GM-FREEIRELAND : NEWS





		NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • February 2009 2009: Jan • Feb 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 28 February 2009 Speaker assails 'agriculture of death' at farming conference La Crosse Tribune (Wisconsin, USA), 28 February 2009. By Joe Orso. http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2009/02/28/news/z00lead.txt The reason agriculture can't be allowed to go under is because everyone must eat, said Vandana Shiva, an environmentalist from India. But last year's world food crisis demonstrated that food is under attack, the keynote speaker at the MOSES Organic Farming Conference told an overflow crowd Friday morning at the La Crosse Center. With battlefield language, Shiva – recognized by Time magazine as one of its "Heroes for the Green Century" – described industrial agriculture as "an agriculture of death" leading to the "biggest unnamed war on the planet." She pointed to organics, and farming that protects biodiversity, as the way forward. "Agriculture for life realizes that nature provides abundance," Shiva said. "Our work as stewards of the land is to protect nature's means of producing abundance." The conference, in its 20th year, is the largest gathering of organic producers in the country and now draws more than 2,500 people. Those included Gary Cwach, 56, a South Dakota farmer who began converting to organics 11 years ago. Farm neighbors laughed at him when he first went organic, he said after Shiva's talk. "Now I sense they're worried I might be right," said Cwach, whose 22-year-old son plans to go to graduate school for sustainable agriculture. Shiva is an eco-feminist and scientist whose books "Water Wars", "Soil Not Oil" and others have helped make her a powerful environmental voice in the international community. She talked Friday about the Green Revolution that came to India in the mid-1960s but said it was neither green nor revolutionary. Instead, the introduction of chemicals and genetically engineered crops at that time has reduced India's crop diversity, damaged the soil and required more energy than organic farming. And an agricultural system more focused on markets than feeding people has created hunger and driven farmers, stressed by indebtedness, to suicide. But while Shiva sometimes painted a bleak picture, she also pointed to hopeful signs, such as the Europeans banning genetically modified organisms. And she encouraged an economic stimulus package for sustainable agriculture and organic farming. "It's assumed green jobs means building a building," Shiva said. "The real building is the soil." _______________________ GMO-free Europe needs Germany Organic-market.info, 28 February 2009. http://www.organic-market.info/web/News_in_brief/Associations-Institutions/GMO-free_Europe/176/178/0/5178.html [Note: IFOAM is the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements] IFOAM EU Group and organic farmers from Austria, Greece, France and Hungary urged German Minister of Agriculture llse Aigner to respect their right to maintain their national bans on genetically modified maize. On the occasion of the opening of BioFach in Nuremberg, the farmers' coalition asked for German support when the EU Council of Ministers decides the issue at the beginning of March. The farmers passed the message to the German minister that GMO-free Europe needs Germany and highlighted the fact that the vote of Germany at the upcoming Council of EU ministers is decisive for the future of GMO-free countries of Europe. And this would be only consequent, said Marco Schl¸ter, director of the IFOAM EU Group as last week the Bavarian Minister of Agriculture Soeder demanded the right to declare Bavaria as GMO-free Region. Minister Aigner, coming herself from the Bavarian region, should therefore not measure with two different weights. The four countries have banned the only commercially grown GMO in the EU, the Maize MON810, because of serious safety concerns. A recent study commissioned by the Austrian Ministry of Health Affairs indicates that mice fed with genetically modified maize could have adverse effects on their offspring, mentioned Rudi Vierbauch, president of the Austrian organic farmers association Bio Austria. As long as there are no follow-up studies disproving this concerns the cultivation and use of GMOs is irresponsible. The EU Commission, which suggested lifting of these bans, should accept the sovereignty of countries to introduce and keep national bans. The possibility to ban GMOs must in the hands of local authorities, added Thomas Dosch, president of the German organic farmers' organisation Bioland. Eva Acs, representative of the Hungarian Organic Farming organisations explained that Hungary needs the support of Germany to protect its specific ecological system and seed production. The Hungarian ban doesn't affect other nations right to grow GM plants. Rene Groneau from the French organic farmers association FNAB finally highlights the issue of consumer rejection. Consumers do expect organic food to be free of GMOs. But once GMOs are out in the field contamination is unavoidable. Therefore maintaining the existing bans is also a question of consumers. rights and economic perspectives of farmers. http://www.ifoam-eu.org _______________________ Mahesh Bhatt, co-directs