bloc ruled that it is safe.

Several other European Union countries including France have banned GMO maize cultivation in the face of EU approvals. But the bans are controversial and face action from the EU Commission to get them lifted. (Reporting by Thorsten Severin and Michael Hogan; Editing by James Jukwey)

GM Crop Failure a Cautionary Warning For Farmers

GE Free New Zealand press release, 14 April 2009:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0904/S00110.htm

New Zealand farmers must learn from the experience of farmers overseas and resist pressure to weaken regulations around the safety of genetically engineered organisms (GEO's), from groups promoting their release.

Thousands of people are now facing famine after a massive crop failure in South Africa. The Times of Zambia has just reported that three types of Monsanto GE corn has failed to pollinate affecting 82,000 hectares (202 000 acres) of vital food production land.

Maize is a staple food of Africa and farmers regularly fight drought but never before have their plants failed to be pollinated. Such a catastrophic event is unheard of and highlights the dangers that have been forecast by scientists about the risks to food security posed by GEO's.

GE crops have been aggressively marketed in developing countries including South Africa, and portrayed by agribusiness as the solution to the Worlds' food security.

But New Zealand also has a trail of GEO failures, animal deformities, trial-breaches and a clear majority of consumers who do not want it.

Now New Zealand is being put under severe pressure to further relax its regulatory rules.

The Government has sought comment on changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) including the removal of the public voice and environmental protections.

This puts New Zealand farmers at risk. If these changes are implemented it will mean that local regions will have a struggle to voice concerns on developments and protect hard won environmental safeguards from centralized Government dictates around National Standards, including for GEO regulation. Many farmers and businesses rely on a GE Free production system and these voices must be heard.

The RMA changes coincide with The National Business review featuring Life Sciences Network lobbyist William Rolleston. It reports that Rolleston felt embarrassed to be a New Zealander because of the stringent GEO regulations that are in place. He said he was "laughed at in disbelief" at the New Zealand regulations and that they stifled thought.

Unfortunately his vision very much demands a reduction in regulatory standards that have helped protect New Zealand from GMO's to a significant extent.

"The trough of promises put forward by GE Biotechnology Businesses is just a mirage," says Claire Bleakley of GE Free NZ in food and environment.

"Proper research costs money and the risk to New Zealand is that Life Science Network businesses see Regulations requiring GE scientific research as costly time wasting and an obstacle to quick-term profits".

It is essential that communities have a voice over how to protect their local economy from the ravages and dangers of GEO's. The Auckland and Northland District Councils are to be congratulated in seeking to consult with ratepayers over the use of GEO's.

ENDS:

Local authorities consult ratepayers on GMO land use, April 11th 2009
http://www.gefreenorthland.org.nz

Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa, March 29th 2009
Adriana Stuijt http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101

GM Maize fails to produce, The Times (Zambia), Bobby Jordan, 22nd March 2009
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=964062

Over Regulation stifling Innovation, Mark Peart, National Business Review, March 20th 2009.

In the last five years many regulations have been compromised - the GMO tree trial by Scion was found with holes in its perimeter fence, there has been the illegal flowering of GMO brassica plants at another secret location and GM onions were found outside the containment fence. There is also continued concern about contaminated land used in a GE tamarillo trial, and the destroyed flock of 3000 GE sheep undertaken by a Scottish company. To date there have been few scientific publications reporting on the safety and performance of any of the New Zealand GE trials that have failed or still continue.

Organic pioneer fears his farm is being jeopardised by neighbour's GM crops

• GM crop advocate Jonathan Harrington claims to have grown genetically modified maize on his Powys farm and says he - and 30 other farmers - will do the same this year in defiance of Welsh Assembly Government policy. Here one of his neighbours, Dr Paul Benham, director of the Centre for Sustainable Food, at the Primrose Earth Awareness Trust, explains why it worries him

Western Mail (Wales), 14 April 2009:
http://tiny.cc/g8oTn

DURING the end of the 1960s, I received training in Agricultural Science at Wye College in Kent and essentially I learnt state-of-the-art agri-industry techniques.

Whilst working on large farms, which included ploughing and sowing a 1,800 acre field of wheat in the marginal lands of Australia, I realised that this type of food production comes at a considerable cost.

There are very large input costs in the form of cheap fossil fuel for diesel for production and distribution, producing artificial fertilisers and sprays, the embodied energy for building tractors and machinery and in the UK considerable subsidies.

There are also costs to the environment, since it is estimated that during the last six decades, 50% of the increase in CO2 emissions is attributable to the industrialisation of agriculture. In addition there are considerable losses of habitats, soil degradation and pollution, that result from these methods. There are also great concerns about deterioration in food quality.

I retrained in ecology and at Primrose Farm have been developing food production systems that work with nature and actually utilise the support of nature's beneficial resources and renewable energy.

We produce annually £20,000 of produce from 1.5 acres including a 0.5 acre forest garden, which contains 100 varieties of fruit and nut trees. This is a minimal maintenance system, which mimics the natural woodland and largely looks after itself.

All produce is sold within 15 miles and since most production comes from the work of people and not machines, minimal fossil fuels are used in both production and distribution. The farm energy audit shows a figure of 0.04 tonnes/£1,000 produce sold and the various carbon sinks on the farm offset this. This is a model of highly efficient, low carbon farming with very high biodiversity that is an excellent demonstration of one of the most productive and resilient systems in the UK.

The integrity of our organic and sustainable system is now being jeopardised by the actions of Mr Jonathan Harrington, who is subversively growing GM crops within one mile of Primrose and says he plans to grow GM crops with 30 other farmers this year.

Our farm has held a Soil Association organic symbol for 23 years and the SA has made it absolutely clear that no GM contamination should occur. The Primrose Transition food production model is central to the education message of the adjacent Centre for Sustainable Food and thus its important education work is being threatened.

I therefore welcome the introduction of the Welsh Assembly's recent legislation to hold GM farmers liable for transgenic contamination to neighbouring farms.

The quality of Primrose produce is exceptional and avidly sort by high-class hotels and restaurants and a very wide range of customers. It is vital that this trust and integrity is maintained.

Planting GM crops is nothing to do with creating global food security, since there is no real evidence to show greater yields from GM even than conventional mainstream crops.

It is another "quick fix" approach by the agri-industry that has already created much of the present global environmental crisis. It is more about controlling global food and providing billions of dollars in profits to multi-national companies.

The Primrose and Cuban model and many sustainable polyculture systems show far greater food productivity. Elin Jones the Welsh Minister for rural affairs has visited and is very impressed with the food productivity from this piece of land.

Many scientists, like Defra's Bob Watson and the 4,000 who collaborated to draft the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development report, are now saying that with the impending crises of climate change and peak oil it is essential to create more ecological systems in order to address future food security. The actions and attitudes of Mr Harrington, who is linked to the pro-GM company CropGen, rather mirror the ways that GM crops have been steamrolled into other countries such as Paraguay and India.

Enormous profits are at stake and there has been no proper experimentation to demonstrate the safety of GM crops to either consumers or the environment. Very dramatic attempts have been made to suppress scientific reports that have produced concerns about the safety of GM. So we, the human race, are the guinea pigs and the planet is becoming the laboratory and the future dangers are very real.

We are showing the film, The World According to Monsanto which is an incredibly well documented film that clearly exposes the self-interest of the GM companies where profits seem to be their sole motivation.

The next showing takes place on Tuesday, April 28, at Peterstone Court, Llanhamlach, Brecon. It is free and begins at 7.30pm, and is followed by a question and answer session.

We would be grateful for support towards having this film shown as widely as possible.

Dr Paul Benham BSc Agric Sci, MIBiol ecology, PhD in farm animal behaviour, is project director at the Centre for Sustainable Food, the Primrose Earth Awareness Trust, Felindre, near Hay-on-Wye

Monty Don claims GM stunt could damage trust in Welsh food

Western Mail (Wales), 14 April 2009:
http://tiny.cc/dWhew

TV garden presenter Monty Don is another near neighbour of Jonathan Harrington, the man who claims to have planted a GM crop in secret on his 30-acre holding near Hay-on-Wye.

Mr Don, president of the Soil Association, has a 50-acre organic farm near Hay Bluff and has written to First Minister Rhodri Morgan praising the Welsh Assembly Government's new proposals to limit contamination by GM material and make GM companies and growers legally liable for the impact of other farms.

And he asks whether there is any evidence for Mr Harrington's claims that he and two other farmers grew GM maize last year and fed it to cattle.

"The real damage of a secret stunt like this is that if repeated it could damage trust in Welsh food and farming more generally," says Mr Don.

He points out that Mr Harrington breached European law designed to safeguard conventional and organic crops from contamination.

I've no regrets, I'm waiting for the backlash

Western Mail (Wales), 14 April 2009:
http://tiny.cc/g8oTn

Jonathan Harrington, of Penylan, Tregoyd, works for CropGen, an organisation funded by GM companies to promote the technology across the world.

He has described organic farming as a religion with no rational justification.

And in January he also said: "I've no qualms, no regrets at all. I am waiting for the backlash, and am very happy morally, ethically and legally, if need be, to defend my actions."

He told an Institute of Welsh Affairs conference in Cardiff that he and up to 30 other farmers were preparing to defy both Welsh Assembly Government policy and EU rules on growing GM crops by planting a much larger acreage this year. This week he rejected an offer to comment on his neighbours' concerns.

Jonathon Harrington and CropGen

[a reply to Harrington on the Times Higher Education website]:
http://tiny.cc/vSzgW

Jonathon Harrington says he is part of CropGen and that it does not, as far as he's aware, receive any industry funding.

This is from CropGen's home page: "CropGen receives limited support from the biotechnology industry..." It continues "but acts entirely independently." However, the 2001 version of its website stated that "while ultimately funded by industry, CropGen's panel members are free to express such views as they consider appropriate. The funding companies cannot veto the panel's position on any issue." That's good to know.

There is no indication that it is now funded by anyone other than the biotech industry, and other members of the CropGen panel have in the past admitted being paid an "honorarium" for their services by the industry.

The domain name for the group's website was registered by the PR company Countrywide Porter Novelli. The behind the scenes running of CropGen is now undertaken by Lexington Communications who perform the same task for the biotech industry's official lobby group the Agricultural Biotechnology Council.

Curious that Mr Harrington knows so little about who he's working for.

Herbicide Used in Argentina Could Cause Birth Defects

Latin American Herald Tribune, April 14 2008:
http://tiny.cc/CbFSd

BUENOS AIRES - The herbicide [Roundup] used on genetically modified soy - Argentina's main crop - could cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in fetuses, according to the results of a scientific investigation released Monday.

Although the study "used amphibian embryos," the results "are completely comparable to what would happen in the development of a human embryo," embryology professor Andres Carrasco, one of the study's authors, told Efe.

"The noteworthy thing is that there are no studies of embryos on the world level and none where glyphosate is injected into embryos," said the researcher with the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research and director of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory.

The doses of herbicide used in the study "were much lower than the levels used in the fumigations," and so the situation "is much more serious" than the study suggests because "glyphosate does not degrade," Carrasco warned.

In Argentina, farmers each year use between 180 and 200 million liters of glyphosate, which was developed by the multinational Monsanto and sold in the United States under the brand name Roundup.

Carrasco said that the research found that "pure glyphosate, in doses lower than those used in fumigation, causes defects ... (and) could be interfering in some normal embryonic development mechanism having to do with the way in which cells divide and die."

"The companies say that drinking a glass of glyphosate is healthier than drinking a glass of milk, but the fact is that they've used us as guinea pigs," he said.

He gave as an example what occurred in Ituzaingo, a district where 5,000 people live on the outskirts of the central Argentine city of Cordoba, where over the past eight years about 300 cases of cancer associated with fumigations with pesticides have turned up.

"In communities like Ituzaingo it's already too late, but we have to have a preventive system, to demand that the companies give us security frameworks and, above all, to have very strict regulations for fumigation, which nobody is adhering to out of ignorance or greed," he said.

The researcher also said that, apart from the research he carried out, "there has to be a serious study" on the effects of glyphosate on human beings, adding that "the state has all the mechanisms for that."

In the face of the volley of judicial complaints related to the disproportionate use of agrochemicals in the cultivation of GM soy, last February the Health Ministry created a group to investigate the problem in four Argentine provinces.

Argentina is the world's third-largest exporter of soy.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

A lot of Argentina's Roundup-drenched GM soy meal is sold to Irish farmers who routinely feed it to their cattle, sheep and - most of all - to pigs. Ireland is the biggest importer of GM animal feed in Europe. Does the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) test these GM feed imports for Roundup residues? Do they test the resulting meat, poultry and dairy products for such residues? Probably not, since the FSAI's CEO, Dr. John O'Brien, is a former director of the International Life Sciences Institute, an agri-biotech industry lobby group which promotes GM food and farming.

Argentina - Farming up the creek.

Farming UK, 14 April 2009:
http://www.farminguk.com/news/Argentina-Farming-up-the-creek.14805.asp

ARGENTINA - The success of Brazilian farming and Argentina's disarray

If forecasts are confirmed the 70 million tons of the 2008/09 Argentine harvest would represent 2.9% of the world's grain production when in previous crops it had reached 4.2%. Brazil in the meantime will have reached 5.5% of world production. Only a few years ago the difference was minimal with Brazil almost 4% and Argentina above 3%.

According to the latest statistics from Argentine farmers organizations, and published in the Buenos Aires press, the two senior partners of Mercosur represent globally the equivalent of 8 to 10% of the world grains and oilseeds production, but Brazil although much slower in implementing structural reforms has been more successful in overall production.

Argentina farmers' organizations argue that in spite of the fact that Brazil introduced genetically modified seeds later than Argentina, has been slower in privatizing ports and in taking advantage of South America's huge waterways, the 2008/09 harvest is expected to reach 135 million tons, almost double Argentina.

Looking back while in 1999/2000 the relation between Brazil/Argentina production was 1.3 (83 and 65 million tons); the ratio jumped to 1.4 in 2006/07 (133 and 95 million tons). And looking into the future the situation seems even more depressing for the Argentine farmers: while Brazil is planning a 300 million tons crop in the coming ten years, Argentina remains embroiled in the "conflict with the Kirchners' administrations over export taxes".

Furthermore when international prices ballooned the Kirchner administrations levied windfall earnings in an alleged attempt to contain prices of the basic basket, but also to increase tax revenue for political reasons.

Brazil however did not innovate and applied a policy to absorb the inflationary impact of higher food prices, with inflation estimated to increase 4% in 2009. The strategy of the Brazilian government was to promote supply, helping the domestic market and boosting exports.

The Argentine farmers report also points out to the more harmonic development of Brazilian agriculture which is not soy-dependent to the extreme it has reached in Argentina. On the contrary Brazil has also promoted dairy and beef farming, helping to overcome the domestic market/exports dichotomy. Such is the case that in the nineties Brazil participated with 2% of world beef exports, but now has jumped to 12.3%, while Argentina remains at 2%.

Brazil has intelligently managed to address the domestic market/exports dilemma from the supply side and did not fall to the temptation of volatile short term revenues, concludes the report.

Double-whammy hits genetically modified crops

Cleantech Group (Canada), 14 April 2009. By Emma Rich:
http://cleantech.com/news/4364/double-whammy-hits-genetically-modi

Germany becomes the latest country to defy an EU ruling and outlaw GM crops, while the Union of Concerned Scientists say GM crops offer little added benefit.

Two declarations released today about genetically modified crops took the industry to task on two fronts: its environmental impact and its lack of significant yield increases to-date.

Germany's Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner today announced a nationwide ban on the only genetically modified crop that was permitted in the country because of concerns of the environmental impact.

The ruling outlaws the MON 810 strain of corn that St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto (NYSE: MON) engineered with a gene to protect against the European corn borer butterfly. The move makes Germany the latest in a string of European countries to outlaw Monsanto's GM corn, despite a ruling from an EU regulatory body in favor of the science.

Meanwhile, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report today that says 13 years of commercialization of GM crops have failed to deliver on industry promises to significantly increase U.S. crop yields, calling for public dollars to be spent on more results-oriented science.

GM crops have been hailed as a way to protect against pests, drought and disease to increase yields for food or biofuel feedstocks (see Monsanto pumps corn for ethanol and Monsanto, Perten team up for ethanol process tools). Advocates say that fewer crop losses also lead to less carbon emissions from decomposing crops (see Biotech crops lower world's carbon emissions, says researcher).

Those benefits have led to significant growth in demand, and dozens of GM crops are still in the pipeline of development (see Global biotech crops up 13% in 2006, driven partly by biofuel).

But the Union of Concerned Scientists disputed the claims of increased production in the "Failure to Yield" report.

"Clearly the industry has been trying as long as it has existed to improve yields, but the record is extremely meager," Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at UCS and author of the report, told the Cleantech Group."Going forward, we need to be careful about putting too many eggs in the basket of genetic engineering."

The report looks at the two most popular GM uses: herbicide-resistant corn and soybeans, and pest-resistant corn. The report showed that the use of herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans have had no effect on actual per-acre yields.

Insect resistant-corn has increased net production levels by 3 percent to 4 percent since 1996, but that averages out to a 0.3 percent increase each year, while traditional agriculture increases production at a rate of about 1 percent each year, the UCS said. The conclusions were based on two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans.

The report doesn't examine the environmental impact, nutritional value, or quality of GM crops. But leaders of several political parties in Germany said they were concerned that pollen from the GM corn could spread to other fields, compounding any environmental problems that might arise by contaminating traditional corn crops.

The European Food Safety Authority has ruled that the Monsanta MON 810 strain is safe for commercial use in the European Union. The EFSA was tapped as the sole organization in the EU to make rulings on the safety of GM crops, but not all member countries are heeding its advice.

Germany was set to have 3,600 hectares (9,000 acres) of the MON 810 crop planted this year, but German officials who announced the ban today cited several studies that questioned the environmental impact of the seed.

Shares of Monsanta were down 1.83 percent to $81.55 at the close of trading today. A phone message left with company officials was not immediately returned.

Germany isn't the only EU country rejecting the EFSA's ruling. Vienna, Budapest and Greece have banned MON 810 from being grown in their countries, while Austria and Hungary have bans on GM maize.

France has also banned MON 810–despite a report from its public health agency, Agence FranÁaise de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, assuring the safety of GM crops.

The UCS said GM shouldn't be ruled out as a long term solution to the growing demand for food. However, the group said immediate efforts should be placed on other methods of increasing yields, such as organic farming or modern plant-breeding.

"We're not discounting the fact that some new genetic modifications may work in the future, but ... we need to redouble our efforts in promising technologies that have been shown to work," Gurian-Sherman said. "The private sector is going to continue their investment in GM because they can make money there."

Corn, soy crops gain little from genetics

AFP, 14 April 2009:
http://tiny.cc/dYZOL

WASHINGTON – The use of genetically engineered corn and soybeans in the United States for more than a decade has had little impact on crop yields despite claims that they could ease looming food shortages, a study has concluded.

"A hard-nosed assessment of this expensive technology's achievements to date gives little confidence that it will play a major role in helping the world feed itself in the forseeable future," said the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The study evaluated the effect on corn and soybean crop yields of genetically engineered varieties commercialized in the United States over the past 13 years, examining peer-reviewed academic studies that date back to the early 1990s.

"Based on that record, we conclude that GE (genetic engineering) has done little to increase overall crop yields," it said.

The report said genetically engineered soybeans account for 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States, while genetically engineered corn accounts for 63 percent of the US corn crop.

"Overall, corn and soybean yields have risen substantially over the last 15 years, but largely not as a result of the GE traits," the report said. "Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvement of other agricultural practices."

It found that corn and soybeans that were genetically modified to increase their tolerance to herbicides "have not increased operational yields, whether on a per acre or national basis, compared to conventional methods that rely on other available herbicides."

Corn modified with genes from Bt, or Bacillus thuringienisis, bacteria for resistance to several kinds of insects did provide higher yields, but the study estimated the increase at between 0.2 and 0.3 percent a year on average over the past 13 years.

Overall corn yields in the United States have increased an average of about one percent a year, it said.

"More specifically, US Department of Agriculture data indicate that the average corn production per acre nationwide over the past five years (2004-2008) was about 28 percent higher than for the five-year period 1991-1995," it said.

"But our analysis of specific yield studies concludes that only 4-5 percent of that increase is attributable to Bt, meaning an increase of about 24-25 percent must be due to other factors such as conventional breeding," it said.

The report contrasted the record of genetic engineering with that of more environmentally friendly organic or so-called "low external input" farming methods, which it said produce corn and soybean yields comparable to those of conventional methods.

Recent experiments in "low external input" have produced yields 13 percent higher than for genetically engineered soybeans, it said.

"It is also important to keep in mind where increased food production is most needed – in developing countries, especially in Africa, rather than in the developed world."

"Several recent studies have shown that low external input methods such as organic can improve yield by other 100 percent in these countries, along with other benefits," it said.

"To summarize, the only transgenic food/feed crops that have been showing signficantly improved yield are varieties of Bt corn, and they have contributed gains in operational yield that were considerably less over their 13 years than other means of increasing yield," it said.

"In other words, of several thousand field trials, many of which have been intended to raise operational and intrinsic yield, only Bt has succeeded," it said.

"This modest record of success should suggest caution concerning the prospects of future yield increases from GE," it said.

Good old fashioned farming beats biotech, group says

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 14 April 2009. By Kim McGuire:
http://tiny.cc/jcUTR

Genetic engineering is failing to substantially increase crop yields, according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The report "Failure to Yield" purports to be the first to evaluate the overall effect of genetic engineering in relation to another technologies. To do so, more than two dozen academic studies were reviewed.

Among the findings outlined in the report: Genetic engineering has not increased intrinsic yield; Genetic engineering has delivered minimal gains in operational yield, and most yield gains can be attributed to non genetic engineering approaches.

Meanwhile the report found that Bt insect resistant corn provides a yield advantage of three to four percent over conventional practices.

The group also calls out Monsanto for its current advertising campaign that speaks of an escalating world population and how genetically engineered seeds can help feed it.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reccomends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture continue to support research into proven approaches to boost crop yield. Those approaches include conventional plant breeding methods, and sustainable and organic farming.