documentary with Ajay Kanchan Business of Cinema, 28 February 2009. http://www.magentanews.com/cache.asp?n=5615997 MUMBAI (India): Mahesh Bhatt will launch a documentary film Poison on the Platter that he has co-directed with Ajay Kanchan. The documentary exposes the nexus between biotech multinational companies from the US and Government regulatory bodies in India. In association with Coalition for A GM-Free India, Bhatt showcased the film recently in Mumbai. The screening was followed by a panel discussion on the impact of Genetically Modified (GM) foods on human health and environment, involving noted Food Policy analyst Dr. Devinder Sharma, Kanchan and Bhatt. Bhatt's film makes a mockery of Government of India's claim of not allowing import of any GM foods in the country as it conclusively demonstrates that supermarkets in India are flooded with harmful food stuff and biotech MNCs are cashing on the ignorance of unsuspecting consumers in India. "The nexus between the biotech MNCs and regulatory bodies is cashing on the ignorance of unsuspecting consumers in India. Since food is our single most important requirement, the genetically modified food is the greatest danger that the mankind has ever faced," says Kanchan. "It's by far the most disturbing subject that I have dealt with among my documentaries simply because it concerns nearly every single person living on this planet," adds Bhatt. --- Related NDTV news clip, 5 February 2009: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/poison-on-the-platter-ndtv/4240993459 Watch the video trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fx1WKpbNwo&feature=related _______________________ Biosafety law in place but govt needs to guarantee safety ASNA News, 28 February 2009. http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=10490 Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the Kenya's hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet there are many challenges ahead for the government, especially in the areas of safety testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits. As the government calls out for food relief to help stem death and starvation across the country, the government knows that relief food that is donated is genetically-modified. The question posed is, Should it accept the food or not? This scenario goes to the heart of the issue of genetically engineered food for Africa. It was painted by a University of Zimbabwe biochemist at an interview during a recent conference on bio- diversity in Mombasa. The scenario brought together the science and economics of genetic engineering and the uncertainty surrounding the safety of genetically- engineered food. Caution must not be thrown to the wind to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology. Kenya became the fourth African country to allow the production and use of genetically modified (GM) crops after President Mwai Kibaki signed off on Parliament's approval of new biosafety legislation. These means that genetically modified foods are finally here in fact, KenyaAgricultural Research Institute, KARI, launched the first sweet potato variety in the country that is genetically engineered to make it disease- resistant and is expected to increase yields by up to 60 per cent and does not need any pesticide. "Agriculture is the backbone of this country's economy as well as ofHuman development," says Agricultural Permanent Secretary. "That is why Kari, with the US support, researched on a sweet potato variety that is disease- resistant." The PS said agriculture is the fourth largest income-earner and that more research needs to be carried out on the GMOs. The PS said Bio technology is important in poverty eradication and sustainable Development. ìBio technology is not our problem in Kenya right now poverty and the quest to increase agricultural produce is our challenge". "GM is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of organisms such as animals, plants, or bacteria. Biotechnology, a more general term, refers to using organisms or their components, such as enzymes, to make products that include wine, cheese, beer, and yogurt. Combining the genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be "genetically modified," "genetically engineered," or "transgenic While GM is seen as the only reliable solution to Africa's food problem, the process of locating genes for important traitsósuch as those conferring insect resistance or desired nutrientsóis one of the most limiting steps in the process. Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. The obvious gains in planting modified crops include the lower costs of production owing to their herbicide and insect resistance properties. Dr Florence Wambugu, Executive Director, AfricaHarvest says "this frees women and children's weeding time considerably, allowing them to engage in other activities." Against genuine safety concerns about genetically-modified foods are the genuine food needs of many people in the world. "This technology will help fight hunger in Kenya," states agriculture economist Gem Argwings-Kodhek. A senior research fellow at Egerton University's Tegemeo Institute, says: "the cost of production of commodities will decrease and help protect plants against pests." He sums it up as "high production for little seed