Gene-Altered Crops Do Little for Yields, Group Says (Update2)

Bloomberg, 14 April 2009. By Tony C. Dreibus:
http://tiny.cc/IEt0d

Genetically engineered crops do little to improve yields and instead promote the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds that actually curb production, according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Corn and soybeans modified to resist insects and the herbicide glyphosate haven't been proven to boost yields, the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based group said today in a 44-page report sent via e-mail. The modified plants have increased the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds that compete for soil nutrients and moisture, reducing production, the group said.

"The two major types of traits now present in transgenic crops – insect resistance and herbicide tolerance – are often classic contributors to operational yield," said Doug Gurian- Sherman, a senior scientist in the group and the author of the report. "Neither trait would be expected to enhance potential or intrinsic yield, and indeed, there is virtually no evidence that they have done so."

Operational yield is obtained under normal field conditions and includes factors such as pests and other stressors, the report said. Intrinsic yield is the highest that can be achieved with crops grown under ideal conditions.

'Absurd'

Monsanto Co., the world's biggest seed producer, didn't return calls seeking comment. Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, an executive vice president of food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington, said the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists is "absurd."

"Biotech crops help to provide for more sustainable agricultural production," Bomer Lauritsen said. "The benefits include a reduction in the environmental impacts of agriculture, increased production on the same amount of acreage, improved food quality and increased farmer incomes. It's absurd to deny biotechnology's contribution."

Shares of Monsanto, based in St. Louis, fell $1.31, or 1.6 percent, to $81.76 at 3:56 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Before today, they dropped 31 percent in the past 12 months.

Improvements in traditional breeding and other agricultural practices will be more effective in boosting production, Gurian- Sherman said in the report.

'Traditional Breeding'

Genetically engineered "soybeans have not increased yields, and GE corn has increased yield only marginally on a crop-wide basis," the union said. "Overall, corn and soybean yields have risen substantially over the last 15 years, but largely not as a result of the GE traits. Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvement of other agricultural practices."

The union is a "science-based non-profit" group started in 1969 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The group's Web site says it has more than 250,000 members using scientific research to promote changes in government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices.

The group looked at "the best peer-reviewed literature" to collect the information, Gurian-Sherman said on a conference call. The union evaluated 20 years of research and details from 13 years of seed sales in the U.S.

Corn yields have increased to 9.7 tons per hectare this year from 7.5 tons per hectare (120 bushels an acre) in 1987, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show. Soybean yields were 40 bushels per acre, up from 32 in 1989, the USDA said.

Today, Germany banned planting of a strain of genetically modified corn made by Monsanto, citing "a danger to the environment." Austria and Hungary made similar moves last month.

The European Commission, the European Union's regulatory arm, has argued the bans were unjustified because scientists have determined the products are safe for consumption and the environment.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony C. Dreibus in Chicago at Tdreibus@bloomberg.net.

Engineered Crops Won't Feed World, New Report Says

Science Insider, 14 April 2009. By Dan Charles:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/04/ge-crops-wont-f.html

Proponents and critics of genetic engineering in agriculture usually agree on one thing: The technology is powerful, whether for good or ill. Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists broke ranks and asserted that genetic engineering is simply ineffective, at least in increasing crop yields.

UCS's Doug Gurian-Sherman searched the scientific literature for side-by-side comparisons of conventional and genetically engineered lines of corn and soybeans. He found that in almost all cases, genetically engineered crops did not produce larger harvests. The one exception was insect-resistant Bt corn, which produced higher yields only when neighboring plots of conventional corn suffered infestations of a worm called the European corn borer. Crop yields have increased significantly over the past decade, he says, but almost all of that increase was due to traditional plant breeding or other agricultural practices.

These results won't surprise most farmers. They plant crops that have been genetically modified to tolerate doses of the herbicide glyphosate (widely known as Roundup) mainly because that trait makes it easier and sometimes cheaper to control weeds, not because it increases yields. The UCS study is instead aimed at the general public, in an effort to counter claims by the biotechnology industry that genetic engineering offers the best solution to global food shortages.

Biotech corn, soy does little to boost yield-study

Reuters, 14 April 14 2009. By Christopher Doering
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN1442276820090414

WASHINGTON - Despite industry claims of higher yields from biotech corn and soybeans, much of the increase can be tied to other improvements in agriculture, according to a study released on Tuesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said its review found genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn did not increase yields compared with conventional methods. Still, farmers embraced the technology partly because of lower energy costs and convenience associated with applying pesticides.

It also found another variety, BT corn, contributed to about 3.3 percent of the estimated 28 percent increase in corn yields since it was made available commercially in 1996. BT crops are resistant to certain insects.

"Genetic engineering, while it's been good for some individual farmers, and great for the companies, really has not been very productive in terms of improving yields," said Doug Gurian-Sherman of UCS who authored the report.

Instead, the study found much of the jump in yields can be attributed to successes in traditional breeding – mixing genes to enhance one or a few genetic traits – or conventional agriculture improvements such as more crop rotations and more efficient irrigation and fertilizer use.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents major firms involved in producing genetically engineered crops, noted that overall corn yields have increased 36 percent and soybeans 12 percent since the biotech crops were introduced.

"It's absurd to deny biotechnology's contribution, among other factors, to increased crop production," said Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, an executive vice president at BIO.

13 April 2009

Report: GE crops don't produce higher yields

Greenbang, 13 April 2009:
http://www.greenbang.com/report-ge-crops-dont-produce-higher-yields/

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) plans to release a report Tuesday that it says will debunk the biotech industry's claim that genetically engineered crops produce higher crop yields.

The report, "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops," states that agricultural production increases in the US over the past 15 years were due primarily to traditional breeding improvements and advances in conventional agriculture.

The UCS says the study is the first to closely evaluate the overall effect that genetic engineering has had on crop yields compared to other agricultural technologies. The organisation has scheduled a conference call tomorrow to discuss details of the report.

Farmers relying on roundup lose some of its benefit

Purdue University, 14 April 2009. By Brian Wallheime:
http://www.physorg.com/news158944886.html

Roundup Ready crops have made weed control much easier for farmers, but a new study shows their reliance on the technology may be weakening the herbicide's ability to control weeds.

Bill Johnson, a Purdue University associate professor of weed science, said farmers who plant Roundup Ready crops and spray Roundup or glyphosate-based herbicides almost exclusively are finding that weeds have developed resistance. It is only a matter of time, Johnson said, before there are so many resistant weeds that the use of glyphosate products would become much less effective in some places.

"We have weeds that have developed resistance, including giant ragweed, which is one of the weeds that drove the adoption of Roundup," Johnson said. "It's a pretty major issue in the Eastern Corn Belt. That weed can cause up to 100 percent yield loss."

Johnson was part of a team, including Steve Weller, a Purdue professor of horticulture and landscape architecture, that surveyed farmers in Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska and North Carolina about their views on the ability of Roundup Ready crops to help control problematic weeds. A paper on the survey was published in the most recent edition of the journal Weed Technology. Researchers from Iowa State University, Mississippi State University, North Carolina State University, the University of Nebraska and Southern Illinois University Carbondale also contributed.

Roundup Ready crops are resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. So, if a farm uses Roundup Ready crops, the herbicide can be sprayed on crops to kill weeds without damaging those crops.

Johnson said the problem has become farmers' overreliance on Roundup and Roundup Ready crops. Those who saw the most benefit from using Roundup, according to the survey, rotated between types of crops and those that were Roundup Ready and conventional crop varieties.

Johnson said this shows that subjecting weeds to different herbicides is important to keeping them from developing resistance to any particular herbicide.

"Farmers do not think resistance is a problem until they actually have it," Johnson said. "And they think the chemical companies can turn on the spigots and produce a new herbicide whenever they want. The problem is, since Roundup is so effective, there's not been any money for new herbicide discovery."

Johnson said farmers should treat Roundup and Roundup Ready crops as an investment and work to protect the technology. Rotating crops consistently and using various herbicides will slow the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

"Go after weeds with two different herbicides. That's the best short-term solution," Johnson said. "We want to minimize the number of weeds resistant to Roundup. To do that, you want to minimize the exposure that a weed population has to Roundup. If you diversify a little bit, you'll extend the life of the technology."

Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, funded the survey. Johnson said the next step is studying the differences among management strategies in grower fields to see which will slow the build-up of glyphosate resistance.

Contact

Writer: Brian Wallheimer, 765-496-2050, bwallhei@purdue.edu

Source

Bill Johnson, 765-494-4656, wgj@purdue.edu

Note to editors

Abstract on the research in this release is available at:
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2009a/090414JohnsonSurvey.html ---

Comment by TraceConsult™

So, hasn't biotech been telling us for years ago that Roundup Ready crops would greatly reduce the use of herbicides? But it is not our job to enter a discussion of all the environmental aspects this report opens up - so we'll leave that to the NGOs who will probably have a feast when they get hold of this news item.

We would rather point out the accusation raised by this Purdue professor against farmers for their "overreliance on Roundup and Roundup Ready". While we certainly do not disagree with this notion, it should probably be extended to a host of other industries and professions who had nothing better to do a decade and a half ago but to assure the farming community that everything was just fine with Roundup Ready crops.

Yet even more: This report should serve as a warning to decision makers far removed from soy or corn farmers in North and South America. Have some people possibly placed too much trust in the Roundup Ready commodities they have received for years? Perhaps it is time to start reading those scientific studies that tell the other side of the story.

Take action: Stand up for your rice!

Greenpeace International, April 2009:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice/hands-off-our-rice

Rice is daily food for half of the world's population. Genetically engineered (GE) rice [1], on the other hand, is a threat to our health, our agriculture and our biodiversity.

Most countries have shied away from allowing risky experimentation with the world's most important staple crop and at present, no GE rice is grown commercially anywhere in the world. But Bayer, the German chemical giant, has genetically manipulated rice [2] to withstand higher doses of a toxic pesticide called glufosinate, which is considered to be so dangerous to humans and the environment that it will soon be banned from Europe. [3]

In the coming weeks, the European Union will also decide whether or not this GE rice can enter EU countries, appear on supermarket shelves and end up on our dinner plates. If the European Union approves the import of Bayer GE rice, farmers in the US and elsewhere may soon start planting the manipulated crop.

Sign the petition

We ask all governments around the world to protect consumers and farmers, their crops and fields by rejecting Bayer's GE rice, and to stop GE rice field trials:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice/hands-off-our-rice

Notes:

1. Hands off our rice! The big issue.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice

2. Bayer's Double Trouble: When geneticallly engineered rice meets a toxic pesticide
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/bayer

3. How much evidence does it take for EFSA to admit they are unsure about safety?
The case of genetically modified herbicide resistant rice LL62.
Greenpeace briefing, April 2009 (189kb PDF download):
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/rice/GP-2009-04)-LL62rice.pdf

Importance of labeling

Minot Daily News, Letters, (North Dakota, USA), 13 April 2009. By Lindsey Aull, Bismark:
http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/526606.html?nav=5008

As ever more products circulate around the world in our global economy, we rely heavily on labeling to find out exactly what we are buying. Many if not most consumers have some degree of trust in those labels.

Senate Bill 2438, already passed by the state Senate and soon to come to a vote in the House, creates a commission through the Dept.of Agriculture which will determine and label if a product is "Sustainably Grown" in North Dakota. Sustainability within North Dakota agriculture is certainly a worthy topic, one that does deserve attention. However, "sustainably grown" is quite a subjective and broad term, one which has much potential to be misused and misrepresented. For example, there is disagreement in our country and around the world about the role of genetic engineering in our food supply. Would genetically engineered soybeans sprayed with Round Up now be considered "Sustainably grown in ND" because they came from a no-till field?

North Dakota has a strong contingent of farmers and ranchers who use organic practices and other ecological approaches to their work. There are also groups like the 30-year-old Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society working to promote sustainable agriculture within the region. Its alarming that this bill appears to be more a product of agribusiness than one coming from the groups and individuals who have kept sustainable agriculture alive in this state for so long.

UK farming manifesto to be launched

Farming Life (UK), 13 April 2009:
http://www.farminglife.com/ufu-watch/UK-farming-manifesto-to-be.5165085.jp

THE UFU [Ulster Farmers Union] will join other UK farm unions in the week ahead to launch the UK Union's farming manifesto document for the forthcoming EU elections on 4 June.

The document was finalised at the recent UK farming union's meeting in County Down. The document will be officially launched this Wednesday, 15 April in Brussels. UFU President Graham Furey, Chief Executive Clarke Black and local MEP's will be in attendance.

Graham Furey said; "From next year the EU Parliament will have co-decision making powers along side the EU Commission, so this makes this June's Parliament elections all the more important.

"We enjoy a close working relationship with our Northern Ireland MEP's who regularly adopt a farming friendly position when issues are discussed in Brussels or Strasbourg. It is very important that Northern Ireland's voice is heard in Europe and we look forward to highlighting a range of important issues in advance of the elections".

Key areas which will be highlighted in the manifesto will include: Science and technology; better regulation; imbalance in the supply chain and promoting consumer choice through better labelling.

Graham Furey said; "We are being pro-active, highlighting important issues to potential MEP's before they take office in the new EU Parliament later this year."

12 April 2009

Pontifical academy accused of unscientific methodology in food security study

Sunday Examiner, 12 April 2009:
http://sundayex.catholic.org.hk/inter/2009/inter090412.html

HONG KONG (SE): The Pontifical Academy for Sciences, a body with loose associations with the Vatican, is being accused of using unscientific methodology in its preparation for a study-week on Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development, scheduled to be held from May 15 to 19 in Rome, Italy.

Critics say that while the topic is certainly valid and is addressing a vital issue at this time of food insecurity in so many countries around the world, a glance at the promotional material posted on the academy's website hints heavily that Pope Benedict XVI is giving his whole-hearted support to genetically modified (GM) food technology.

Page two shows a picture of the pope, arms outstretched, as if to embrace this technology, which is presented as being the answer to the problem of hunger in the modern world. The text, however, does make it obvious that while the pontiff is concerned about the effects of the financial crisis on food availability, especially for the poor, he is not voicing any support for GM programmes.

However, it is the scientific approach being adopted for the study-week that critics say flies in the face of accepted scientific research methodology, which, since the time of the Plato, Socrates Dialogues in Athens before the birth of Christ, has required all accepted or presumed positions to be challenged. All listed speakers at the study-week are considered to be heavily pro-GM technology.

Since the 17th century, scientific tradition has been built on a culture of vigourous debate, with the added insight that everything in science is revisable in the light of new evidence. Empirical science has made huge steps during the past four to five centuries because of its rigid adherence to the methodology of self-corrective criticism.

With its advertised programme, critics say that the study sponsored by the pontifical academy can produce neither scientifically valid insights, nor lead to new information or breakthroughs. Even the demographic breakdown of speakers shows that it is top heavy with representatives from the United States of America (US), 18 of the 39, and critics argue that the mega-farm model adopted in the US, which is highly dependent on agrichemicals and manufactured seeds, is not a suitable one for majority world countries, such as India, The Philippines, China, or the continent of Africa.

However, they say the crunch issue lies in the fact that these western-based companies have been working for decades to spread their seed patents throughout the world and have consistently courted papal sanction for their technologies within the context of saving the world from hunger.

It is not the morality of GM technology itself that is to be looked at during this study-week, but the purely scientific question of whether or not GM cropping can shore-up food security for the millions of people who suffer from hunger in the world. In this context, critics of the format of the proposed gathering say it is essential that a valid scientific process must be used.

Interestingly, the abstracts posted on the academy's website were removed in late February. One was written by Ingo Potrykus, entitled, My experience with Golden Rice, a GM crop that generates carotenoids, which the human body synthesises into vitamin A. He argues that this can solve the problems of vitamin A deficiency in the majority world and that onerous regulatory requirements in many countries have hindered its development to the extent that 400,000 people have died as a direct result.

However, more than 20 scientists, including David Suzuki, dispute his claim. In a letter to a professor in Tufts University, Robert Russell, they said, "We wish to remind you that the variety of Golden Rice used in these experiments (GR2) is inadequately described in terms of biological and biochemical characterisation on the clinical trials website, and indeed anywhere else in the publicly available literature, and has woefully inadequate preclinical evaluation... It has never been through a regulatory-approval process anywhere in the world."

Insufficient trialing and lack of definable structure for GM products is the point where all critics of GM technology concur. Suzuki is calling for restraint in the way we apply the technology, saying we need a more thorough understanding of the science and its political, social and environmental implications.

In an article entitled, A Little Knowledge, published in New Scientist (23 September 2006), he says, "We expect to be able to manipulate life at its most basic level to help solve some of the most pressing problems, such as food security, habitat loss and pollution. Yet, dazzling as such prospects are, I believe we should be cautious about diving into the deep end of the gene pool before we learn to swim... It is what we don't know that concerns me."

So why the rush to promote the technology? Suzuki says, "Money. There is a powerful incentive to get product to the market to make the investment pay off. This means cutting corners. It means getting biotech crops into fields before it is clearly understood what they could do to an ecosystem and it means lobbying governments to ensure that engineered products are treated no differently from conventional ones."

While agri-companies, such as Monsanto, and the US government have been forcing their GM technology crops on countries for years, they are presenting themselves as somehow being the victim of some giant conspiracy, as a type of St. Vincent de Paul Society totally focussed on feeding the poor, and being persecuted for it.

However, Pulitzer Prize winner, Donald Bartlett, together with James Steele, describe what they term the real Monsanto in an article in Vanity Fair (May 2008) entitled, Monsanto's Harvest of Fear: Ruthless legal battles against small farmers. They conclude that profits come before all else.

Critics of the pontifical academy say that it has an obligation to listen to what aid organisations and local Churches have to say on the matter, especially as they have, by and large, constantly opposed it. With the exception of the agri-business companies, no one has, to date, proposed GM technology as the saviour of the food chain, but many admit there may be a place for it. However, the accent is on the may, as they say insufficient information and research precludes any further deduction.

Take off the Rose Colored Glasses

OpEdNews, 12 April 2009. By Jeff Rock:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Take-Off-the-Rose-Colored-by-jeff-rock-090411-171.html

It is interesting to observe the Wall Street talking heads and the Obama administration claiming we have rounded the corner on the economic crisis when, in fact, we have done nothing of the sort. How can they get away with it? Because the stock market has slightly rebounded? This illustrates the fundamental fatal flaw in not only the right wing lap dog media one-liner sound bites, but also in Obama's understanding of economics. He's fallen prey to the same Friedmanesque gobbledygook the neo-conservative and neo-liberals practiced that got us here in the first place.

First, the financial market is NOT the economy. The financial market is a subset of the overall economy and should never be confused with the economy itself. Its not necessarily even an "-indicator' of the health of the economy. It is a serious lapse of logic to say when the market is doing well the economy is also doing well. Worse, it is a very dangerous and insidious concept. Why? Because it ignores the human value. It reveals the total lack of any human values in our economic structure and risks massive human suffering.

An economy exists to serve the people and not the other way around. This is the most fundamental value that should create the foundation of any economic system. However, in the view of the neo-economists who have completely infiltrated both parties, the economy is far more important than the human beings it is supposed to serve. In the view of neo-economists, humans are just a commodity, like so much chattel.

That is why Obama and the oligarchs can make such ludicrous claims.

Today there is a massive oversupply of labor. As the laws of supply and demand dictate, an oversupply of any commodity results in a decline in the price of that commodity. Accordingly the value of labor is appallingly low. In most places in the world human labor is purchased for a few dollars a day or less. The result is horrendous human suffering and misery on a global scale never before witnessed. When an economic system lacks values and exists only to serve itself, the impact of human suffering is neglected. Its not even part of the economic equation. On the other hand, when we demand that our economy exists to serve the people the unemployment rate is the most important factor.

As long as one confuses the underlying values and assumes the economy exists to serve itself, it paves the way for ignoring the unemployment figures. In spite of accelerating unemployment Obama states that the economy is turning around simply because Wall Street has rebounded. Please tell that to the hundred thousand people who lost their jobs last week and who have no possibility of finding a new job anytime soon. Until unemployment stops growing there is no end in sight to the economic crisis. To say otherwise is to spit in the face of Americans who have worked hard their entire lives but lost their jobs because of the deregulated banking industry and other similar pro-corporate legislation.

It is interesting to note that almost every piece of corporate friendly legislation was approved by large majorities of both parties. When both parties agree, LOOK OUT!! When no opposition opinions are voiced there is no debate. And so it was. Without much debate or public discussion, our economic system has been totally re-structured over the past twenty-eight years. We are now reaping the results of this handiwork. It's called the New World Order. Translated it means unemployment will stay very high and your wages and salaries will continue to slide downwards until they are competitive with third world nations. That is the true meaning of "removing trade barriers."- This fact became inevitable when Clinton signed the Republican written NAFTA in his first days in office in 1993. Stabbing the backs of the very people who voted him in, Clinton single-handedly is responsible for more lost American jobs than any other President in our history. Yet many on the left still adore him. It is no secret that Americans vote against their best interests almost without fail., Clinton was just another example of this.

Moreover, the backdrop of the world economy is in a drastic state. Consider our real condition. There is a global war over the earth's remaining resources between China, the US, Russia, Europe, Japan, Korea and the developing nations, particularly India and Brazil. Those nations without power are unable to even join in. They can only sit idly by and either be raped of their resources or, if they have none, suffer. Growing shortages of every essential resource reflect a global human disaster in the making..

Furthermore, the climate is changing so rapidly that the very life support system on which we all depend is collapsing at an alarming rate. The powerful oligarchs and despots around the world could care less. Their only concern is more profits and more power. Climate change is heralding in a new era of disease, starvation, misery and death. And if the recent economic crisis is any indicator, our leaders will wait until things are far too late before responding. When the major continent's ecosystems begin to collapse, our national and world leaders will sing the inevitable refrain, "Who could have known?"- It will then be far too late to do anything but go along for ride, wherever climate change takes us.

Adding to the uncertainty of our future, biogenetic firms have unleashed genetically modified DNA into the life cycle. We know almost nothing of the long-term effects of these synthesized genes, but new studies (Australian and Austrian) indicate GMO products are very harmful to both our immune and reproductive systems. In our valueless economy, the plight of humanity's health is relegated to last place on the list of priorities, thank you Milton Friedman and all those who followed your insanity.

De-forestation, dead zones in our oceans, pollutants in our water and food, decay in our infrastructure, education and health sectors, and increasing wars around the globe are but a few of the hundreds of serious situations we confront today. Any one of these could blossom into a full-scale human emergency.

Its time we take off the rose colored glasses and as W.C Fields once said, "Take the bull by the tail and face the situation." - Get with it; we are up the creek without a paddle, stranded at high tide, can't see the forest for the trees, and are sawing off the branch on which we sit.

"Well that's a fine mess you've got us into, Ollie."

11 April 2009

Agriculture: GM Maize Finds Its Way to Cuba's Fields

Inter Press Service (IPS), 11 April 2009. By Patricia Grogg:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46470

HAVANA, Apr 11 (Tierramérica) - With little fanfare, genetically modified maize produced by Cuba's genetic and biotechnology engineering centre, CIGB, is being grown on test plots as part of a new project involving five of the Caribbean island nation's provinces.

The CIGB, Cuba's leading institution in scientific development, has been researching transgenic crops for several years, in programmes that its directors say are kept under strict regulations to ensure biological and environmental security.

But the experimental cultivation of genetically modified (GM) maize has sounded the alarm among academic experts with ties to agriculture.

The debate tends to be limited to scientific meetings and university classrooms, and not everyone in the farm industry seems to be aware of the issue.

Nor is the heated international controversy over the risks that GM crops could pose for human health and biological diversity very well known here.

"I don't know about all that, but we have very good varieties here, like this one that I'm growing, which is called 'canilla'. I have little land (one-eighth of a hectare), but I can also grow lettuce, cabbage and some root vegetables, which is enough for me to eat and sell to my neighbours," Leonida Sames, who lives on the outskirts of Havana, told Tierramérica.

Another Havana urban farmer noted that "there is little information" about GM crops and admitted that he had not read an article in the Cuban government-run press that announced the beginning of "field trials" this year with a new grain that is resistant to the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), the leading maize pest.

Genetic modification also aims for making a crop tolerant of an herbicide in order to achieve greater yields, according to statements to the press by Ra™l Armas, an expert in plant biotechnology and the project coordinator at the CIGB bureau in Sancti Spiritus province.

The ultimate goal is to obtain seeds that allow expanded production for human and animal consumption, with approval by the authorities. In this first phase, a total of 60 hectares of the GM variety will be planted in Cuba, reported the state-run newspaper Juventud Rebelde. Without ignoring the fact that Cuba needs to increase and adapt its deficient food production to adverse climate conditions, the application of this technology is being refuted particularly by sectors that support organic farming and the recuperation and improvement of native variety through ecological techniques.

CIGB scientists say their research does not seek to profit the institution, but rather that they want the technology to be used in a rational way, as a complement to conventional genetics and other important techniques that are being developed here with good results.

"I see the release of transgenic crops as a great threat to the focus on agro-ecological farming that had been strategically adopted as a policy in Cuba," Eduardo Freyre, a professor at the Agrarian University of Havana, told Tierramérica.

However, he clarified that his objections "are not intended to discredit" what his country is doing in this field, and said the CIGB researchers' work and their efforts to provide "exceptional guarantees of biosafety" are "highly valuable."

But with regard to the potential threats to health, he fears that, perhaps not in the short term, but in the mid to long term, GM foods could cause allergies, toxicity, immunological problems, cancer, infertility and even endocrine alterations.

"Not to mention the possibility of transgenic contamination, which endangers wild species and non-GM crops," added Freyre, author of a prize-winning essay on the question to be published in an upcoming edition of the Cuban journal "Temas".

In his opinion, this technology "is geared towards the interests of the multinational corporations and the market." And taking into account its potential risks, it would be better for Cuba to concentrate on agro-ecological alternatives that have already begun to be adopted, he argued.

Havana has taken a discreet stance on the matter even in negotiations on international standards of responsibility and compensation for potential harm to biodiversity caused by transborder movement of GM crops, covered by the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, ratified by Cuba in 2002.

Acknowledging that he is unaware of Cuba's position in those talks, Freyre noted that the negotiations have yet to produce results, and that resistance has come from countries like the United States and Argentina. "If they reach an agreement, it would be very good for Cuba and the region," he said. For example, it would clear up doubts about maize imported from the United States.

The talks have been going on for five years. Cuba was one of the countries in the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) that attended as "friends of the co-chairs" of the meeting held in February in Mexico to agree on the text of the standards.

Silvia Ribeiro, spokesperson in Latin America for the non-governmental ETC Action Group (Erosion, Technology and Concentration), based in Canada, attended the meeting as an observer. She lamented that GRULAC is the bloc that most clearly is trying to delay or undermine a binding policy on responsibility for harm caused by GM species.

"Cuba didn't speak up much at the meeting, but by omission, it remains on the side of the positions taken by the bloc, which is serious," the activist told Tierramérica. It is "lamentable" that after many years of "taking a quite strict position on the issue of biosafety, now (Cuba) proposes to cultivate GM maize in open fields and to produce seeds."

"I'm sure that in Cuba there is strong debate on this, and that organic farmers and many others, including academics, believe that this is a misstep, which places Cuba and its natural diversity and its seeds under unnecessary threat," Ribeiro said in an e-mail interview from Mexico.

GM crops began to be planted in 1996, and currently cover 125 million hectares worldwide. The leaders are the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada and China. In early March, the Mexican government gave the green light to experimental cultivation of GM maize in that country.

* This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.)

10 April 2009

German Lawmakers Mull a Frankenfood Ban
Does Germany's agriculture minister want to ban genetically modified corn in Germany because it may be risky, or is the idea meant to give her party a quick boost in the polls? The controversy exposes a rift in Germany's conservatives.

Spiegel Online, 10 April 2009:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618557,00.html

German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner will announce in the coming weeks whether her office will impose a ban on the commercial use of a type of genetically modified corn produced and marketed by the American biotech giant Monsanto (MON).

But the idea has sparked a war of words between normally allied German conservatives. Aigner is a member of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union. Since Bavaria is an agricultural region, a CDU official has condemned the CSU's push for the ban as populism - or, more precisely, as "irresponsible, cheap propaganda."

Monsanto, the world's largest producer of seeds, manufactures the only GM plant still approved for use in commercial farming in Germany, a corn used for animal feed. The primary benefit of the plant, called MON 810, is that it produces a toxin to fight off one of its worst enemies, the voracious larvae of the corn borer moth. The seed was introduced in the EU in 1998.

Aigner is under pressure from Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CSU, to push through the ban so he can use the issue to gain votes for his party in the upcoming EU and German elections. The electoral boost would come from the many voters in Germany that have fiercely resisted GM plants and Monsanto. These include organic farmers, beekeepers, church groups and anti-capitalism protesters.

But Aigner is also feeling pressure not to impose the ban – which would contradict EU law – from within her own ministry, from other political parties and ministers, and from members of the scientific community.

Experts in Aigner's ministry warn that it will be hard to prove that MON 810 damages the environment, which could let Monsanto win a court case opposing the ban and expose the government to §6-§7 million ($7.9-$9.2 million) in damages.

Katherina Reiche, deputy chairwoman of the CDU/CSU's parliamentary group, has complained of the "CSU's irresponsible, cheap propaganda," claiming that it could harm German industry. She argued that anti-GM sentiment was one reason a subsidiary of the German chemical giant Bayer AG decided to move its facilities for genetic engineering from Potsdam, near Berlin, to Belgium.

Aigner told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper that GM corn "has so far not yielded tangible benefits for the people." She has an ally in German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabrial, of the rival Social Democrats. "I don't see why we should pursue the interests of a single American corporation," Gabriel has said.

He was one of the majority of EU environment ministers who successfully blocked a move by the European Commission in early March to force Austria and Hungary to lift their bans on genetically modified corn.

Some members of the scientific community, though, have complained about the repercussions of a possible ban. Wolfgang Herrmann, president of Munich's Technical University, has said that the CSU's actions risk precipitating "an exodus of researchers."

Nevertheless, the N¸rtingen-Geislingen University of Economics and Environment discontinued field trials of GM corn after its fields were destroyed. Other organizations, such as the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, based in Potsdam, and the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics in Gatersleben, are not risking field trials right now. In 2008 the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety listed 39 such field trials. This year, only one has been listed so far.

EU, Bayer's GM rice to be approved

GreenPlanet.net, 10 April 2009:
http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/456-eu-bayers-gm-rice-to-be-approved.html

A team of EU experts is to decide whether to authorize the consumption of a GM rice type grown employing a weed killer which is toxic for reproduction and is being banned in the EU from 2017. EFSA expressed its approval, and starting from this premise the European Commission asked the experts of the Standing Committee for Food Chain and Animals' Health - that will meet in Brussels on April 20 - to authorize sales of Bayer's LL62 GM rice to be eaten (but not cultivated).

According to APCOM, this would be the first EU authorization to a GMO directly destined to human consumption and not to be fodder for livestock, like the several GM maize types allowed until now. LL62 rice type has been modified with a gene that makes the plant tolerant to glufosinate weed-killer produced by Bayer under the brands "Basta" and "Libery" (LL stands for Liberty Link). The genetic modification allows farmers to spread the weed-killer on rice cultivations, thus destroying all infesting plants without affecting the rice itself. IN 2007 glufosinate has been re-allowed in the EU for 10 years, according to pesticide regulations at that time.

EFSA, however, in 2007 gave its technical "all clear" to LL62 rice, though in 2005 its opinion was quite alarming about this herbicide's toxicity for reproduction, concluding that there were "high risks" for mammals in case of swallowing, "acute risk" for children, and - in few cases - also for farmers who have been exposed for too long. Precisely for this "repro-toxicity", indeed, glufosinate is to be banned in EU from 2017 (the authorization won't be renewed anymore), according to what is provided by the "black list" in the new EU regulation on pesticide, voted by the European Parliament last January.

France-New dairy labelling laws.

Farming UK, 10 April 2009:
http://www.farminguk.com/news/France-New-dairy-labelling-laws.14576.asp

The French National Consumers Council has taken on a label signifying that meat and dairy products have come from animals that have not been fed genetically modified feed, reports state. Further reports state that the label "Nourri sans OGM" - "Fed without GMOs" - was adopted following a meeting at the Ministry for Finances which included representatives of "Que choisir" ["What to choose?"] and the food industry.

Nothing has given any evidence previously as to whether animals were reared on genetically modified products. This label will apply to meat and dairy products.

Finland may become a GMO-free zone

Source:

Finland to propose cap on EU membership fees
Helsingin Sanomat (international edition), 10 April 2009
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finland+to+propose+cap+on+EU+membership+fees/1135245070397

A report on Finland's EU Policy submitted by the Government on Wedneday suggests that EU member-states could make a decision by themselves on whether or not they want to declare the entire country or a part of it as "a GMO-free region".

According to Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen, farmers are entitled to the production of food that is free of genetic engineering, while consumers also have the right to buy GMO-free products.

"This is clearly a new opening. At present such decision-making is not possible under the Union's current legislation. I am fairly sure that if we had an opportunity, it would be pretty easy to reach a decision that Finland would become such a GMO-free zone", Vanhanen noted.

GM rice yields 50% more harvest even with less fertilizer and water use

Manila Bulleltin, 10 April 2009. By Melody M. Aguiba:
http://mb.com.ph/articles/201909/gm-rice-yields-50-more-harvest-even-with-less-fertilizer-and-water-use

A genetically modified (GM) rice that can give 50 percent more harvest while requiring less fertilizer and water is seen as a long term solution to low yield in resource-scarce, poverty-stricken farms threatened by climate change.

The GM rice will have more efficient carbon dioxide capture with its enhanced capacity for photosynthesis, the process of using solar energy to capture carbon dioxide and converting it into growth-inducing carbohydrate in plants.

Some rice plants have inefficient means for photosynthesis, known as C3. However, Dr. John Sheehy, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) project leader for the GM rice, said that using C4 photosynthesis, rice plant's capacity to convert solar energy in producing a richer grain can be enhanced particularly in tropical climates.

"Converting the photosynthesis of rice to C4 would increase yields by 50 percent, and that C4 would also use water twice as efficiently. The benefits of this breakthrough would be immense in developing countries where billions of poor people rely on rice as staple," said Sheehy.

A total of $11 million has been allocated for this study.

In a related development, IRRI Director General Robert Zeigler said IRRI needs $150 million over 10 years or $15 million yearly for the Rice Action Plan (RAP) that would speed up development of high yielding rice varieties.

The plan aims to develop new high yielding rice inbreds and hybrids out of thousands of rice varieties that are stored at IRRI's gene banks and tap into these germ-plasms' yet unexplored genetic resources.

Aside from the development on the genetic side of rice, the program will increase the delivery of postharvest facilities in rice-producing areas in order to cut the losses that can amount to as much 20 percent of harvest. Its aim is also to train more rice breeders that are working on research and development projects funded by both the private sector and the government.

The RAP was approved by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry in October last year.

Arcadia Biosciences and Advanta to develop salt tolerant sorghum

CheckBiotech.org, 10 April 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/arcadia_biosciences_and_advanta_develop_salt_tolerant_sorghum

DAVIS, California - Improvement in salt tolerance technology to increase productivity and decrease fresh water requirements for sorghum farming

Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. an agricultural technology company focused on developing technologies and products that benefit the environment and human health, and Advanta, a leading multinational seed company, today announced that the companies have reached a research and commercial development agreement for the development of Salt Tolerant sorghum.

Under terms of the agreement, Advanta receives exclusive global rights to the use of Arcadia's Salt Tolerance technology in sorghum. Arcadia receives an upfront payment, milestone payments and a share of commercial sales revenue. This agreement builds upon the agreement the two companies reached in January 2009 for the development of Nitrogen Use Efficient (NUE) sorghum.

Sorghum is an important feed crop grown on more than 100 million acres globally. As the world's population grows, the need to produce more food and feed will increase pressure on fresh water resources for crops. Using existing sorghum varieties, farmers will need more land to grow sorghum crops and require more scarce water resources to achieve much-needed yield increases.

Therefore, the ability to reduce reliance on fresh water and maintain high crop yields in salt-impacted environments is critical. Arcadia's Salt Tolerance technology allows plants to produce normal yields and quality under salty water and soil conditions, expanding the range of lands available for crop production and reducing requirements for fresh water. The expected result is high-yielding crops with a lower impact on the environment and ability to grow on land that is currently not suitable for productive farming.

In addition, sweet sorghum is a highly productive potential biofuel source. Through the combination of technologies like NUE and Salt Tolerance, Arcadia and Advanta anticipate development of a highly-efficient sweet sorghum biofuel crop that can create an alternative fuel source with significantly reduced environmental impact, low requirements for fresh water, and more favorable economics than other potential biofuel sources.

"Considering the global importance of sorghum as a food source and the increased interest in the crop as a source of renewable energy, it's critical to utilize new agricultural technologies that maximize the crop's potential and minimize its environmental impact," said Eric Rey, president and CEO of Arcadia. "Development of Salt Tolerant sorghum varieties can help farmers who produce sorghum for feed or fuel to farm more efficiently, cost-effectively and in a way that's better for our global environment."

"This is a step in the direction of fulfilling our promise to deliver the latest technologies to the sorghum farmers around the world. We believe in the future of sorghum in the world and are fully committed to bringing about a greater role for technology in this crop. We are glad to be associated with Arcadia Biosciences in this effort," said VR Kaundinya, CEO and Managing Director of Advanta.

Based in Davis, California, with additional facilities in Seattle, Wash. and Phoenix, Ariz., Arcadia Biosciences is an agricultural technology company focused on the development of agricultural products that improve the environment and enhance human health. For more information visit http://www.arcadiabio.com.

Advanta is a global seed company located in India with a wide range of proprietary products in important crops that improve the productivity and profitability of the farmers in different parts of the world. Advanta is a member of the United Phosphorous Group of Companies.

For more information visit http://www.advantaindia.com

Source: Advanta

9 April 2009

Plaintiffs rest in PCBs trial

Anniston Star (Alabama, USA), 9 April 2009. By Megan Nichols:
http://www.annistonstar.com/breaking/2009/as-localupdate-0409-0-9d09m0245.htm

BIRMINGHAM - Plaintiffs in a PCBs trial here rested their case this morning, ending with testimony from a former Monsanto employee who defended the company's decision not to tell Anniston residents it polluted the city.

Jurors watched part of a video deposition taken in 1998 of 30-year Monsanto employee William Papageorge. Papageorge is no longer with Monsanto, but worked at the company during the decades it released millions of pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls into Anniston's air, water and dirt.

On the video, a lawyer asked Papageorge whether any Monsanto official ever warned the public about the dangers of PCBs.

"Why would they?" he said.

Papageorge said he and other officials decided "there was no rational reason" for informing the public about the PCBs or their effects. During that time, the company tested fish in Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek and found high levels of PCBs, but opted against telling the people who routinely ate fish from the creeks.

The former Monsanto Co. made PCBs at its plant on Alabama 202 from 1929 to 1971. PCBs from the plant settled in the yards of many homes near the plant. The chemical also flowed through drainage ditches to Snow Creek and eventually Choccolocco Creek.

This trial is the first of 47 cases filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court against Pharmacia, which in 2000 merged with Monsanto.

More than 3,000 claimants make up all 47 suits. Attorneys say these claimants were left out of two cases settled in 2003. About 21,600 claimants split $600 million in that case. Another $100 million went to research and a health clinic, among other efforts.

Plaintiffs attorneys are trying to prove that the five claimants in this case have diabetes and osteoarthritis because of PCB exposure.

The defense began its case today by questioning UAB rheumatologist Walter Chatham about PCBs and osteoarthritis.

"There is nothing whatsoever that establishes any link between (PCBs) and the development of osteoarthritis," Chatham said.

Plaintiffs attorneys yesterday offered an expert who said studies show PCBS can cause osteoarthritis.

Testimony is ongoing today. Lawyers say the trial should wrap up early next week.

'No GMO' Label taken on by France

Meat International.com, 9 April 2009:
http://www.meatinternational.com/news/no-gmo-label-taken-on-by-france-id1224.html

The French National Consumers Council has taken on a label signifying that meat and dairy products have come from animals that have not been fed genetically modified feed, reports state.

Further reports state that the label "Nourri sans OGM" - "Fed without GMOs" - was adopted following a meeting at the Ministry for Finances which included representatives of "Que choisir" ["What to choose?"] and the food industry.

Nothing has given any evidence previously as to whether animals were reared on genetically modified products.

This label will apply to meat and dairy products.

EU officials warned to be careful about email content

EU Observer, 9 April 2009. By Honor Mahony:
http://euobserver.com/9/27935/?rk=1

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - New rules on public access to EU documents have prompted one of the European Commission's key departments to circulate a memo warning officials to be careful about what they write in emails and advising them on how to narrowly interpret requests for information.

The 15-page handbook was circulated in January to officials working in the commission directorate for trade, one of the EU's most important policy areas affecting millions of people both within and beyond the bloc.

It reminds DG trade employees that all documents, including emails, are "in principle subject to disclosure" and asks them to think of the regulation when they are producing documents.

"Each official must be aware that all his/her documents, including meeting reports and e-mails can potentially be disclosed. You should keep this in mind when writing such documents.

This is particularly the case for meeting reports and emails with third parties (e.g. industry), which are favourite "targets" of requests for access to documents, especially by NGOs," reads the memo.

It asks officials to draft documents "with the utmost care" while telling them to avoid making references to informal contacts, such as meals or drinks, with lobbyists.

"Don't refer to the great lunch you have had with an industry representative privately or add a PS asking if he/she would like to meet for a drink."

The document also tips off officials on how to narrow down the interpretation of a request for information. It points to a past example where a request referred to DG trade meetings with individual companies, meaning the department could avoid making public its contacts with business lobbyists.

Separating the factual from the subjective

"Recent cases concern requests for information about meetings with 'individual companies' on our FTAs [Free Trade Agreements] which have allowed us to exclude business federations on the same points, or about meetings with 'DG Trade officials' which have allowed us to exclude meetings on the same point with the Commissioner or the cabinet," it notes.

As a way of avoiding officials having to blank out parts of documents they release to the public, the transparency guide suggests writing two accounts of meetings, a "factual" or neutral one that can be released to the public and a more "personal/subjective" one with assessments and recommendations for follow up that need not be disclosed.

It also explains that briefings should not be made public if still considered "newsworthy" - a derogation allowed under the regulation for documents concerning a decision still in progress - with DG Trade working on a series of key issues including making free trade agreements with poor countries (something NGOs are always keen to have an insight into) and sensitive WTO decisions.

DG Trade's take on the transparency regulation which MEPs recently voted to expand to cover all documents, including electronic ones, has come in for criticism.

Corporate Europe Observatory, a transparency NGO, said the instructions appear to "directly contravene the spirit and content of the regulation."

Scandalous

It is a "scandalous" attempt to "legitimise DG Trade's recurrent attempts to shield evidence of its liaisons with corporate lobbyists from information requests," said CEO campaigner Pia Eberhardt.

For its part, the European Commission defended the memo. A spokesperson told EUobserver: "Actually we think these are good instructions. It makes clear that no category of documents is excluded [from the regulation]."

The spokesperson also said that the instructions "make it easier to get reports out" and "avoid having to go through blanking out" documents.

The transparency regulation dates from 2001 but the commission recently proposed to overhaul it after complaints from the EU ombudsman and several court cases. Following MEPs' vote last month the regulation has gone back to committee for discussion on sensitive issues such as the extent to which commercial data can be excused from disclosure.

The updated law is expected to be approved in the second half of this year, under the Swedish EU presidency.

Victory in Western Australia!

Greenpeace, 9 April 2009:
http://www.truefood.org.au/newsandevents/?news=38

Moves by the Western Australian Government to allow large-scale trials of genetically engineered (GE) canola have been thwarted by the Greens and the ALP. This means that planting GE canola in WA is now illegal.

The trials were sneakily announced by WA Agriculture Minister Terry Redman on 23 December. However, on 10 April a motion by the Greens to disallow the trials passed in the Upper House. This means that planting GE canola in WA is now illegal unless, and until, a new Order is made.

Greens MP Paul Llewellyn, who moved the motion, is happy with the result. He claims that the trials were in fact commercialisation by stealth. The decision should hopefully give the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Terry Redman some breathing space to re-think his approach to GE crops trials

As Paul Llewellyn points out "the arrangements that were proposed by the government simply did not offer an appropriate level of protection to the farmers involved in the trials, to non-GE farmers, or to consumers."

GE growers were required to sign up to full responsibility and liability for the trials, even though the level of contamination risk is not properly understood. Meanwhile, there is no legal framework in place to ensure strict liability for damage to non-GE growers by the big companies that seek to profit from market domination in GE agriculture.

There is still a danger that the WA Government may ignore the wishes of the public and either make a new Order to allow GE canola field trials, or lift the GE food crop moratorium altogether. Please help make sure they don't!

Tell Terry to cut the crop and prevent the release of GE canola in WA!

You can contact him at:

Hon. Donald Terrence Redman MLA
Level 11 East, Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
West Perth WA 6005
Ph: (08) 9213 6700
Fax: (08) 9213 6701
Email: Minister.Redman@dpc.wa.gov.au

WA Upper House blocks GM canola trials

Western Australia Government media release - 9 April 2009.

The Upper House today supported the motion by Greens MLC for the South West Region, Paul Llewellyn to block GM canola trials in Western Australia.

"This will give the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Terry Redman some breathing space to re-think his approach to GM crops trials," Mr Llewellyn said.

Minister Redman had approved 1,000 hectares of 'GM canola trials' at 20 sites, on the pretext of testing segregation systems but experience in Victoria and NSW shows these do not work.

"The arrangements that were proposed by the government simply did not offer an appropriate level of protection to the farmers involved in the trials, to non-GM farmers, or to consumers.

"GM growers were required to sign up to full responsibility and liability for the trials, even though the level of contamination risk is not properly understood.

"Meanwhile, there is no legal framework in place to ensure strict liability for damage to non-GM growers by the big companies that seek to profit from market domination in GM agriculture.

"These ill-conceived trials were in fact commercialisation by stealth.

"We will continue to work to ensure good and fair outcomes for the environment, consumers and growers," Mr Llewellyn concludes.

For more information contact Paul Llewellyn on 0428 317 182 or 08 9848 1555 or visit http://www.paul-llewellyn.net

Sonia Anderson
Electorate Officer
Paul Llewellyn MLC
Southwest Region
PO Box 541, Denmark 6333
Ph: 08 9848 1555

Hon. Donald Terrence Redman MLA
Level 11 East, Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
West Perth WA 6005
Ph: (08) 9213 6700
Fax: (08) 9213 6701
Email: Minister.Redman@dpc.wa.gov.au

8 April 2009

Corporate Monopoly of Science

• Corporations are aiming for an absolute stranglehold on scientific research and the flow of scientific information; that's why patents on GM crops should be abolished.

ISIS report, 8 April 2009. By Prof. Peter Saunders:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/corporateMonopolyOfScience.php

As you may already know, you can't just go into a store and buy genetically modified (GM) seeds. You have to sign an agreement with the company that produced them, and one of the conditions is that you may not save the seeds from your harvest. Anyone growing GM crops has to buy seeds from the company every year, which is a problem for all farmers, but especially for those in the Third World; as Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser's epic battle with Monsanto so clearly brings home to us [1] (Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto? SiS 42).

What is less well known is that the agreements also prohibit you from using the seeds for research. That may not matter to most farmers, but it is important because it means that research into GM crops can be done only by the biotech companies or with their approval. If they don't want a particular piece of research carried out, they can refuse permission to use their seeds. Even when they have given permission, if they don't like the way the research is turning out they can stop it, or prevent the results from being published. Consequently, important decisions on GM crops and all GM organisms (GMOs) are increasingly based on evidence selected by the companies to put them and their products in the best possible light.

That's why when the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited comments from the public in advance of two meetings on GM crops it was holding earlier this year, twenty six scientists submitted a statement protesting the "technology/stewardship agreements" they have to sign, which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. [2] As a result, "no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology". The full statement is reproduced in the Box.

***

Scientists' Statement to US EPA

Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0836

The following statement has been submitted by 26 leading corn insect scientists working at public research institutions located in 16 corn producing states. All of the scientists have been active participants of the Regional Research Projects NCCC-46 "Development, Optimization, and Delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms and Other Below-ground Insect Pests of Maize" and/or related projects with corn insect pests. The statement may be applicable to all EPA decisions on PIPs, not just for the current SAP. It should not be interpreted that the actions and opinions of these 26 scientists represent those of the entire group of scientists participating in NCCC-46. The names of the scientists have been withheld from the public docket because virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research.

STATEMENT:

"Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited."

All the scientists have been active researchers into corn insect pests, and many of them are in favour of GM crops, but they are very concerned about the restrictions placed on them by the industry that effectively stop independent research, and the resulting bias in the evidence being presented to the EPA and other regulatory agencies. This does not surprise those of us who have been complaining about the lack of independent research and regulators that routinely ignore and dismiss all evidence of hazards [3] (see GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham, ISIS Scientific Publication).

Anonymous protest for fear of losing their job

***

Significantly, the submission to the EPA was made anonymously. Andrew Pollack, the NY Times journalist who broke the story to the public in February 2009 [4], interviewed many of the scientists and was allowed to reveal some of their identities, but many of those who felt strongly enough to want the comments made were not willing to put their careers on the line by letting the biotech industry know who they were. As Elson Shields, an entomologist from Cornell explained: "People are afraid of being blacklisted. If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can't do your job."

The three companies Pollack contacted, Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer, told him that the restrictions were necessary to protect their relationship with government agencies. But when Pollack asked an EPA spokesman about this, he was told that the government only requires management of the crops' insect resistance. Any other conditions were down to the companies; they have nothing to do with the government.

The other excuse was that companies have to protect their intellectual property. This is no more convincing than the first one, because as the result of intensive lobbying by the biotech industry, GM crops are protected by patents, rather than the less restrictive breeders' rights that apply to other crops. The whole point of a patent is that the inventor makes the idea public and, in return, is given an exclusive right to it for a period of time, usually 20 years. To take out a patent and also insist on keeping an invention secret is to want to have it both ways, which is no more than what we have come to expect from an industry that claims genetic engineering is so novel that its products must be patentable and at the same time so conventional that there is no need to test GM crops for safety.

Why restrict scientific research?

What sort of research can it be that the companies are anxious to prevent? There seem to be two kinds they could have in mind. On the one hand, someone might want to modify an existing GM crop either by conventional breeding or by more genetic engineering. If they succeeded, however, they would not be able to grow the crop commercially or market the seeds without negotiating a licence with the owner of the patent and paying an agreed royalty. But this is precisely how patenting is supposed to work, and it's hard to see why the biotech companies should object to it. In any case, if you hold a patent you are able to licence someone else to use your innovation but you are not obliged to.

The other possibility is research designed specifically to learn more about the crop. This includes testing for health and safety or environmental impact, or to see if it really does what is claimed; for instance, whether an insect-resistant corn actually reduces the amount of pesticide that has to be applied. It also includes comparison of the crop with competitors, either GM or conventional, or with other methods of farming, such as intercropping, or integrated pest management. The monopoly that the companies want to maintain and that is not already protected by their patents is on the information that will be available to regulators and farmers when they take crucial decisions about GM crops.

It has been shown that published research on pharmaceuticals is far more likely to give positive results if it was funded by the industry [5]. The same has been found for research into nutrition [6]. This can happen in many ways, though the choice and design of the experiments, through the selection of data, through the decision not to publish the results of experiments that point in the wrong direction, and so on. That makes it absolutely essential that there be independent scientists actively carrying out research in those areas, and all the more so in biotechnology.

The biotech industry already has a very great influence on research. More and more is being done in the private sector, and much of what is done in universities depends on funding from industry. Even the research councils are being told to concentrate their grants on work that will lead to "wealth creation", by which is meant the sort of research that industry wants done. Restricting the use of their seeds gives the biotech companies a veto on any research they cannot block through their control of funding. They are aiming for nothing less than an absolute stranglehold on scientific research and on the flow research information.

Earlier in the same month, a group calling itself "Sense About Science" in the UK issued a 'guide', Making Sense of GM, to help overcome "misconceptions" that have prevent the public from accepting GM crops and all the benefits they will bring. What it failed to mention was the industrial affiliations of some of the scientists involved. Worse yet, Private Eye revealed that it was sent an earlier draft of the guide, which listed Andrew Cockburn as one of the authors that was removed in the published version. Cockburn is none other than Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs [7]

Time to abolish patents on GM crops

That 26 scientists felt it necessary to write to the EPA shows how worried they are about what is happening; and how worried the rest of us should be too. If nothing is done, then when regulatory agencies take decisions about health and the environment, when farmers want to know what are the best seeds for them to plant and what is the best way of growing their crops, and when the rest of us want to know what lies in store for the world's food supply, the only information we will have will be what the industry and its friends choose to give us. There will be no independent research to draw on.

Governments should abolish patents on GM crops and replace them by the same breeders' rights that apply to other crops. This would remove in one stroke the oppressive regime to which farmers have been subjected; even farmers who have chosen not to grow GM crops are in constant fear of being accused of patent infringement when their crops become contaminated with the patented GM variety [1]. Furthermore, there was never a case for awarding patents to gene sequences [8] (Why Biotech Patents Are Patently Absurd); and all the more so in view of recent findings [9] that have completely invalidated the concept of gene on which the patents were granted. The patents were based on a supposed gene function attached to a DNA sequence. But as genes are now found to exist in bits interweaving with other genes, so are functions. Multiple DNA sequences may serve the same function, and conversely the same DNA sequence can have different functions. And there is no rational basis on which these patents could be defended.

If governments cannot bring themselves to abolish patents on GM crops and genes, even now that they have seen how the biotech corporations mean to abuse the privilege of being allowed to patent them, then at the very least they must insist that the seeds be made available for research.

Food Safety Bill Is Cause for Concern, Not Panic

Environmental News Network / E Magazine, 8 April 2009. By Alexandra Gross:
http://www.enn.com/agriculture/commentary/39624

Over the past several weeks, blog posts and alternative media sites were riddled with panic over H.R. 875, the new bill introduced in the House over food safety regulations. The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 aims to "establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect health by preventing food-borne illness" and ensure the safety of food products through more stringent regulation guidelines. No one would argue that improving the food safety standards in the U.S. is a negative move. It's the bill's vague language that causes concern among supporters of organic and biodynamic farming – and sparks the doomsday scenarios reflected in commentaries on the bill.

One article that flooded foodies' e-mail boxes was the OpEdNews.com piece "Monsanto's dream bill, H.R. 875" by Lynn Cohen-Cole. Cole expresses concern over the power and influence of agricultural giants, especially Monsanto. She writes, "The corporations want the land, they want more intensive industrialization, they want the end of normal animals so they can substitute patented genetically engineered ones they own, they want the end of normal seeds and thus of seed banking by farmers or individuals. They want control over all seeds, animals, water, and land."

However, shortly after the release of Cohen-Cole's article, Monsanto was quick to respond to the inaccuracies in the story. Yes, the bill was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), whose husband, Stanley Greenberg, worked for the food giant more than 10 years ago through contract work. But according to a recent Monsanto blog post, Greenberg currently holds no ties to the company, and it claims it has no position on the bill.

Grist contributor Tom Philpott also found that Cohen-Cole's work presented dramatic what-if situations not found in the text of the bill: "And '24 hours of GPS tracking of ... animals"? Not in there. 'Warrentless government entry' to farms? Can't find it."

So why the hysteria over H.R. 875?

It's really a fight about government control. The loose terms and definitions of what H.R. 875 would actually do – enact more stringent and much-needed safety regulations – left room for organic and biodynamic growers to become fearful of government intervention. Section 206 of the bill, which defines a "food production facility," is so ambiguous that individuals beyond large farms (i.e. backyard gardeners) could be penalized and subject to review by the government.

After a flood of inquiries by concerned individuals, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) responded to concerns: "We cannot support a 'food safety' bill unless it provides protection or exemptions for organic and farm-to-consumer producers and cracks down on the real corporate criminals who are tampering with and polluting our nation's food supply," they said in a statement.

H.R. 875 cannot survive in its current state nor is it ever likely to gain widespread support. If the Bush administration showed Americans anything, it was that big business had the upper hand in this country, especially multi-billion dollar produce, dairy and meat agribusinesses. It is clear that alternative growers will not tolerate four more years of being ignored and under-funded by the government.

In light of the salmonella outbreaks in spinach and peanut butter and the presence of mercury in high fructose corn syrup, any discussion that leads toward greater safety in food production and distribution is a positive first step. Factory farms and vast monocultures have proven ineffective; certainly they yield massive amounts of food but at a significant cost to land, animals and humans. Poor regulation over the use of pesticides and the increased likelihood of animals susceptible to disease only further thwarts the confidence of Americans in the national and imported food supply.

The flaws of H.R. 875 are clear: The generic and utilitarian model is not appropriate or fair to apply to the wide range of farms in this country. Small farms already susceptible to government intervention, especially raw dairy producers, only face increased red tape under the bill. The practice and support of organic and biodynamic farming has come too far in this country to give up easily in a fight. Proponents of the local, Slow Food and organic food movements should continue to vocalize their opposition to the current food system model, encouraging the improvement of domestic products and vast support for a transition to organic practices.

Separating fact from fiction on the environment
OPINION: Traditional media can still play a major role in highlighting risks to the Earth or human health, writes Frank McDonald.

The Irish Times, 8 April 2009:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0408/1224244207033.html

IT IS quite remarkable how few early warnings about risks to human health or the environment over the years turned out to be unfounded. Whether the dangers came from X-rays, DDT, tobacco smoking, asbestos, lead in petrol or chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), early warners were proved right, often after decades of denial by vested interests.

Similar struggles are still being waged over electromagnetic radiation from powerlines, dioxins from waste incineration or desirability of producing food using genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

And, as in the past, scientists who stick their necks out on these issues have been disowned, harassed and even vilified.

Árpád Pusztai, a Hungarian protein scientist whose 1998 study of GM potatoes showed that they had negative effects on the immune system of rats, was dismissed by the Rowlett Research Institute in Aberdeen, his research team disbanded and its laboratory work destroyed because of the controversial nature of their findings.

But Pusztai had his supporters. Despite objections from the Royal Society and Sir Robert May, the British government's chief scientific adviser, his findings were published by the Lancet, and 20 scientists from eight countries signed a petition. In 2005, Pusztai won a "Whistleblower Award" from the German Federation of Scientists.

His story was told by one of his supporters, Dr Christian Vélot, at a major conference in Lisbon last week - The media and the environment: between complexity and urgency - organised by the European Environment Agency (EEA), the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the University of Lisbon's institute of social sciences.

Dr Vélot, a lecturer in molecular genetics at Université Paris-Sud, was reprimanded for speaking out about the unpredictability of GMOs and appearing as a witness at the trials of activists charged with damaging GM crops.

His research funding was withdrawn and, with it, his students. A national petition attracted 50,000 signatures.

Louis Slesin, editor of New York-based Microwave News, told the conference that the first research study linking childhood leukaemia with proximity to powerlines in 1979 evoked "no response". Further studies by the New York state department of health and Swedish epidemiologist Anders Ahlbom pointed in the same direction.

But when the US Environmental Protection Agency identified electromagnetic fields as a "probable human carcinogen" in 1990, the White House overruled it "because of pressure from the power industry", according to Slesin. The US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences "came to the same conclusion" eight years later.

So why are such studies ignored and even dismissed as generating "electrophobia" among the public? Slesin attributed this to the fact that most research in this area in the US is funded by industry or the military. He also warned that if there was a risk of microwave radiation from mobile phones, it would be a "huge problem" worldwide.

Max Planck, the German physicist who developed the quantum theory, probably put it best when he suggested that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up..." In other words, we live and learn.

Take lead in petrol. As David Gee, the EEA's scientific liaison officer said, "99 per cent of research" on its health effects was controlled by the lead industry, which set up the euphemistically-titled Ethyl Corporation to promote its use.

It was only when lead was taken out of petrol years later that lead levels in children's teeth fell markedly.

Prof Jacqueline McGlade, the EEA's executive director, said one of its functions was to "draw a line in the sand and withstand the onslaught from industry and even policymakers" when it publishes unpalatable facts about the state of the environment or risks to human health from pollution. In doing so, it found the media was an important ally.

She instanced the threat to the ozone layer from CFCs, recalling that DuPont had spent a lot of money seeking to debunk this link. However, 1985 satellite images of the ozone hole over Antarctica galvanised the media to become a "formidable force for change" - leading to the Montreal Protocol that banned their use just two years later.

Prof McGlade also cited the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute's ad campaign in 2006 coinciding with the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's hugely influential climate change movie. The institute's message was: "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life... it's what we breathe out and plants breathe in."

A similar contrarian thesis was advanced by The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast by Channel 4 in March 2007. Presenting the views of a minority of scientists and commentators who do not believe that CO2 is causing climate change, it "travelled far and wide in public debate", as Dr Joe Smith, of the Open University, conceded.

This documentary generated 250 complaints to Ofcom, Britain's media and telecoms regulator, including a peer-reviewed scientific submission that ran to 180 pages. Ofcom found that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had been misrepresented by the programme makers, but let Channel 4 off the hook on "free speech" grounds.

Dr Smith, who has been an academic consultant on several BBC documentaries on climate change, cited The Great Global Warming Swindle as a prime example of the phenomenon of "late sceptics" in the whole debate - or rather "climate change deniers", as Bulgarian-born journalist Pavel Antonov said he prefers to call them.

According to Dr Smith, researchers need to "look into the social psychology of denial and explore the contrarian personality". He cautioned that "a lot of little bits of news [on the internet] adds up to a lot of little bits of news" - often generated by "vegetarian anarchist teenagers", as journalist Clare McCarthy said.

Prof McGlade agreed, saying the worldwide web "could be crammed full of junk, with young people talking to each other with no reference to the outside world." Google CEO Eric Schmidt said last October that the internet is fast becoming "a cesspool" in which false information thrives.

Brian Trench, who heads the school of communications at Dublin City University, defended the internet as a valuable research tool, saying the huge amount of information it provides "can build up a picture" of reality. But he would also recognise the value to democracy of the print media, radio and television.

We still need newspapers to provide reliable news and perspective on current affairs. This may sound like special pleading from a hard-bitten journalist in an industry that's losing titles due to the recession and competition from the internet. It's not; as journalists, it's our job to find out what's going on and tell people about it.

Frank McDonald is Environment Editor of The Irish Times.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Nice words, but the The Irish Times is unlikely to provide any semblance of balanced coverage of the GM food and farming controversy so long as the newspaper's owner - a registered charity called the Irish Times Trust - continues to be chaired by Prof. David McConnell, the hardline pro-GM biotech industry lobbyist who is also the Co-ordinator and Co-Vice Chairman of EAGLES - European Action on Global Life Sciences (http://www.efb-central.org/eagles), a task force of the European Federation of Biotechnology whose members include Monsanto Europe, the Association of German Biotech Companies, the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (USA), etc.

Apart from this obvious conflict of interest, the Irish Times' demonstrable bias on GM issues is a flagrant breach of the Revenue Commission requirement that registered charities must avoid promoting commercial vested interests.

For more on this see:

Irish Times slammed for bias on GM issues
• Irresponsible journalism stifles informed debate
• Conflict of interest with biotech lobby group

GM-free Ireland press release, 27 October 2007: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI37.pdf

France's National Consumers' Council adopts "Fed without GMOs" label

Memo from French lawyer Blanche Magariños-Rey, 8 April 2009.

A new label bearing the words "Nourri sans OGM" (Fed without GMOs) was adoped on Friday 3 April by the Conseil National de la Consommation (CNC), a democratic consultative body attached to the Ministry in charge of consumer affairs. The information disseminated on the Europe 1 web site [see below] satisfies the expectations of 86% of French people.

According to www.Sans-ogm.org, food products from livestock are not currently required to mention the presence of GMOs on their labels. Some producers organise their animal feed supply chain without GMOs (meat, poultry, eggs, dairy products), and are able to prove that measure are in place to avoid accidental traces of GM ingredients above 0.9%.

The results of a survey on GMOs carried out last January were recently published by the Farmers of Loué who have set p a GM-free supply chain for their poultry produce.

According to the survey, carried out by the Efficience 3 Institute, approximately 93% of French people find it abnormal that producers who feed their livestock with GMOs are not obliged to mention this on their produce (meats, milk, eggs...). Europe 1 reports that a label bearing the words "Fed without GMOs" will be applied to meat and dairy produce, from now on.

Approximately 76% of French people support the "GM-free" label and 86% approve the labelling project with the caption "Fed without GMOs minimum guarantee 99.1%."

Launch of a "Fed without GMO" label

Europe 1 / France Info, 4 April 2009:
http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/conseilnationalconsommation/presentation.htm

Europe 1 news: The National Consumers' Council [in France] voted on Friday in favour of a new "Fed without GMOs" label for use on meat and dairy produce.

A label with the caption "Fed without GMOs" was adopted Friday by the National Consumers' Council http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/conseilnationalconsommation/presentation.htm following a meeting at the Ministry of Finance with representatives of "Que choisir" [the "Which to chose" consumers organisation] and the agri-food industry. This label will be used on meat and dairy produce. Until now, there was no way to know if livestock had been fed with transgenic products.

GMOs are a hot topic in Europe. The European Commission has not given up its attempt to force the cultivation of Monsanto's genetically modified maize, but it is reluctant to create a new psychodrama with France about its safeguard clause, before the European elections. The dossier is managed directly by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barrosso, and he is a source of tension with Paris. The last attempt to impose the cultivation of MON810 ended in a total rejection for the Commisison (http://www.europe1.fr/Info/Actualite-Internationale/Europe/Revers-pour-la-Commission-europeenne-sur-les-OGM).

With a crushing majority of 22 against 5, the EU Member States refused to force Hungary and Austria to lift their bans on the cultivation of the American genetically modified maize.

More information:

Green deputy Noël Mamère on Martial You's microphone:

"This decision by the National Consumers' Council is step in the right direction. Its provides a means to remind both the authorities and the French people that GMO is dangerous, it may be harmful for our health."

Question: Your hope for this label, is also to show by consumption - by the numbers which it generates - that French people don't want GM food?"

"My hope is that the National Consumers' Council will, through this label, contribute to raise French people's awareness about the dangers that result from intensive and highly polluting forms of agriculture. I think it will also contribute to a further reduction of the use of GMOs, because if the French people - who as you know have now become very well informed consumers with the crisis - who know how to consume selectively and sustainably, well if they see a "produced without GMOs" label they will buy this meat or this product rather than some other one whose origins and traceability are unknown."

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

A mere administrative edict by the French Ministry of Finances, in charge incidentally also for product fraud, had made it practically impossible for years for French operators to market - and label - products that were produced without the use of GMOs. With new attention focused on the entire subject matter in France - and looking at the wording of the news item above, this must include also the recent vote by the EU Council of Ministers on the French ban of MON810 planting - the powerful Conseil national de la consommation has given its green light to the Ministry to introduce a new label on meat and dairy products.

In the near future, France"s "Nourri sans OGM" will join the ranks of "Ohne Gentechnik" in Germany and "Gentechnikfrei erzeugt" in Austria assuring consumers that the animal product they are looking at was produced without genetically modified organisms. The same is possible in practically all other EU Member States as well, but respective national regulations of whatever format are still missing.

The crocodile tears shed by industry opponents over the positive regulation of such claims are usually based on the correct argument that mainly enzymes and amino acids that were produced with the use of GM organisms are permitted in food products thus labeled. These critics forget two things: The proportions in which soy meal and corn products appear in animal feed rations and that enzymes, amino acids and vitamins etc. themselves are not organisms and contain no DNA. That, however, is the main reason of concern by the opponents of GMOs.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland

This is a great victory for consumers of French food around the world. But according to a member of France's National Consumers' Council, Nestlé and Danone are now opposing the use of the GM-free label, on the grounds that its introduction could lead informed consumers to boycott their products manufactured with milk from livestock fed on GM ingredients! To settle the matter, the French Ministry of Consumer Affairs is reported to have set a final deadline of 1 May for the various stakeholders to reach a voluntary agreement, after which the Ministry will approve the label by decree.

On 15 January 2009, at a meeting of the Irish Government's Joint Oireachtas (Parliament and Senate) Committee on European Affairs, the President of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, Malcolm Thompson, said:

"The ICSA would like to see a retail environment where consumers are always able to choose European product where the quality and origin is clearly defined and easily understood. We see this as a system of regulated logos and labels whereby farmers are recognised for their efforts. Each product would indicate country of origin and demonstrate that it was produced to the EU baseline standard. For those producers who go to the next level, those producers who go that extra mile and participate in REPS or who are farming organically, or who can certify that their product is GM free or grass-fed, should have their niche also clearly identified on the label."

The GM-free Ireland Network lobbied the Irish Government to set up a GM-free certification and labelling scheme for meat, poultry and dairy produce in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Their failure to do so continues to damage what remains of our reputation as Ireland – the food island, in the aftermath of the recent dioxin animal feed scandal.

On 20 March 2009, GM-free Ireland organised a workshop on GM-free food certification and labelling for Irish farmers, with the French legal expert Blanche Magariños-Rey. The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association took part in the event and reaffirmed its commitment for such a voluntary label for Irish food produce.

Thanks to the largely grass-based diet of Irish cattle and sheep, most Irish farmers and food producers can phase out GM animal feed from their supply chain with less hassle and expense than their competitors in other EU member states. Together with the Government's agreed progamme to keep the island of Ireland off limits to GM crops, this strategy would give Irish meat, poultry and dairy produce a unique sellling point: the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe.

Farmers to fight farmers over a multi-million dollar GM liability

Network of Concerned Farmers (Australia), 8 April 2009.

Farmers trialling genetically modified canola in Western Australia this month risk costly legal action, warns the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF).

"We will launch actions on a whole range of fronts," said NCF spokesperson, Julie Newman. "Legally, non-GM means no GM, not even 0.001%."

"The basis of our legal action is that it's not the responsibility of a conventional farmer to keep contaminated crops out; it's up to the GM farmer to keep their crops contained."

"GM growers, not Monsanto, will be liable for any damage or economic losses to conventional farmers," said Julie Newman. "Very few people realise that recourse to the courts means that farmers will take legal action against farmers."

"Farmers who've volunteered for GM trials only need to look at their contracts to know that Monsanto will not protect their liability in the courts, or support their legal defence."

GM trial farmers risk being sued individually for the loss of their European and domestic markets and premiums, and the costs of testing and recalling contaminated produce.

They will also seek recovery of legal costs, and significantly, any fines, fees or end-point royalties for uncontrolled contamination.

"We will not follow the international trend where non-GM farmers have tolerated contamination, lost markets and are now being forced to pay fees for using a patented product they did not want and could not avoid."

This week the NCF are preparing letters to GM canola-trial farmers outlining their legal liabilities, and before seeding begins.

"We are simply making these farmers aware of what they are getting themselves into and their ultimate liability," said Julie Newman. "Our early notification states our refusal to accept the burden of contamination, inadequate crop management and coexistent plans."

"We are setting up a stronger legal case down the track should non-GM farmers wish to make a claim in the future."

Julie Newman said that if those supporting GM believe that there is no economic risk, they should accept full liability.

"It's not good enough to say she'll be right mate and then expect the non-GM farmers to carry the can," she said. "Anyone who has read the coexistence protocols knows they will fail on the basis of contamination."

"We will not accept market loss and we will not pay for contamination that we and our prolific and ever-expanding international markets don't want."

"If GM farmers find our legal remedy of protection unreasonable, they need to ask themselves why conventional farmers should pay for a market loss valued at literally millions of dollars, and caused by a product they choose not to use."

Contact: Julie Newman 08 98711562 or 08 98711644

P18M in GMO corn seized in Negros Occidental

Inquirer Visayas (Phillipines), 8 April 2009. By Carla Gomez:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20090408-198440/P18M-in-GMO-corn-seized-in-Negros-Occidental

BACOLOD CITY - The provincial government seized last Saturday P18 million worth of corn seeds found to be genetically modified, Negros Occidental Gov. Isidro Zayco said on Monday.

Zayco said the provincial government has ordered the corn seeds to be held at a warehouse at the port of the Bacolod Real Estate Development Corp. (Bredco) in Bacolod City.

A GMO team from the provincial government gave the order to seize 15,746 bags, or 750 tons, of genetically modified corn seeds worth P18 million that were shipped by Bounty Fresh Foods from La Union and Ilocos to Negros consignee Bounty Agro Ventures, Zayco said.

The seeds were subjected to testing and found to be positive for genetically modified organisms (GMO) in violation of Provincial Ordinance 007 Series of 2007, he said.

Provincial Ordinance No. 07 Series of 2007 banned the entry of genetically modified plants and animals into Negros Occidental, the governor said.

The ordinance explained that the ban on GMO products was aimed at "instituting stringent measures towards the protection of biodiversity and attainment of the status of Negros as an Organic Food Island in Asia."

The seeds were kept at the Agro Ventures warehouse at the reclamation area in Bacolod City with orders for them not to be released, Zayco said.

A dialogue with the owner of the seeds will be held, he added.

In March, the provincial government directed the release of 994 metric tons of corn grains that arrived at the Bredco port from General Santos City that were held for lack of a National Food Authority (NFA) shipping permit, Negros Occidental provincial agriculturist Igmedio Tabianan said.

The corn shipment turned out not to be genetically modified and was released to the Negros Occidental market after the shipper was fined for failing to acquire an NFA shipping permit, Tabianan added.

Protests greeted the introduction of GMOs into the country, with groups saying GMOs could contaminate the country's food supply with chemicals that could harm humans.

GMO advocates, however, defended the genetic modification of food, saying it was through this technology that scientists and manufacturers could keep the supply of food going.

Critics of GMOs have referred to these types of food as "Frankenfood," referring to the fictional monster that was created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein.

A seed of doubt
With thousands of acres of farmland across the Islands already devoted to genetically modified seeds, there are few signs that Hawai'i is ready to get serious about regulation.

Honolulu Weekly (Hawai'i, USA), 8 April 2009. By Joan Conrow:
http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2009/04/a-seed-of-doubt/

Ask folks to name Hawai'i's most valuable farm crop and they'll likely say sugar or pineapple, maybe hazard a guess at macadamia nuts. Few will answer correctly-seeds-and even fewer will know that at least half that industry is devoted to growing genetically-modified organisms, or GMOs.

GMO is the catch phrase for any plant, animal, bacteria or virus with genetic material that has been altered through engineering. This is commonly done by forcing a gene, usually through use of a virus, bacteria or cell bombardment, from one organism into another to create an entirely new organism with desired traits, which can then be patented by its creator. Although born in a laboratory, genetically-engineered (GE) plants must be tested in the real world of soil and sun. Those that succeed are grown on a larger scale, producing seed for commercial farmers who are not legally allowed to save patented seed from their harvests, and so must buy new supplies each year.

Hawai'i performs both functions, with land throughout the state being used to test and produce GE seed crops. Hailed by some as 21st century wonder plants that will feed a hungry, weather-beaten planet, and denounced by others as a craven corporate bid to control the global seed supply, GE crops are driving a fierce international debate over the future of farming.

And unbeknownst to most residents and visitors, Hawai'i is in the thick of it.

Fruitful experimentation

In the past two decades, the Islands have hosted some 2,252 outdoor tests for experimental GE plants, more than any other place. Open-air field trials have been conducted on corn, soybeans, cotton, potatoes, wheat, alfalfa, beets, rice, safflower, sorghum, sunflowers, sugar cane, pineapple, dendrobium orchids, anthurium, coffee and papaya, among others. About 130 now are under way throughout the state.

Some of Hawai'i's outdoor tests – by companies such as Monsanto, ProdiGene, Garst Seed Co. and Hawai'i Agriculture Research Center (HARC) – also involved biopharmaceuticals, which refers to plants genetically-engineered to produce medical supplies, drugs, vaccines and industrial chemicals. According to court documents, these trials involved experimental AIDS and hepatitis B vaccines; growth hormones; enzyme production from human genes; and aprotinin, a blood-clotting cow protein that is also an insect toxin. Information about where these tests were done remains blocked by a court order.

Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, who brought a lawsuit seeking to halt these open-air biopharm trials in Hawai'i until they could be assessed for environmental and public health risks, said the crops reportedly were harvested while the case was in litigation and it does not appear that any biopharms have been planted since. He and his staff monitor a Virginia Tech website ([www.isb.vt.edu]) that posts applications for field trial permits and their status. It usually, but not always, discloses the reason for the test, the crop involved and whether it is considered a biopharmaceutical. But while it names the state, it does not disclose the specific location, and details about biopharm tests are rarely included.

The industry maintains that such confidentiality is needed to protect their crops from vandalism and their trade secrets from competitors. The federal government supports that stance, and the state has followed its lead, with both the University of Hawai'i and various state agencies consistently fighting legislation requiring disclosure of GE crop sites. In testimony presented in February in opposition to one such bill, which has since died, James R. Gaines, the University's vice-president for research, cited concerns about "the threat to field research, vandalism and destruction of research crops as has happened during the development of the transgenic papaya." Ted Liu, director of the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, testified that, "over-regulation contributes to Hawai'i's anti-business image, jeopardizing the success of established businesses as well as the potential of attracting new investment to the State."

The state Department of Agriculture also strongly opposed the bill, saying the permitting and regulating of field tests "is the province of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)." But some contend the federal regulatory process is tainted. Since the administration of George H.W. Bush, biotechnology industry officials have been tapped to fill key positions in the three agencies charged with regulating GMOs, and were at the helm of the USDA when it ruled that crops and foods containing GMOs are essentially the same as their conventional counterparts, and thus pose no danger to people or ecosystems. More recently, President Obama came under fire for choosing Tom Vilsack, who supports both GE and biopharm crops, as his Agriculture Secretary.

GMO opponents note that the USDA also has funded and conducted extensive biotech research, including the so-called "terminator technology" that prevents the second-year propagation of GE seed, thus ensuring that farmers must buy new seeds each season. Still others have criticized what they characterize as the USDA's "rubber stamp" approach to field trial permit applications. According to a report published by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the agency has rejected only 3.5 percent of the more than 40,000 permit applications submitted, and those were due to incomplete applications and paperwork errors.

"Experimental field trials of GE agricultural crops in Hawai'i are conducted without adequate oversight or sometimes even the knowledge of where the trial is located," said Nancy Redfeather, a Big Island coffee grower and member of Hawai'i SEED, a statewide group of farmers, environmentalists, scientists, cultural leaders and others organized against GMO crops in Hawai'i. Some Hawai'i residents also have expressed concern about the chemicals – atrazine and heptachlor among them – used on GMO test plots around the state, saying they could be harming agricultural workers and those who live or work near the fields, as well as the environment.

"On Kaua'i, some of the testing is to develop herbicide-resistant crops that tolerate multiple chemicals," said Jeri Di Pietro of GMO Free Kaua'i "So the research going on here includes spraying a cocktail of chemicals that will not kill the plants. The amount of spraying escalates as they look for the high dose tolerance level. This massive amount of chemical application is going on near our schools, coastline and bird sanctuaries. Very few studies have been done on how to mitigate contamination of soil and bacteria where genetically engineered crops have been grown."

Seed companies have consistently defended their cultivation and chemical application practices as complying with federal regulations, and the Environmental Protection Agency has issued few citations. It fined Syngenta Seeds $17,550 last year for two pesticide-related violations, while in 2002 Pioneer Hi-Bred and Mycogen Seeds, a unit of Dow Agrosciences, agreed to each pay a fine of less than $10,000 after the EPA cited them for failing to meet isolation and containment requirements during field trials on Kaua'i and Moloka'i, respectively.

This is not a drill

But testing isn't the only purpose that Hawai'i fields serve. Agricultural lands throughout the state also are used to grow GE seed for commercial farmers, with much of the activity centered on O'ahu, Moloka'i and Kaua'i. About half of the 4,000 acres in seed crops statewide are cultivated in GMOs, according to industry estimates. About 97 percent of it is "Roundup Ready" corn, which can withstand direct applications of Monsanto's herbicide. GE seed crops that produce their own insecticides are also being grown.

Seed companies have been taking advantage of Hawai'i's year-round growing season since the mid-1970s. But with an annual value of just $20 million two decades ago, the seed industry was a big player in Islands agriculture. Now, it's the star – and the only one that's rising. With a record-high value of $146.3 million last season, the seed industry accounts for about a quarter of the state's total farm revenues, eclipsing every other commodity. It's also expanding rapidly, increasing 42 percent last year alone.

The steady growth is no accident. The state has been recruiting biotech businesses and investment since the mid-1990s, when former Gov. Ben Cayetano endorsed the industry as a clean, high-tech way to save agriculture and diversify the economy. Now all the major chemical and agribusiness companies involved in GMOs are established in Hawai'i. These include Dow AgroScience, Syngenta and BASF, as well as Dupont's Pioneer Hi-Bred International, the world's largest seed company. The biggest local grower is Monsanto, which previously produced the toxins subpolychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) and dioxin and is now a global leader in GE seeds, with some 674 biotechnology patents.

Carol Okada, manager of the state DOA's Plant Quarantine Branch, which oversees GMOs in Hawai'i, was quoted in Scientific American magazine last year as saying the booming seed business is in the Islands to stay. "Even though it's controversial here, the seed industry is now the No. 1 industry for us and it is very important in terms of the economy, dealing with invasive species and giving farmers choices."

A state of denial

The state's ongoing support for the industry doesn't sit well with everyone.

"These biotech companies are receiving huge state and federal subsides and tax incentives to come here," Di Pietro said. "Most of the seed company profits are realized out of state. Biotech companies use a large portion of our ag land and water, yet produce no food that we can eat. We experience little benefit and receive much environmental degradation that we will be left for us to mitigate."

It's unclear just how much degradation is associated with GE crops because neither the state nor federal governments required companies to conduct Environmental Impact Statements before growing them here. In the Earthjustice suit, federal Judge J. Michael Seabright found the USDA acted in "utter disregard" of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act when it granted permits for the biopharm field tests before conducting environmental studies, Achitoff said.

"They're environmentally anything but benign," Achitoff said, noting that GE crops have been shown to contaminate conventional and organic crops, usually through the unintentional mixing of commercial seed. In Hawai'i, birds are also thought to have played a role in spreading the seeds of the Rainbow papaya, which was genetically engineered to resist the ringspot virus. Its genetic traits have been found in both the fruit and seed of traditional varieties, prompting an outcry from health-conscious consumers and organic farmers, who could lose their certification if their crops contain GMOs.

Both organic and conventional farmers face another peril from crop contamination. Monsanto is especially aggressive in enforcing its patents, Achitoff said, and has investigated and/or sued thousands of American and Canadian farmers for saving seeds with its patented GMO traits. The company has employed private investigators who secretly videotape and photograph farmers, infiltrate community meetings and gather information from informants about farming activities, according to an article published in Vanity Fair last year. As a result, Achitoff said, some farmers have paid huge fines to Monsanto, even though they were growing the crops inadvertently.

Herbicide-resistant varieties of soybean and corn, which represent the bulk of GE crops now being grown, present another environmental concern, Achitoff said. Their cultivation has given rise to herbicide-resistant "super weeds" that require stronger chemicals for eradication, and studies also have shown that farmers raising "Roundup Ready" crops use more herbicide than those growing conventional varieties.

Biotech researchers and seed companies, however, maintain that GE crops are safe because nothing has turned up to indicate otherwise. In testimony to the state Senate earlier this year, Richard Manshardt, a professor and plant geneticist at UH's College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) asserted that "the biological impacts of current GE crops are not different or greater than those caused by production and distribution of conventional or organic crops. In the specific case of the virus-disease-resistant Hawaiian papayas with which I am personally familiar, no harmful environmental, agricultural or human health issues were found to be unique to GE papayas in seven years of testing during development or 10 years of production after commercial release."

Achitoff, however, said the university researchers are pawns of the biotech industry. "Essentially what they want is the funding and it's distorted their perspective on the safety of GMOs. We have people at CTAHR and the Farm Bureau who have been essentially bought by the biotech industry and they're the ones who howl most loudly to the Legislature."

Although Hawai'i has been reluctant to control, or even scrutinize, the GE crops grown by its seed industry, Achitoff is seeing "a slow but steady trend away from the complete laissez-faire approach toward regulation" on the national level. With new studies showing a link between GE products and health problems, and consumers embracing healthier eating practices, "people will be looking to government and demanding a different approach in regard to GMO regulations," he said. "I'm optimistic about it."

Planted with good intentions

Despite claims that genetic engineering (GE) will lead to crops that can withstand drought, increase yields and boost nutrition, no GE plants with those specific traits have yet been developed for commercial cultivation.

Instead, most of the research has been devoted to producing crops that can withstand direct applications of herbicides, most notably Roundup, which is produced by biotechnology giant Monsanto. These herbicide-resistant varieties account for about 80 percent of the GE crops now being grown. The second most common crops are those that have been engineered to produce their own pesticides.

So far, the USDA has approved GE varieties of soybeans, corn (except blue corn, red corn and popcorn), canola, sugar beets, zucchini, crookneck squash and papaya. GE crops are used heavily as animal feed, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are common in products on supermarket shelves. (For a free shopping guide, visit [responsibletechnology.org].)

Another 100 GE crops are waiting in the wings, including virtually every fruit, vegetable and grain now commonly eaten. The biotech industry also has developed "terminator technology," which prevents a plant from making seeds, but it has not yet been deployed.

Current legislation

Genetic engineering is a perennially hot topic in the Hawai'i Legislature, and two bills that would ban the development, testing and propagation of genetically-modified taro in Hawai'i are still alive.

Senate Bill 709 has been amended since its introduction to change its effective date to the year 2050, while House Bill 1663 has similar language, but a July 2009 effective date. Meanwhile, the fate of House Bill 1226 is uncertain. Known as the "pre-emption bill," it would prohibit the state and county from banning or otherwise regulating activities related to genetically-modified plant organisms (GMOs).

Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, who has litigated matters related to GMOs, said the bill is bucking national legal trends regarding pre-emption measures as contrary to the public interest.

"Essentially, it's the state saying voluntarily, unilaterally, without any instruction from the federal government or Congress, we're going to tie our hands and make it impossible to do anything about GMOs," Achitoff said.

Although House Speaker Calvin Say has refused to disclose who asked him to introduce the bill, Achitoff said "there's no doubt in my mind it came from the (biotech) industry and it's consistent with similar legislation that's been put forth by Monsanto and others in a number of other states."

The bill passed the house and was referred to the Senate committee on energy and environment, where Chairman Mike Gabbard pronounced it "a very bad bill" and said he does not plan to schedule it for a hearing. While that would normally scuttle a measure, opponents are worried it might be revived using a technique called "gut and replace," in which the contents of a live bill are stripped and replaced with a dead one, or by amending another bill, such as one of those related to GMO taro.

7 April 2009

Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009
Tell Congress to Improve Food Safety by Stopping Factory Farming

Grassroots Netroots Alliance (USA):
http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=12878056

HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, is a limited-vision attempt by moderate Democrats and Republicans to craft food safety legislation to address the out-of-control filth and contamination that are inherent in our industrialized, now globalized, "profit-at-any-cost" food system. This being said, OCA does not support HR 875 in its present form, given the fact that, if the bill's regulations were applied in a one-size-fits-all manner to certified organic and farm-to-consumer operations, it could have a devastating impact on small farmers, especially raw milk producers who are already unfairly targeted by state food-safety regulators. Although the OCA deems this bill vaguely well-intentioned, we are calling on Congress to focus its attention on the real threats to food safety: globalized food sourcing from nations such as China where food safety is a travesty and domestic industrial-scale and factory farms whose collateral damage includes pesticide and antibiotic-tainted food, mad cow disease, E. coli contamination and salmonella poisoning. And, of course, Congress and the Obama Administration need to support a massive transition to organic farming practices.

Read about this bill:
http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/bills/?bill=12878051&alertid=12878056

Interest in Non-Genetically Modified Soybeans Growing

USAgNet, 7 April 2009:
http://www.illinoisagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=771&yr=2009

Cheaper seed and lucrative premiums are driving more crop producers to plant non-genetically modified soybeans this year.

U.S. soybean production is 95 percent dominated by genetically modified Round Up Ready soybeans. However a small percentage of that crop – perhaps 5 percent – will be planted to non-GM soybeans, and the trend toward the latter is expected to continue in the near future, said Jim Beuerlein, an Ohio State University Extension agronomist.

"Round Up Ready soybean seed is becoming expensive and there are a number of markets, both stateside and internationally, that want non-GM varieties and they are willing to pay the premiums for it," said Beuerlein, who also holds a research appointment with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. "So with premiums over $1 per bushel, that's $50 in extra income per acre, and non-GM seed has been historically cheaper than Round Up Ready seed to begin with. So we've got two things that are sparking grower interest: cheaper seed and the grain is worth more."

Beuerlein anticipates Ohio growers to increase their non-GM soybean acreage by about 10 percent. But with 4.5 million acres of soybeans planted in Ohio each year, the increase is not earth shattering. The reason, said Beuerlein, is because there simply isn't enough seed to go around to meet demand.

"There's a shortage of normal germplasm seed because we've been growing Round Up Ready varieties for so long and there wasn't a big demand for non-GM seed. We have just not been developing those kinds of varieties so the seed and the varieties are somewhat limited at this time," he said. "But seed companies that deal with non-GM varieties are expected to increase their seed production 100 percent, perhaps 200 percent, this year, so there will be a lot more seed available next year."

Additionally, growers may be able to keep the seed of some non-GM soybean varieties that are not patented or if the seed laws allow that activity. "One acre of seed production will plant up to 30 acres of soybeans the following year," said Beuerlein.

As growers prepare for this planting season, careful management of the crop should be considered, said Beuerlein.

"All seed is becoming much more expensive as traits are added and varieties are improved, so that dictates that we manage our seed planting operations very carefully," said Beuerlein. "We know that fungicide seed treatments will often increase emergence 10, 12, 15 percent depending on the year. Treating the seed with fungicide may allow us to reduce seeding rates and come out dollars ahead."

Beuerlein encourages growers to stick to the recommended seeding rates and not over-seed to help reduce seed costs. This may require more precise planting equipment.

"Growers should consider getting away from seeders that are not very precise in terms of seeding rates, and use a mechanism that picks up and drops one seed in at a time," said Beuerlein. "That way you definitely know how much you are planting."

Recommendations for ideal seeding rates are: if beans grow 40 inches or taller, plant 125,000 seeds per acre; for plants 30 inches tall, drop 175,000 seeds per acre; and for plants that are 20 inches tall, plant 225,000 seeds per acre.

He also recommends that growers space out the seeds in the row as accurately as possible. Growers can calculate this if they know their seeding rate. For example, there are 6,272,640 square inches per acre. Divide that number by, say, 200,000 seeds per acre, and you get 31.4 square inches of space per seed. Divide 31.4 by the row spacing, 7.5 inches for example, to get the distance between the seed in the row, or 4.2 inches. Divide 12 inches by the 4.2 and you get the seed spacing in the row, which in this case is 2.86 seeds per foot of row.

Other planting recommendations include: carefully handling the seed so as not to damage the growing point, located right under the seed coat; make good seed-to-soil contact; plant 1 inch to 1.5 inches deep; and finish planting by the third week of May.

Voices from Africa:
African Farmers and Environmentalists Speak Out Against a New Green Revolution in Africa

Edited by Anuradha Mittal with Melissa Moore.
Published by The Oakland Institute.

Oakland Institute, 7 April 2009:
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/

Voices from Africa: African Farmers & Environmentalists Speak Out Against a New Green Revolution in Africa, issues a direct challenge to Western-led plans for a genetically engineered revolution in African agriculture, particularly the recent misguided philanthropic efforts of the Gates Foundation's Alliance for a New Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and presents African resistance and solutions rooted in first-hand knowledge of what Africans need.

The report finds a lack of accountability, transparency, and stakeholder involvement in philanthropic efforts such as AGRA. For instance, a leaked Gates Foundation confidential report on their Agricultural Development Strategy for 2008-2011 actually emphasizes moving people out of the agricultural sector with the intent of reducing dependency on agriculture. The strategy report, however, does not specify where or how this new 'land mobile' population is to be reemployed.

The battle over genetic engineering is being fought across the world, between those who champion farmers' rights to seeds, livelihood, and land, and those who seek to privatize these. While promotional campaigns for technological solutions to hunger regularly feature a handful of African spokespeople who drown out the genuine voices of farmers, researchers, and civil society groups, there is widespread opposition to genetic engineering and plans for a New Green Revolution for Africa. Voices From Africa is based on the essays and statements of leading African farmers, environmentalists, and civil society groups, and brings to light the real African perspectives on technological solutions to hunger and poverty on the continent–and the solutions that the people on the ground believe would bring true development.

Download the Full Report
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/pdfs/voicesfromafrica_full.pdf

Download the Introduction
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/pdfs/voices_intro.pdf

Download Part One
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/pdfs/voices_part_one.pdf

Download Part Two
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/pdfs/voices_part_two.pdf

Download Part Three
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/pdfs/voices_part_three.pdf

The Green Party endorses International Seeds Day on April 26, repeal of Order 81 making Iraqi farmers dependent on US firms

OnTheWilderside.net, 7 April 2009:
http://wilderside.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/the-green-party-endorses-international-seeds-day-on-april-26-repeal-of-order-81-making-iraqi-farmers-dependent-on-us-firms/

The Green Party of the United States has endorsed International Seeds Day (ISD, http://www.INEAS.org/20090426_PR.pdf) on April 26, which will mark the fifth anniversary of the passage and signing of Order 81 by Paul Bremer, administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

Order 81 (http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf) prohibits Iraqi farmers from reusing seeds harvested from new varieties introduced in Iraq and registered under the law. According to the law, farmers are banned from saving such seeds and required to pay royalties to the holder of the patent on the seed - an American corporation. The Iraqi constitution has historically prohibited ownership of biological resources.

ISD, organized by the Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies (INEAS, http://www.INEAS.org), will educate the public and media about the importance of biodiversity and seed saving; the dangers of genetically modified food and patent seeds; the ruinous effect of Order 81 on Iraqi agriculture; and the growing resistance to the power of giant agribusinesses over seed resources.

"Order 81 has made farmers in Iraq - who have planted since 7000 BCE - dependent on companies like Monsanto. We call on President Obama and Congress to repeal Order 81 immediately," said Sanda Everette, permaculture designer and a co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.

"Monsanto has a record of selling pest-resistant seeds that have been genetically engineered for sterility to farmers around the world, rendering the farmers permanently dependent. Order 81 has turned Iraq into a feeding trough for favored US corporations, just as the Iraqi hydrocarbon law gives US and British oil companies control over most Iraqi oil. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq have proven to be an exercise in death and destruction for the sake of corporate pillage," said Ms. Everette.

According to INEAS, "[f]armers in Iraq have operated in a mostly free-to-little-regulated, informal seed supply system. Farm-saved seeds and the free exchange of planting materials among farmers have long been the basis of agricultural practice in Iraq. Yet all of this has become history.... The purpose of Order 81 is to facilitate the establishment of a new seed market in Iraq, one in which Iraqi farmers are forced to make their annual purchase of seeds, including those that are genetically modified, from transnational corporations."

INEAS notes that Order 81 grants US firms complete control over Iraqi farmers' seed for 20 years, requiring them to sign an agreement to pay a 'technology fee' and an annual license fee. "Plant Variety Protection (PVP) made seed reusing and saving illegal as well as 'similar' seed plantings punishable by severe fines and imprisonment. Agribusiness wants the same rights everywhere, including in the USA. This will jeopardize the future of organic and independent farming."

Similar laws have placed many developing countries in Africa and Asia, including Afghanistan and India, at the mercy of foreign agribusiness monopolies.

The Green Party supports the right of farmers to save their own seeds and preserve the heritage that farmers have developed over thousands of years to sustain human populations. Greens advocate the establishment of international seed banks such as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway.

Greens support protection for small farms, farmers' markets, and organically and locally grown produce in the US and around the world, all of which have been threatened by agribusinesses like Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, and Tyson. The Green Party opposes genetic modification of organisms used for food and supports legislation to protect the public from threats to biodiversity from seed stocks created by corporations.

More information:

The Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies (INEAS)
1 (617) 86-INEAS (864-6327)
INEAS@aol.com
INEAS_1994@yahoo.com

The Organic Revolution
Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology
http://www.navdanya.org/organic/index.htm

GM Science Exposed
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/Papers_on_GM_Hazards.pdf

"The soils of war: The real agenda behind agricultural reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq"
Grain, March 2009
http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=217

"Order 81 and the plunder of farming"
By Latha Jishnu, April 1, 2009, Business Standard (India)
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/latha-jishnu-order-81the-plunderfarming/353518/

Green Pages, Vol. 13, No. 1
The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog

GMO views to be aired

Whangarei District Council media release (New Zealand), 7 April 2009:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0904/S00013.htm

Auckland and Northland communities will have an opportunity to air their views on genetic engineering (GE) and how Auckland and Northland councils should deal with field trials and/or commercial releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Staff from seven councils on the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options met on Friday 3 April to discuss community consultation, including a telephone poll intended to gauge public opinion on the release of GMOs to the environment.

Councils on the Working Party include Far North, Whangarei, Kaipara, and Rodney District Councils, Waitakere City Council, and Auckland and Northland Regional Councils. All except the NRC have agreed to participate in, and jointly fund, the consultation exercise.

Chairperson of the Inter-council Working Party, Dr Kerry Grundy, said the telephone poll will ask people if they prefer the status quo - regulation by central government under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act - or additional regulation at a local or regional level by local authorities under the Resource Management Act.

If people support additional local or regional regulation, they will be asked whether they prefer prohibiting some or all GMOs in the environment, requiring resource consent for some or all GMO land uses, and/or a requirement to post a bond to cover possible damages to the environment or neighbouring land users.

Dr Grundy said two major reports commissioned by the Working Party have identified a range of risks involved with the trialling and release of GMOs.

These include environmental risks, such as GMOs becoming invasive and affecting non-target species including indigenous flora and fauna or the development of herbicide or pesticide resistance creating 'super-weeds' or 'super-pests', and long term effects on ecosystem functioning.

There are socio-cultural risks, such as effects on Maori cultural beliefs of whakapapa, mauri, tikanga, ethical concerns about mixing genes from different species including human genes, and concerns about the long term safety of genetically engineered food.

Lastly, there are economic risks, such as loss of income through contamination (or perceived contamination) of non-GMO food products, negative effects on marketing and branding opportunities such as 'clean and green' or 'naturally Northland', and costs associated with environmental damage such as clean-up costs for invasive weeds or pests.

Against these risks, the reports found significant deficiencies in the national regulatory regime. A key gap is that there is no liability under HSNO for damages arising as a result of an activity carried out in accordance with an approval from the national regulator ERMA. There is also no requirement for applicants to prove financial fitness in case of damage and no requirement to post bonds to recover costs should damage occur. Therefore, costs arising from unexpected events and ineffective national regulation will fall on affected parties - neighbouring land users and local authorities.

"Given that the community ultimately carries the risk of this technology, the Working Party takes the view that the community should be consulted as to what level of risk it is prepared to carry. This is the reason for the consultation, including the poll - to let communities in Auckland and Northland decide for themselves what risks are acceptable and what they wish their councils to do to address those risks."

Governor Sebelius Must Veto Kansas Bill That Endangers Milk Safety

OpEdNews.com, 7 April 2009. By Jeffrey M. Smith:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Governor-Sebelius-Must-Vet-by-Jeffrey-M-Smith-090407-540.html

Governor Sebelius wants to be our new Secretary of Health and Human Services. But before she is sworn in, she has an important job to do, which will demonstrate that she is serious about protecting the safety of our food supply. A bill passed the Kansas legislature on April 3rd, which would restrict any national US dairy from properly labeling their milk products as free from genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Governor Sebelius must veto it before the April 16th deadline.

Send Governor Sebelius an email urging her to do so.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/TakeAction/GovernorSebilius/index.cfm?

Here is the first in a multi-part series explaining why Drugged Milk is dangerous, and how corporate manipulation, bad science, and political collusion pushed it into our food supply. The remaining articles will be posted on Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith.

Also check out the 18-minute documentary Your Milk on Drugs-Just Say No! http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/rBGHinDairyProducts/index.cfm to see:

•

An FDA scientist who demanded more safety studies on rbGH, but was fired for holding up its approval.

•

A FOX TV investigative reporter whose news series linking rbGH to cancer was canceled after the station received letters from Monsanto's attorney threatening "dire consequences for Fox News."

•

Canadian government scientists who wrote a scathing critique of the FDA's flawed and biased evaluation of rbGH, and then testified about political pressure, stolen evidence, and an alleged bribe offer from Monsanto.

•

Rigged research from the drug's maker, meticulously designed to cover up health problems.

•

A scientist who did rbGH research for Monsanto, and then became the drug's lead reviewer at the FDA.

•

Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, who was in charge of FDA policy when rbGH was approved. He later became Monsanto's vice president.

Get Our Milk Off Drugs, Part 1

Milk from rbGH-treated cows may increase risk of cancer

Growth hormones are created in the pituitary gland. Back in the 1930s, they discovered that injecting cows with their own pituitary extracts boosted milk production. But the process was too expensive and not commercially viable-until genetic engineering came along.

Monsanto scientists took the cow gene that creates growth hormones, altered it, and inserted it into E. coli bacteria to create a living drug factory. The bacteria-created hormone is similar, but not identical to the naturally occurring variety. Monsanto marketed it under the brand name Posilac. It is also called recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) or recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST).When injected into a cow, it boosts their whole metabolism. Milk production goes up by about 5%. But cows often get sick and die young.

Approved in the United States in 1993, by 2002 rbGH was used on 22% of the nation's dairy cows. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

Milk from treated cows is different from normal milk. It has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, higher levels of the hormone insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is one of the most powerful growth hormones in the human body and is naturally present in cows' milk.

Milk drinkers increase their IGF-1 levels. One study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10524386 showed a 10% increase. Another http://www.fass.org/FASStrack/news_item.asp?news_id=689, analyzing diets of more than 1,000 nurses, showed milk was the food most associated with high IGF-1 levels. Neither of these studies used milk from cows treated with rbGH. If they had, the results may have been considerably more significant, since levels of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows can be up to 10 times higher http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7968112?dopt=Abstract, and according to rbGH expert Samuel Epstein MD, detection methods may underestimate the amount and impact of this increase by up to forty fold http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/WhatsInYourMilkRelease.htm.

High IGF-1 levels is a huge cancer risk, according to more than three dozen studies. A Harvard study http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5350/563 of 15,000 white males found those with elevated blood levels to be four times more likely to get prostate cancer than average men. In a Lancet study http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)10384-1/abstract, premenopausal US women below age 50 with high IGF-1 levels were seven times as likely to develop breast cancer. "With the exception of a strong family history of breast cancer," the authors warned, "the relation between IGF-1 and risk of breast cancer may be greater than that of other established breast cancer risk factors." The International Journal of Cancer http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1457013 described a "significant association between circulating IGF-1 concentrations and an increased risk of lung, colon, prostate, and pre-menopausal breast cancer." A 1999 European Commission report concluded: "Avoidance of rbGH dairy products in favor of natural products would appear to be the most practical and immediate dietary intervention to . . . (achieve) the goal of preventing cancer."

There are a few ways in which IGF-1 may promote cancer. It causes cells to divide. It reduces programmed cell death (apoptosis) in tumor cells. And it inhibits the ability of various anti-cancer drugs to kill cultured human breast cancer cells.

The link between IGF-1 and cancer prompted the American Nurses Association to call for the elimination of rbGH in dairy production. The American Medical Association's past president urged hospitals to serve only rbGH-free milk, and over 160 hospitals have already pledged to do so. Schools nationwide have also banned drugged milk.

Consumer reaction has prompted a tipping point in the dairy industry. Over the last three years, companies such as Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and more than half of the nation's top 100 dairies have committed to stop using rbGH in some or all of their products. But the Kansas legislation, if not vetoed by Governor Sebelius, would require all brands that sell rbGH-free in the state, including national brands, to add a large and deceptive disclaimer to their package which falsely claims that rbGH does not change the quality of the milk. The bill even dictates the placement of the disclaimer. This would likely discourage some dairies from making rbGH-free claims on their package. And without that, they might also abandon their rbGH-free status altogether.

In short, this misguided legislation may ultimately take away your choices for healthier milk and promote cancer.

Please email Governor Sebelius http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/TakeAction/GovernorSebilius/index.cfm?, asking her to veto this misguided bill, before the April 16th deadline.

Also check out the video http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/rBGHinDairyProducts/index.cfm. Drink rbGH-free milk http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/Non-GMOShoppingGuide/Sourcesfornon-rBGHDairy/index.cfm?. And check back with Jeffrey Smith's blog http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith on Huffington Post for more to come on rbGH, including hijacked regulators, fired whistleblowers, suppressed news coverage, and more.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology http://www.responsibletechnology.org/, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to http://www.responsibletechnology.org/ to learn more about how to avoid GM foods. The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Prof. Paddy Cunningham, who is the Irish Government Chief Scientific Adviser, recently worked as a consultant for the US company Elanco, a division of the US pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Co. which markets Posilac's rbGH, despite the fact that it is illegal in the EU.

Prof Cunningham is also a member of the biotech lobby group European Action on Global Life Sciences (EAGLES), a task force of the European Federation of Biotechnology whose members comprise numerous biotech and pharmaceutical industry groups including Monsanto Europe, the Association of German Biotech Companies, the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (USA), etc. He is also a member of the Irish National Council on Bioethics, whose 2005 report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" was a masterfully crafted work of biotech industry spin which concluded that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself". Cunningham is also the former Chairman of the EU Advisory Committee on the Future of Biotechnology, and a former member of the European Group on Life Sciences. These conflicts of interest are unacceptable!

For details see:

Call for Chief Scientific Adviser to Resign:
Prof Paddy Cunningham exposed as biotech industry lobbyist
GM-free Ireland press release, 18 July 2008:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI40.pdf

6 April 2009

Friedman researchers' ethics questioned for feeding children genetically modified rice

Tufts Daily, 6 April 2009. By Michael Del Maro:
http://tiny.cc/DeDPc

Researchers at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy [at Tufts University in Boston, USA] have come under fire for a study involving feeding genetically modified food to children.

In February, a group of 32 scientists from around the world sent an open letter to the school, citing code violations and inadequate preparatory research. A Wales-based group against genetically modified food coordinated the initiative.

The study, which took place last year, studied the extent to which a genetically modified form of rice, known as Golden Rice, can be used to combat vitamin A deficiency, which may be responsible for 500,000 cases of blindness per year. Golden Rice is fortified with vitamin A.

According to the 32 scientists who signed the letter, the study violated the Nuremberg Code, a set of ethical research principles for experiments conducted on humans, because it was conducted on children between the ages of six and 10 and did not take into account risks associated with excessive vitamin A in the body.

The letter was addressed to Professor Emeritus Robert Russell, who stepped down in July as director of the Jean Mayer United States Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging. He denied that Tufts had violated any ethical boundaries.

The scientists called the use of human subjects for genetically-modified feeding experiments "completely unacceptable" and said that all of the trials should be suspended until the researchers can prove that they followed medical ethical guidelines.

Tufts issued a formal response to the letter stating that the university "fully supports its researchers and their work with Golden Rice." The statement also said that the entire study followed the necessary research procedures and received approval from internal review boards in the United States and China.

Joe Cummins, a professor emeritus of genetics at the University of Western Ontario and one of the signatories of the letter, said he would not have opposed the study if animal testing had been conducted before feeding the rice to children.

"I found it rather outrageous in the sense that the children were brought into the study prior to the use of experimental animals," Cummins told the Daily. "That seems backwards to me... It shouldn't really be a jump directly from the crop to the children without adequate testing."

Russell said that animal testing would have been "meaningless" because animals break down beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, in a much different way than humans do, making the study of the animal process inapplicable to the human case.

Humans do not directly digest vitamin A but rather produce it as a result of the metabolizing of beta-carotene. The precursor is present in many vegetables naturally, including carrots and spinach, but these foods are not widely available for some children in the developing world, which has led to the exploration of genetically modified rice.

But Cummins explained that studies have shown that certain levels of vitamin A and its precursors can be toxic for humans.

"There are well-established studies that show that even those [foods] with vitamin A precursors can cause toxicity in people who are overexposed to them," he said, citing a particular study in Japan that resulted in vitamin A poisoning in a young girl.

The levels of beta-carotene found in the singular meal of Golden Rice fed to the students during the study, however, were ten times less than those found in a carrot, according to Russell.

Cummins also decried what he called a troubling trend of researchers feeding children genetically modified foods.

With respect to the Friedman School study, he said his main contention was that proper informed consent was never obtained.

But Russell denied that assertion.

"That's a ridiculous accusation, totally untrue," Russell told the Daily. "We underwent every single approval – both in the U.S. and in China – that was needed."

Russell said the researchers received approval from both country's governments as well the Food and Drug Administration and got informed consent from the parents of the children who were fed the rice. If any of the children showed a reluctance to participate, they were not required to take part in the study.

According to Russell, researchers also gave the students school supplies as a form of non-monetary compensation for their participation in the study.

Researchers observed no negative side effects, he added.

Though the official results of the study will likely be released in several months, Russell said preliminary analyses have shown high levels of bioavailability – the degree to which the rice can be used in the body – in some of the children's blood samples. The feeding study caused no reported allergies or adverse reactions.

Russell said the accusations from the scientific community were likely attributable to a more general negative attitude toward genetically modified foods.

"In the [United States], we have a very different attitude towards genetic modification than Europe has; we are exposed to those products and have been for a long time," he said. "These are politically motivated people, and I'm sorry that they feel these extremes."

Local farmers are banding together to start a feed mill

Charlotte Observer (North Carolina, USA), 7 April 2009. By Dean Mullins:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/508/story/649844.html

My neighbor Carl Wagner and I went to a gathering of local farmers who want to restart an old feed mill.

Local feed mills, along with hardware stores and farm supply stores, are part of the backbone of locally grown food.

Danny Safrit and Aaron Ritchie are spearheading the project. They are dissatisfied with the quality of feed available for their pastured poultry and pigs and have decided to do something about it. They'll have their work cut out for them just to get back to the quality of livestock feed ingredients that was available 10 years ago. Today, more than 90 percent of the corn and soybeans in North Carolina are genetically modified (GMO).This year, Danny and Aaron will have to use the grains local farmers have in their bins, which are probably GMO, but it is a step in the right direction. They plan to roast the corn and soybeans before grinding into feed.

That may not sound like a big deal, but it is. Soybean meal is the most common protein source for livestock feed in this area. The oil from soybeans is extracted in plants in Raleigh and Fayetteville using benzene. What is left over is the meal.

The next step will be lining up farmers to grow corn and soybeans that are non-GMO but are still grown using herbicides.

Attack of the Superweeds
As use of Roundup Ready seed grows, some weeds have become resistant

Journal Star, 6 April 2009. By Steve Tarter:
http://www.pjstar.com/business/x90676933/Attack-of-the-Superweeds

PEORIA ò Farm fields in central Illinois may look quiet now, but the upcoming planting season will see a return to an annual battle - and anticipated resistance.

Weed resistance to the herbicides farmers routinely apply to keep fields clear is a growing issue as weed control is often considered the biggest challenge in crop production, according to the University of Illinois Extension.

Farm chemicals come in a variety of forms - herbicides that control weeds, insecticides to kill bugs and fungicides to ward off disease - and represent a multibillion-dollar industry.

More than $1.6 billion was spent on fertilizers and pesticides in Illinois alone during 2006, the last year figures were available from the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Biotech seed is also part of the story. The development of seed with built-in traits such as insecticide or resistance to a specific herbicide like glyphosate has changed the farm landscape over the past decade - especially in Illinois, where biotech crops dominate.

More than 90 percent of the state's soybeans are Roundup Ready, the brand name devised by the St. Louis-based Monsanto Corp. for its glyphosate-resistant seed that hit the market in the mid-1990s. More than 50 percent of Illinois corn is a Roundup Ready variety, according to the U of I Extension.

The reason the Roundup Ready brand has taken over the market so rapidly is its simplicity and effectiveness, said Floyd Heller, general manager of farm co-op Agland FS, from his Pekin office. "Glyphosate kills what it touches and doesn't hang around," he said.

The rapid adoption of Roundup Ready hasn't surprised Oregon-based Chuck Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, a not-for-profit organization founded in 2002 by the organic food industry.

"Farmers have embraced the technology because it greatly simplifies soybean weed management," he said. "RR technology has also given farmers a welcome alternative to the use of low-dose herbicides that are plagued by often serious problems."

One of the claims supporting biotech seed may not be true - that genetically enhanced seed means using less herbicide, he said.

"Roundup Ready tends to reduce herbicide use for two to three years, but then there starts to be a shift in the weed community," he said.

That shift involves weed resistance - resistance that grows every year, said Benbrook. "Illinois farmers are dealing with two to three different (glyphosate) resistant weeds," he said. "Our research shows that for every acre of Roundup Ready seed applied, two-thirds to three-quarters of a pound more herbicide per acre is used than conventional seed.

"Farmers are just beginning to deal with a serious resistance problem," he said.

Outbreaks of so-called "superweeds" that defy herbicide treatments will become more common, said Benbrook. "That's the future for central Illinois."

Farmers like Brian Heiser of Minier are aware of the resistance issue. "It's a possibility we all have to be concerned about," he said. "With any herbicide, it's a concern but not a huge concern."

Monsanto is dealing with the resistance issue, said spokesman Darren Wallis. "We've identified only a small number of Roundup Ready resistant weeds -12. Roundup has been around for many decades and still controls over 300 weeds," he said.

Monsanto will launch a new Roundup Ready formulation for the soybean market this year. The new seed will be introduced on 1 million to 2 million U.S. soybean acres this year with an expanded release (more than 5 million acres) in 2010, the company noted.

While resistance is one issue farmers will face, another is the rising cost of putting a crop - whether corn or soybeans - in the ground.

Seed and fertilizer costs went up 40 percent between 2003 to 2007, said Dale Laatz, U of I Extension farm financial management specialist. Farm income also rose in that period, especially in central Illinois, he said. In 2008, the average net farm income for the state's central region, an area that includes Peoria, Tazewell and Woodford counties, was $255,900, the highest in the state, said Laatz.

Genetically modified seed is also reaching new heights, said Benbrook. "You're probably looking at the first $300 bag (for about 50 pounds) of (corn) seed this year. Farmers that used to spend between $15 and $20 a pound on seed per acre are now spending $100," he said.

Steve Tarter can be reached at 696-3260 or starter@pjstar.com.

---

Comment from GM Watch:

Whatever the problems, as above, for GM corn and soy farmers, it's worth remembering that U.S. cotton farmers are already further down the track, with the severity of weed resistance now directly contributing to diminishing cotton acreage in the U.S.

Could clones be hiding out in ice-cream?

FoodNavigator.com, 6 April 2009. By Jess Halliday:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Could-clones-be-hiding-out-in-ice-cream

Ben & Jerry's campaign to ensure produce from clones is detectable in the food chain shows that bundling biotech in with conventional produce remains unacceptable - but lessons from GM do not seem to have been learned.

Last week the Unilever-owned ice-cream brand revealed that a website purporting to sell 'perfect milk from perfect [cloned] cows' was an April Fools' prank - but a prank with a serious message.

It was intended to raise awareness that produce from the progeny of cloned animals may be in the food chain - but no-one, manufacturer nor consumer, can tell it from conventional produce.

The FDA gave its scientific conclusion in January 2008 that meat and milk from cloned cows, pigs and goats and their offspring are safe. Since the FDA acts as both risk assessor and risk manager, in the US (unlike in Europe) there is no separate legal process to herald the advent of cloned food.

The presence of such milk and meat in the food chain is, for now, an assumption made by the Center for Food Safety (Ben & Jerry's campaign partner) based on the fact that semen from cloned bulls is being sold, including semen from dairy breeds. But according to the Center for Food Safety, cloning companies have only agreed that live animals will wear RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags. Dairy and meat products derived from them will be utterly undistinguishable from ordinary dairy and meat.

The issue rekindles questions that hung over the regulation of GM produce in the 1990s: Whether it is the process or the final product that should be regulated; and how consumers can possibly avoid a biotech diet if they chose to.

Regulatory structures tend to take a product-based view of GM, rather than a process based view. A GM soy bean is still a soy bean, no matter how it came into being.

Current thinking seems to be that milk is milk, whether or not a parent of the cow it came from has a hundred identical counterparts.

Biotech opponents do not swallow this. They argue that we still don't know the long-term implications of playing with a plant's genes, either for human health or for the environment.

Campaigners are similarly unconvinced about the sense of copying a cow. They say that small imbalances in clones have hidden food safety consequence for milk or meat, and the novelty of the technology means no long-term studies have been done.

This article does not - cannot - answer the ethical and environmental debates buzzing around biotech and cloning. But consumer views are inevitably influenced by public debate, and Ben & Jerry's is not the only company taking consumer wariness onboard and pledging their food will not come from animals with clones in the family tree.

But without proper traceability, how can they possibly keep to this promise?

In the 1990s UK supermarket Iceland led the charge towards GM traceability, using polymerised chain reaction technology to test for GM DNA in its soy products. And since that was not always reliable, it then audited its entire supply chain - from the field, through processing and manufacturing, right up to the point where they put it on the shelves.

Only that way could it assure consumers that its foods were non-GM.

Food from the progeny of clones may not be [in] the US food chain now. It may never be. But the wider industry and the consumers they serve do not know, and they cannot know unless proper traceability is in place.

When it comes to food, ignorance is not bliss. It is deeply disturbing.

Jess Halliday is editor of award-winning website FoodNavigator.com. Over the past twelve years she has worked in print, broadcast and online media in both Europe and the United States. If you would like to comment on this article, please email jess.halliday'at'decisionnews.com

---

Comment from TraceConsult™

The rather thought-provoking April Fools' prank of Unilever-owned Ben & Jerry's ice cream company (see our eNews item of 1 April) carries on. - Both the European and the U.S. issue of FOODnavigator take the issue even further in their weekly comment today - right to the point where it belongs naturally. That point is called traceability.

In light of the dwindling confidence, private consumers on either side of the North Atlantic have in food safety and in certain claims made by retailers and brand owners, no supplier of raw ingredients, half finished products or processed foods will be able much longer to defend his claims made in a convincing manner unless he can demonstrate batch-related traceability for his ingredients.

Market-savvy Unilever has realized the trend of the times and cooperates with the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org, a non-profit organization that is not exactly known for big time funding from the food industry. It is rather an outspoken critic of GMO food and a strong proponent of GMO labeling http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm - still a comparatively rare position in the U.S.

It is only consequential of the author to take our attention all the way back to the 1990s when UK retailer Iceland was the first to install GMO traceability in its supply chains. Who said there was anything new under the sun?

Can organic cropping systems be as profitable as conventional systems?
• Results show that diversified systems are more profitable than monocropping

American Society of Agronomy, 6-Apr-2009:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/asoa-coc040609.php

MADISON, WI, April 6, 2009 – Which is a better strategy, specializing in one crop or diversified cropping? Is conventional cropping more profitable than organic farming? Is it less risky?

To answer these questions, the University of Wisconsin's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and Michael Fields Agricultural Institute agronomists established the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (WICST) in 1990. This research is funded by USDA-ARS.

Systems ranging from species-diverse pasture and organic systems to more specialized conventional alfalfa-based forage and corn-based grain systems were compared at two sites in southern Wisconsin from 1993 to 2006.

Crop production analysis was published in the 2008 MarchàApril issue of Agronomy Journal while this companion article focuses on the net returns and associated risk exposure of these systems. Full research results from this current study are presented by Chavas et al. in the 2009 MarchàApril issue of Agronomy Journal.

"In our study we found that diversified systems were more profitable than monocropping," explains Joshua Posner, University of Wisconsin.

With feed grade premiums the organic systems were more profitable than the Midwestern standards of continuous corn, no-till corn and soybeans, and intensively managed alfalfa.

Rotational grazing of dairy heifers was as profitable as the organic systems. And to our surprise, including risk premiums into the evaluation did not change the ranking of the systems. This study indicates that governmental policy that supports mono-culture systems is outdated and support should be shifted to programs that promote crop rotations and organic farming practices.

---

The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary.
View the abstract at http://tiny.cc/AcnEv

A peer-reviewed international journal of agriculture and natural resource sciences, Agronomy Journal is published six times a year by the American Society of Agronomy, with articles relating to original research in soil science, crop science, agroclimatology and agronomic modeling, production agriculture, and software. For more information visit: http://agron.scijournals.org.

The American Society of Agronomy (ASA) http://www.agronomy.org, is a scientific society helping its 8,000+ members advance the disciplines and practices of agronomy by supporting professional growth and science policy initiatives, and by providing quality, research-based publications and a variety of member services.

Regulating coexistence: Another barrier on the path of genetically engineered crops in Europe?

ISB News Report April 2009 By Matty Demont, Yann Devos and Olivier Sanvido:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/regulating_coexistence_another_barrier_path_genetically_engineered_crops_europe

While global cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) crops exceeded 100 million hectares for the first time in 2006, the only GE crop currently cultivated in the European Union (EU) is Monsanto's Bt maize event MON810. Nevertheless, throughout 2006 and 2007, the area planted with Bt maize, which is resistant to the European corn borer, almost doubled in the EU to reach the 100 thousand hectare milestone, spread over Spain, predominantly, and six other EU Member States.

In 2008, France banned the cultivation of maize MON810 on its territory. Given the specific regulations in the EU on labeling and traceability of GE products and on threshold values for the adventitious presence of GE material in non-GE crop products, the question arises whether GE crops can 'coexist' with conventional and organic farming while still preserving consumers' freedom of choice.

According to the European Commission (EC), coexistence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic, and GE crop production while complying with the legal obligations for labeling and/or purity standards3. More specifically, coexistence is concerned with the potential economic impact of the admixture of GE and non-GE crops. The EC published detailed and pragmatic recommendations for the development of coexistence regulations, which are to be developed and implemented at national or regional levels.

Coexistence can thereby be regulated at two levels: ex post regulations are backward-looking, whereas ex ante regulations are forward-looking. Since the publication of the EC recommendations for the development of national coexistence strategies, Member States have developed a diversity of ex ante regulations and ex post liability rules to ensure the coexistence of GE and non-GE crops4.

Economic incentives for coexistence

In scientific and regulatory communities, the coexistence debate centers mainly on (i) preventive coexistence measures needed to keep the adventitious presence of GE material in non-GE products below established tolerance thresholds, (ii) the feasibility and costs of implementing such measures, (iii) segregation costs and potential economic losses resulting from adventitiously co-mingled products, (iv) who should bear the costs of coexistence measures, and (v) who should redress the incurred economic losses due to adventitious mixing5-7. While these aspects are of fundamental importance when discussing national coexistence strategies, they do not take into account the economic incentives for coexistence.

Economic incentives for coexistence consist either of (i) the adoption of GE crops as a way to capture GE gains or (ii) the identity preservation (IP) of non-GE crops as a way to capture IP gains. GE gains represent economic benefits relating to the adoption of GE crops, whilst IP gains stand for the total additional income generated by price premiums captured for non-GE crops compared with GE crops. If there is a substantial demand for non-GE crops, this will be reflected by a market price premium for IP crops.

However, if the content of GE material in IP crops exceeds the legal tolerance threshold of 0.9%, non-GE crops have to be labeled as 'containing GE material' and commercialized at the same price level as GE crops, without yielding any price premium3. Even though IP crops do not have to be labeled, it is still the case that costly IP activities can be necessary to guarantee the truthfulness of the (implicit) 'non-GE' claim.

The balance between GE gains following the adoption of GE crops and price premiums paid for IP crops largely dictates the share of GE and non-GE crops in a given region and therefore the need for explicit coexistence measures5. If one of the incentives is lacking, coexistence is not a concern because either GE or non-GE crops will not be cultivated. Farmers will only adopt GE crops-and thus invest in imposed coexistence measures-if the benefits of using GE crops exceed the costs associated with the technology plus the costs of implementing coexistence measures. Other farmer segments might gain more from preserving the 'non-GE' status of their production: where price premiums for IP products can be captured due to higher market prices, farmers opting for non-GE crops will have economic incentives to apply coexistence measures.

Regulating coexistence

Two types of national ex ante coexistence strategies have so far been proposed to keep the adventitious presence of GE material in non-GE products due to outcrossing below legal tolerance thresholds: isolation distances and pollen barriers. Isolation distances are rules governing the minimum distance between GE and non-GE crop fields of the same species. They are an efficient strategy to reduce the extent of cross-fertilization but may not always be feasible in practice, especially in areas where the GE crop is grown on a substantial part of the agricultural area and/or where crop fields are small and scattered throughout the cropped area.

If a farmer's GE crop field is located too closely to a neighboring farmer's non-GE crop field and both farmers do not concur with their respective cropping intentions, the GE crop field will have to be planted with other crops or the same crop species but with a non-GE variety. Hence isolation distances normally entail rigidity for the farmer forced to implement coexistence measures.

Pollen barriers, in contrast, are coexistence measures that give farmers more flexibility, as these consist of field margins planted with non-GE crops of the same species. These serve as cross-fertilization buffer zones between GE and non-GE varieties of the same crops and can be planted on both donor or recipient fields5. This introduces a degree of flexibility for the regulation of coexistence, as farmers adopting GE crops could be allowed to contract out the implementation of coexistence measures to their non-GE neighbors in return for a compensatory payment (in case the latter option is cheaper).

Most of the currently proposed coexistence regulations incorporate both ex ante and ex post regulatory rigidity. Relaxing some of the regulatory rigidity in ex ante regulations would reduce the regulatory burden on GE crops and avoid jeopardizing economic incentives for coexistence5. Instead of specifying fixed isolation distances, policy makers could prescribe mandatory pollen barrier widths, and leave neighboring farmers the option to decide where and by whom the barrier is to be planted.

However, if any adventitious mixing occurs that affects the welfare of farmers and consumers, GE farmers would be held ex post liable for negligence. Hence, they would have to pay ex post tort liability costs if they did not comply with the ex ante coexistence regulations4. A recent case study focusing on the interplay between incentives and costs of coexistence suggests that large and fixed isolation distances are not proportional to the economic incentives of coexistence7.

Under low IP gains (when consumers are not willing to pay significant price premiums for non-GE crops), large and fixed isolation distances generate substantial opportunity costs for GE crop producers, as the latter forego GE gains, whilst they are hardly capturing any compensatory IP gains. Under these conditions, if farmers still incur costs due to mere compliance with EU coexistence laws, coexistence costs would not reflect (and hence, would not be proportional to) the economic incentives for coexistence, simply because the incentive- capturing IP gains-is lacking. On the other hand, under high IP gains (when consumers are willing to pay substantial price premiums for non-GE crops), some farmers who forego GE gains will attempt to compensate for these opportunity costs by planting non-GE crops and trying to capture IP gains by avoiding any adventitious mixing from GE crops. However, in doing so, they risk triggering a domino effect at the landscape level that will affect farmers' freedom of choice to grow GE crops.

The domino effect is a dynamic spill-over effect of farmer decisions induced by enforcing large isolation distances on potential ISB News Report April 2009 GE crop adopters. It consists of the iterative process of farmers switching their planting intentions from 'GE' to 'IP' crops to comply with isolation distances and thereby restricting the planting options of neighboring farmers. The domino effect exacerbates the non-proportionality of large isolation distances by reducing GE crop planting options in the landscape and raising opportunity costs for GE crop adopters7.

Farmers will only have an incentive to supply IP crops if consumers have (i) strong and sustainable preferences for non- GE crops and (ii) are willing to pay significant price premiums for them. If the opposite holds, there is no coexistence issue stricto sensu and coexistence costs will purely reflect the costs of compliance with EU coexistence laws instead of the economic incentives for coexistence. Non-GE crops will not necessarily become more expensive in absolute terms. It may well be that, in equilibrium, average crop prices decrease as a result of the cost-reducing effect of the GE technology and negative consumer preferences for GE crops, while IP crops are sold at the pre-existing non-GE crop prices.

Conclusion

Rigid coexistence regulations are not proportional to the economic incentives for coexistence, especially in the absence of strong market signals for non-GE crops. Instead, we argue that flexible measures respect the proportionality condition, are less counterproductive for European agriculture and, hence, are more consistent with the coexistence objectives established by the EC.

Therefore, we recommend flexible ex ante coexistence regulations, complemented by rigid and clearly defined ex post liability rules. Our arguments provide a timely framework for EU policy makers who currently face the challenge of implementing coherent national coexistence regulations for the heterogeneous landscape of European agriculture.

Hence, to finally respond to our title question, we would argue that regulating coexistence could place another barrier on the path of GE crops in Europe, unless sufficient flexibility is incorporated such that farmers can spontaneously respond to economic incentives.

References

1. Devos Y, Demont M & Sanvido O (2008) Coexistence in the EU - return of the moratorium on GM crops? Nature Biotechnol. 26, 1223-1225

2. http://www.europabio.org and http://www.internutrition.ch

3. EC (2003) Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Official Journal of the European Communities L189, 36-47

4. Beckmann V, Soregaroli C & Wesseler J (2006) Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 88, 1193-1199

5. Demont M & Devos Y (2008) Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives. Trends Biotechnol. 26, 353-358

6. Devos Y, Demont M, Dillen K, Reheul D, Kaiser M & Sanvido O (2009) Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 11-30

7. Demont M, Daems W, Dillen K, Mathijs E, Sausse C & Tollens E (2008) Regulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect! Ecol. Econ. 64, 683-689

Matty Demont, Agricultural Economist
Africa Rice Center (WARDA), Saint-Louis, Senegal and previously Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, Belgium
m.demont@cgiar.org

Yann Devos, Post-Doctoral Researcher
Department of Plant Production, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium yann.devos@efsa.europa.eu

Olivier Sanvido, Scientific Officer
Agroscope Reckenholz Tänikon Research Station ART, Switzerland olivier.sanvido@art.admin.ch

Biotech crops' global value reaches $7.5 billion

CheckBiotech.org, 6 April 2009. By Rudy A. Fernandez:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/biotech_crops_global_value_reaches_75_billion

MANILA, Philippines - The global market value of biotechnology crops reached $7.5 billion in 2008, up from $6.9 billion in 2007.

Last year's $7.5 billion represented 14 percent Dr. Clive James, founder and current board chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

New York (USA)-based ISAAA is a not-for-profit organization with an international network of centers designed to contribute to the alleviation of hunger and poverty by sharing knowledge and crop biotechnology applications.

The network includes the Southeast Asia Center based in Los Baños, Laguna, headed by Dr. Randy Hautea, currently ISAAA global coordinator and former director of the University of the Philippines Los Baños-Institute of Plant Breeding (UPLB-IPB).

Dr. James' report, titled "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008", was presented by Dr. Hautea and former UP president Dr. Emil Q. Javier at a media forum last Feb. 12 at the Richmonde Hotel in Pasig City.

In his report, the Welsh-born research administrator projected that the global value of the biotech crop market for 2009 is approximately $8.3 billion.

Of the genetically modified (GM) crops produced in 2008, biotech maize constituted the biggest chunk of the global biotech market - $3.6 billion or 48 percent.

It was followed by soybean, $2.8 billion (37 percent); cotton, $0.9 billion (12 percent); and canola, $0.2 billion (three percent).

The other biotech crops raised in 2008 in 25 countries were papaya, squash, tomato, sweet pepper, alfalfa, poplar, petunia, carnation, and sugar beet.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The ISAAA's figures for the acceptance of GM crops have been thoroughly discredited. For example, when the UK watchdog organisation, GM Freeze, analysed ISAAA figures for GM maize planting in the EU for 2007 compared with Monsanto's figures in their post market monitoring report, it found that the ISAAA exaggerated the actual area by 400%! For more information see:

Q & As on ISAAA - behind industry's GM "Global Status Report"
GM Freeze (UK), 29 January 2009
http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/ISAAA_Q&A_2009.pdf

Organic food sales not hit by recession

Irish Independent (Health and Living), 6 April 2009:
http://www.independent.ie

Sales of organic food are continuing to grow despite the recession, the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA) has reported.

Sales have grown 11pc over the last year.

A survey found that two thirds of those who buy organic food said that their purchases would stay at the same level or grow this year despite the downturn.

IOFGA is the largest organic certification organisation in Ireland, representing approx 1,000 farmers, growers and processors. Further information is available on www.iofga.org

5 April 2009

GMO Pushers and the Junkies They Create • Say NO to GMOs

Farm Wars, 5 April 2009. By Barbara H. Peterson:
http://farmwars.info/?p=388

I remember when buying seed was simply buying seed. You went to the feed store and purchased as many bags of seed that you needed, paid for it, loaded it in your truck, and went home to plant: simple, effective, and economical. Seed was saved for the next year's planting, and that was normal. Not so anymore. Now a simple farmer must sign a grower's contract with agribusiness giants in order to gain permission to plant GM (Genetically Modified) crops, which gives the seed company the right to monitor his farming operation, go onto his property to take samples anytime and anywhere it wants to, and to literally shut his operation down for non-compliance with the contract.

The Agreement

Why do farmers get tangled up in this mess? Probably because they have swallowed the lie that GM crops are beneficial, are thinking about higher profits, less work, and don't take the time to read the fine print in the documents they sign. Now they are stuck. It's either comply or go broke, and so the cycle continues.

Which brings me to the following question: when did we stop reading what we sign? Let me ask you a personal question. Do you read everything that you agree to whether it is in writing or via electronic medium? If you do, you are in the minority. Let's take those agreements that we have to agree to every time we download a program. Do you read them? Do you go through all of the fine print and understand all of the terms and conditions? I didn't think so. You're not alone, neither does Congress. Not one Congressman read the entire Stimulus Package before it was signed. Reading the entire thing in as short a period as they were given was impossible. And so it is with farmers. Oh, they have the time to read the fine print, but do they?

I cannot imagine agreeing with the following statement that comes directly from the Monsanto Technology Use Agreement Terms and Conditions (TUA) for Roundup Ready Canola:

Item #4 The Grower grants Monsanto the right to inspect, take samples and test all of the Grower's owned and/or leased fields planted with canola, or any other land farmed by the Grower, and to monitor the Grower's canola fields and storage bins for the following three years for compliance with the terms of this Agreement...

Okay, so let me get this straight. Let's say that I am a farmer, and I go into a store and buy Roundup Ready Canola seeds and sign the agreement. I plant the seeds, and after realizing that I would rather not use the seed again next year, I must make sure that I completely clean the fields, storage bins, seed cleaning equipment, and any place that a seed might get lodged and actually grow, because Monsanto can come in and inspect my fields and equipment for three years after my purchase to make sure that I am in compliance. If the company finds a Roundup Ready Canola plant anywhere on my property, then I am in violation of the agreement and the following paragraph of the Agreement comes into play:

Item #5 If the Grower violates any of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement, the Grower shall forfeit any right to obtain any Agreement in the future and this Agreement may, at Monsanto's option be terminated immediately. In the event of any use of the Roundup Ready canola seed, which is not specifically authorized in this Agreement, the Grower agrees that Monsanto will incur a substantial risk of losing control of Roundup Ready Canola seed and that it may not be possible to accurately determine the amount of Monsanto's damages. The Grower therefore agrees:

a) to pay Monsanto $15.00 per acre for every acre planted with Roundup Ready Canola seed not covered by this Agreement; and b) to deliver to Monsanto or its designated agent, at the Grower's expense, all seed containing the Roundup Ready gene that results from the unauthorized use of Roundup Ready Canola; or at Monsanto's option, the Grower shall destroy all crop containing the Roundup Ready gene resulting from the unauthorized use of Roundup Ready Canola;...

But wait, it gets even better. Not only have I bound myself to this Agreement, I have also bound my heirs:

Item #6 The Terms and Conditions of this Agreement are personal to the Grower and shall be binding and have full force and effect on the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and permitted assigns of the Grower...

In other words, I have bound my sons and daughters to an agreement that they had no knowledge of, and did not consent to.

So how does one go about getting out of the iron grip of the GMO giants? Well, the sad truth is, most farmers can't. It is a vicious cycle. If you have 1000 acres planted with GM Canola, and decide to get rid of the GMOs on your farm, you are in for a gigantic undertaking, and not one that most can accomplish because of the cost. If you don't get your fields completely clean of the GM gene, you owe Monsanto $15,000 unless you go through every single plant on every square inch of your land and pay to get it tested by Monsanto because they have the patent on the progeny and all methods of testing.

So, you pay the $15,000. But it is not over yet, because at Monsanto's option, the company can order you to "destroy all crop containing the Roundup Ready gene," and to "deliver to Monsanto or its designated agent, at the Grower's expense, all seed containing the Roundup Ready gene.." And just how do you tell the difference between a Roundup Ready seed and a normal one? And if you could somehow tell the difference, what does it take to go through the thousands upon thousands of seeds to sort them? Then there are the plants. I am told that one cannot tell the difference between a GM plant and a normal plant with the naked eye. So, only Monsanto knows how, and the company isn't telling. That's patented information. So the farmer is in a position to either just go along with the program and continue to plant GM seeds, or risk losing everything if he cannot come up with the funds to wipe his farm clean of GM, if that is even possible. And this goes on for three years following your purchase of the GM seeds, with Monsanto monitoring every move.

Enter horizontal gene transfer. You've got it folks; this is the nightmare that plagues us all, but especially the farmer wanting to get rid of GMOs.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism.

According to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, of the Institute of Science in Society,

Horizontal gene transfer is one of the most serious, if not the most serious hazard of transgenic technology. I have been drawing our regulators' attention to it at least since 1996 [1], when there was already sufficient evidence to suggest that transgenic DNA in GM crops and products can spread by being taken up directly by viruses and bacteria as well as plant and animals cells.

Now I don't know, even if you have undergone the strictest of cleaning methods for your 1000-acre farm, if you can even use the soil due to horizontal gene transfer. What do you do? Remove 1000 acres of topsoil? And to what depth? Then do you truck more topsoil in, hoping that it hasn't seen any GMOs?

This is the stranglehold that Monsanto and the other giant GMO pushers have on farmers. Once the farmer gets hooked, just like a Heroin junkie, he must go to the dealer to get his fix every year, or risk losing everything. And we are just getting started.

HR 875, 814, and 759

Here come HR 875, 814, and 759. Now we are talking about the animal kingdom and the genetic modification of our cows, sheep, goats, chickens, you name it. Genetically modified salmon are already in the marketplace. But how do I make the leap from animal tracking to GM chickens? These bills don't mention anything about GM animals.

Think about it. Monsanto purchased Seminis Seeds, the largest seed supplier in the world, after reinventing itself from a chemical company to an agribusiness. It also is responsible for flooding the world with GM seeds and plants, without regard for the human or ecological cost, much like it did with Agent Orange and DDT. Monsanto also has a draconian method of dealing with farmers who do not comply with the Agreement they sign in order to plant its GM abominations.

The regulations in these bills are much like the onerous Agreement that farmers must comply with in order to cultivate Monsanto crops, only much, much worse. And with GMO backers Taylor and Vilsack in key government positions, what could be better for the agribusiness giant? A "made for Monsanto" situation. These bills are draconian in their regulation of smaller farmers and ranchers, which is right up Monsanto's alley, and are nothing more than the precursor for a GM takeover of the meat market.

So, when Monsanto starts patenting animal genes, and it will, do you think the company will guard these patented genes any less rigorously than the seeds? How much easier will it be for Monsanto to track its patented genes if each and every animal on each and every small farm is traced? Easier yet to purchase the largest animal producers that do not even have to get each animal tagged, just one tag for a whole group of animals.

Enter wholesale tag and bag GMO meat producers. The smaller rancher simply goes away because of the cost. Now Monsanto not only has a stranglehold on plants, but meat as well. And us? Well, we just go to the store and buy whatever frankenfood they allow us to have without knowing what genes it contains, or what effects it will have on us in the future.

Stopping the Takeover

So, am I crazy to think like I do? I don't think so. Look at the evidence and the track record of Monsanto et. al. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the connection, and to understand the consequences of the behind the scenes manipulations of our government corporation and the agribusiness giants. With Monsanto in control, we will all be like junkies going to the dealer for our next fix of GMO, whether it is grain, veggies, fruit, or meat - unless we simply do not comply. This is not as easy as it sounds. It requires boycotting GMOs. It also requires knowing what is GM and what is not. More time is needed in our day for research into the food we eat, and more time is needed to grow what we can.

We can stop this takeover, but it must start on a personal level. We need to get rid of the GMOs in our own lives, and by so doing, the market for such products will dry up. We also need to get the word out to as many people as possible so that they can start eliminating GMOs from their diets. It starts with one person. And yes, it is like withdrawing from drugs. Some will be able to go cold turkey, and others will need to taper off a little at a time. It doesn't matter how you do it, just do it.

4 April 2009

South African GMO Crop Failure Highlights Dangers of Food Supply Domination

Natural News, 4 April 2009. By Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor:
http://www.naturalnews.com/025992.html

[USA –] Worry is building over the effects of the Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2009, otherwise known as HR 875. This is the bill currently working its way through Congress that would effectively hand over control of America's food supply to such a nefarious giant as Monsanto and its lesser counterparts such as Tyson and Cargill. We have a right to worry, because broad interpretation of this bill reveals its potential to put an end to healthy food in America. Family farms, local growers, organic producers, and even backyard gardeners can all be put out of business by its heavy hand. Yet an even greater threat may be looming at the front end of the controversy over the food supply as harvests of genetically modified foods begin to fail.

GMO corn plants fail to produce kernels

Farmers in South Africa have suffered millions of dollars in lost income due to the failure of their genetically modified (GMO) corn to produce kernels. The three varieties of plants look lush and healthy from the outside, but when the husks were pulled back there are no kernels. Monsanto's GMO corn was planted on 82,000 hectares of farmland, an amount that equals over 202,000 acres. The loss is spread over three South African provinces, and 280 of the 1,000 farmers who planted the corn have reported the lack of kernel development.

Monsanto has blamed the failure on under fertilization processes in the laboratory and attempted to make light of the situation by claiming that only 25% of the Monsanto seeded farms are involved in the loss. But Marian Mayet, environmental activist and director of the Africa Centre for Biosecurity in Johannesburg is not buying it. According to her information, some farms have suffered up to an 80% crop failure. She has demanded an urgent government investigation and an immediate ban on all GMO food. She points out that it is biotechnology that is the failure, and a careless mistake would not affect three different varieties of corn at the same time. The varieties failing to produce kernels were designed with a built-in resistance to Monsanto's weed killers, and were manipulated to increase yields.

Mayet is justifiably upset. Corn is the primary staple food for South Africa's 48 million people.

Apparently Monsanto is upset too. It has offered immediate compensation to all the farmers experiencing crop loss. Damage estimates are being collected buy local farmer cooperatives, and Monsanto is standing by with its checkbook. Locals are saying they are satisfied that Monsanto is doing a good job to protect them. This kind of largesse is uncharacteristic of Monsanto, a company more widely known for its use of strong arm and bullying tactics, and total disregard for people's rights. It implies that Mayet's concerns over the failure of bioengineering may be justified.

Monsanto uses insidious plan to gain control of world food supply

Monsanto has pushed around farmers to the point where they cannot simply refuse to buy Monsanto's GMO seeds. In its insidious efforts to feed its bottom line at the expense of feeding people, Monsanto has established itself in countries often with the help of their governments who approve the planting of their GMO Roundup Ready seeds. Initially farmers save, multiply and sell seeds to other farmers as they always have, and the area planted with GM seed multiplies exponentially. Monsanto sits by and watches this happen without a complaint. Then when the spreading of seeds is nearly complete, Monsanto begins to threaten these farmers and call their use of the GMO seed illegal. It gets the government behind them to enforce patent laws.

Soon farmers who are paying patent royalties complain about those who are not. Monsanto answers by enforcing their patents on everyone. By this time the spread of GMO seed is so pervasive that any farmer who has refused is bound to have a few stray GMO plants in his fields. Monsanto seeks them out and then sues the farmers for patent infringement. Farmers who buy Monsanto's GMO seeds are then required to sign an agreement promising not to save seeds or sell them to other farmers. The result is that farmers must buy new seeds every year, and they must buy them from Monsanto.

Meanwhile in the U.S., Monsanto is taking steps to block access to non GMO seeds. They have bought up seed companies across the Midwest, and have gotten legislators to put through laws that make cleaning, collecting and storing seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork that using normal seeds becomes almost impossible. Laws are proposed that ensure farmers cannot block the planting of GMO seeds even if they contaminate other crops. Ownership of seed cleaning equipment is made illegal by considering it a source of seed contamination. More than 1,500 farmers whose fields have been contaminated by GM seeds have been sued for royalty payments.

Monsanto controls over 90% of the patented seed market

Today there is intense concentration and lack of competition in the patented seed crop industry. Monsanto clearly dominates the playing field, controlling over 90% of the market. There is strong evidence that Monsanto uses various devices to squelch emerging technology that might compete with its patented products. As a result of Monsanto's power grab, small and medium sized farmers have been denied the ability to be competitive and profitable, having to over pay for their patented seeds. Monsanto's near monopoly of the GMO market has given it the power to overcharge farmers and keep new and better technologies from entering the field.

Monsanto is positioned to control legislation in the U.S.

To ensure the perpetuation of its near monopoly, Monsanto is helping to install the right people in the right places. To that end, Michael Taylor, the ex FDA head who approved the use of bovine growth hormone (rBGH), has just become ensconced in the Obama transition team where he may soon be overseeing food safety link. He will join already well placed Tom Vilsack, the pro GMO Secretary of Agriculture. As a pair, Taylor and Vilsack, will be in a position to continue the phasing out of small and medium sized farms to make fertile farmland available for the intensive capital accumulation of factory farms, and the phasing in of Monsanto's take over of the entire U.S. food supply.

Passage of the food safety bill will allow Monsanto to continue taking control of farms without any obstacles. Similar laws in the EU have already wiped out 60% of Polish farmers so far. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), a production control system for the food industry, is helping to smooth the way for Monsanto by creating international harmonization of laws. According to an article by Linn Cohen-Cole, "in Kansas alone HACCP wiped out 72 small local meat processors who hadn't had any problems, and vastly lowered the number of inspections to the point where we have over 70 million food borne illnesses a year now."

Cohen-Cole is shocked at the lack of awareness of what is going on by people who support local and sustainable farming. She sees them as excited about an organic White House garden while a food safety bill is being put into law that would literally destroy everything they have been working for. She is hoping groups that support the going green agenda will wake up and join farmers in an effort to block the legislation. She suggests contacting Rosa DeLauro, the woman who sponsored HR 875. DeLauro can be reached at:

Washington Office: Phone 202-225-3661 Fax 202-225-4890
Connecticut Office: Phone 203-562-3718 Fax 203-772-2260

HR 875 is long and tedious reading, and in the style being set by the Obama administration, has probably not been read by the people slated to vote on it. In the face of public outrage, these legislators may not follow through with support for a bill making them targets for their constituents. But legislators are not the only ones who have been conned by the food safety bill.

Just like the Clean Water Act that ensured more contamination of waterways, and the Clean Air Act that ensured rising levels of air pollution, the Food Safety Act bears a name that makes it difficult to resist if you don't know the finer points. After all, who could be against food safety? Anyone standing up for family and healthy living is an easy mark for such deception. This well planned attack on the food supply counts on the ability of liberal and progressive communities to cut their own throats.

It may be that the South African crop failure is the first clue that nature will triumph over the scientists and GMO products will end up self destructing. It is certainly a wake up call to the dangers involved in the domination of the food supply by one company and its varieties of patented GMO seeds. It is something to hope for until one thinks about the widespread starvation that would follow in the wake of such an event. The threat of facing that makes contacting DeLauro a much more appealing way to at least temporarily derail Monsanto's plans.

For more information see:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/argentina101104.cfm

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-Michael-Taylor-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090308-575.html

Experts: Few alternatives to aerial spraying
• Many farmers oncerned about whether proper safety measures are used

The Journal Star (USA), 4 April 2009. By Clare Howard:
http://www.pjstar.com/business/x551068694/Experts-Few-alternatives-to-aerial-spraying

Opinions vary widely regarding recent sharp increases in aerial application of farm chemicals, with some industry experts saying farmers have few options.

Patrick Kirchhofer, manager of the Peoria County Farm Bureau, said the high price of corn last year, wet fields and corn hybrids that can often be 8 to 10 feet in height all played a role.

"Today's hybrids mean the corn gets so tall it's difficult to take a wheeled vehicle over the field without damaging the crop. When the field is wet, aerial application is the only alternative," Kirchhofer said.

"Applicators need to be conscious of wind direction and changes in wind speed and direction. There are plenty of headaches in farming without creating issues with neighbors, but farmers can't control everything."

When potential insect damage is predicted late in the season at a time when crops have reached mature heights, the only option is to spray by air, he said.

Corn prices last year were at historic highs, making aerial application more cost effective.

Denny Wettstein and his wife, Emily, farm organically in Carlock.

"In my opinion, it's ironic we're seeing such an increase in pesticide use on genetically modified crops supposed to need less pesticides. It's obvious more is being used," he said.

Fewer farmers do their own spraying than in the past, Wettstein said. Most chemical applications, whether by air or land, are done by companies under contract with the farmers.

"These big companies have so many acres to cover, and they can't interrupt their schedule due to weather. They won't stop," Wettstein said, noting that he's confronted some applicators in the past and complained that wind speed exceeded label warnings.

"It's my word against his," Wettstein said. "They tell me they have to continue."

Wettstein rotates crops and has livestock.

He said, "In my opinion, the best practice is crop rotations with livestock. That keeps weeds down. But we see more and more continuous corn, which means continuous battles against weeds and bugs and more and more spraying."

Two organic farmers contacted for this story because of their long-standing problems with drift from chemical applications on nearby farms declined to allow their names to be used. One family said the situation has deteriorated to the point they are looking into moving their operation to other farmland.

The other family said after filing complaints with the Department of Agriculture, they are concerned about retaliation. The husband said he has been buzzed repeatedly by crop dusters when he's on the tractor in the middle of his organic fields.

Some states have initiated advance notification requirements, special hotlines for help when drift occurs and increased buffer zones around targeted fields.

---

Note from GM Watch:

Prof. Jonathan Jones, head of the Sainsbury Lab at the John Innes Centre, used to tell audiences that GM crops had made the aerial spraying of pesticides unnecessary in the United Sates. During the course of just one public meeting, Prof Jones repeated this claim no less than three times. http://ngin.tripod.com/pants3.htm

The IAASTD report and some of its fallout - a personal note

Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, ETH Zürich, Institute of Integrative Biology, Zürich, Switzerland:
Extract. Full text available at http://www.inesglobal.com/_News/iaastd.html

[Note from GM Watch:

This is a fascinating account of the row re the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) http://www.agassessment.org - the report on the global food system that Monsanto and its industry colleagues walked out on when their arguments for GM weren't accepted.

Angelika Hilbeck's piece makes it plain just how weak to non-existent those arguments were. This is an industry which has promised much but delivered very little, and in terms of poverty reduction absolutely nothing.]

... some months before the final plenary in April 2008 in Johannesburg, the chemical-biotech industry announced that they would leave the process in protest mainly over the Synthesis Report on Biotechnology.

I was part of the original 5-person writing team of that Synthesis Report and will give here my take on what made the industries to take this step.

The lined-up media articles launched to portray the industry's pull-out include the personal account of one of the original co-authors of the Synthesis Report on Biotechnology, Deborah Keith from Syngenta, in the New Scientist (2008), the editors of Nature Biotechnology (Editor 1 2008) and Nature (Editor 2 2008), and the press releases by the industry lobbying group that announced the move, CropLife International (2008a,b), revealed the underlying reasons when reading them closely. And it shows how difficult it will be to let go strongly-held and profitable beliefs even though it is established that they are myths.

In these media reports, the industry states that the Report failed to 'adequately reflect the role of modern science and technology, in particular our own industry's technologies' (e.g. Minigh 2008; but also Keith 2008) going on to claim that 'the scientific facts, were not maintained and highlighted', the 'stringent testing and regulatory frameworks' not properly acknowledged, and 'claims not supported by the evidence' (Keith 2008). That is, for one, not true and everybody can see that for her- or himself once the Report is published in fall of 2008.

But, secondly, even if 'evidence' and 'facts' had been missing, the industries had more than 3 years time to bring them forward. 'Scientific facts' are easy to correct and could have easily been added. However, I cannot recall a single discussion verbally or in writing with Deborah Keith, Syngenta, who overall preferred not to engage in any discussion with us at all and also did not deliver the promised drafts (Heinemann 2008). We learned of her thinking the first time from the article she wrote in the New Scientist in March 2008 (Keith 2008).

In reality, the evidence is all in the Report. The process, the review editors and Bob Watson himself would not allow for statements that couldn't be supported by evidence. And any possibly missed additional paper is not going to make any difference in the overall outcome or conclusions of the experts which we had the task to capture in the Synthesis Report (Heinemann 2008). There just isn't any meaningful key evidence missing.

The Synthesis Report on Biotechnology is in fact very balanced, excruciatingly balanced probably for some. The problem is a different one. As the editor of Nature Biotechnology, by no means a skeptic of neither genetic engineering nor of their probably best paying clients, the chemical-biotech corporations, had to admit, the factual statement that 90% of the GM crops are grown just in 4 countries is true (Editor 2008). These numbers are entirely based on industry's own data. If you add two other ones (China and India), you have 98%.

This 6-4-2 formula is in fact the problem. 6 countries, 4 crops, 2 traits and if one were to even take it a step further it really is about 1 crop (soybeans) and 1 trait