input".Generally the whole debate revolves around seeds that, for example, produce an insecticide-resistant crop that allows for indiscriminate spraying of the crop's area, killing harmful insects at one go while sparing the crop. Therefore, whoever controls the sale of that seed or other genetically engineered seeds will in effect control agriculture and its profits. However there are some key issues to be considered, drought tolerance is a key issue because as the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought that can grow in unfertile soils and marshy land will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places thus make use of land that would otherwise be labeled a useless. Malnutrition is common in famine hit areas in Kenya where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as maize as the main staple of their diet. However, maize does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If maize could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. On the horizon are bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B, fish that mature more quickly, cows that are resistant to mad cow disease. Fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce plastics with unique properties are those in development. Currently it also includes medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibers. The future of GMOs in Africa is uncertain owing to the fact that there are still a lot of controversies surrounding the issue. Although there are some said benefits, it is also important to consider potential detrimental effects it would have on the health of Kenyans. _______________________ Documentary exposes nexus between US MNCs & Indian govt bodies Economic Times (India), 28 February 2009. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Nexus-between-US-MNCs-Indian-govt-bodies-exposed/articleshow/4203013.cms MUMBAI: A documentary film on genetically modified (GM) food, 'Poison on the Platter' exposes the nexus between US-based biotech multinational companies and government regulatory bodies in India. "It is shocking that instead of protecting the interests of farmers and consumers, the Indian government is pandering to the greed of biotech MNCs like Monsanto and its Indian stooge Mahyco, whose track record is littered with lies, deception and notorious ability to corrupt the regulatory bodies all over the world," Ajay Kanchan, Director of the documentary told reporters here. On similar lines, Devinder Sharma, Food Policy analyst, said, "The Indian government is turning a blind eye towards the illegal import and sale of GM food in India." "Inspite of extensive documentation of the contamination mishaps that have happened during the field trails of various GM crops in recent years, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) remained blinded because of their vested interest," Sharma said. The film directed by Ajay Kanchan and Mahesh Bhatt was screened today. --- Related NDTV news clip, 5 February 2009: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/poison-on-the-platter-ndtv/4240993459 Watch the video trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fx1WKpbNwo&feature=related _______________________ 27 February 2009 Belgium, GMOs foul organic food Green Planet, 27 February 2009. http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/268-belgium-gmos-foul-organic-food.html GMOs are fouling organic foodstuffs in Belgium, according to the consumers' association Test-Achats. In a trial carried out by the association, 22 products out of 113 showed traces of GMOs (below the "accidental" threshold of 0.9%). Some of these products were certified as organic. The trial was carried out in the framework of a survey about Belgian food's quality and safety. Traces of GMOs in ingredients such as maize and soy have been found in foiled products. Nonetheless, the detected rate in 12 products turned out to be lower than the threshold allowed by the new European regulation. This means that there is no obligation to report it, as the pollution can be considered "accidental". In seven products a presence was detected of GMOs that are not allowed by the EU. Two organic products showed a rate of allowed GMOs and a conventional product presented more than 0.9% of GMOs without reporting it on the label. With this test, Test-Achats aims at proving that the tolerance thershold of 0.9% is not a "theoretical" limit, as many considered it. _______________________ Hungary has Bulgaria's support in saying no to GMOs The Sofia Echo, 27 February 2009. http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/02/27/682827_hungary-has-bulgarias-support-in-saying-no-to-gmos Bulgaria is supporting Hungary in its decision to not rescind the introduction of a temporary ban on production, distribution, import and sale of genetically modified corn on its territory, Bulgaria's Environment Ministry said on February 27 2009. Minister Djevdet Chakurov said as much to Hungarian ambassador Judit Lang while in talks at the ministry the same day. Hungary initially banned GMO corn from Monsanto in 2005, and, in November of that year, went so far as to send six truckloads of GMO corn from Croatia back to their land of origin, according to oneworld.net. Bulgaria's decision to support Hungary's stance was taken on February 26, at the regular meeting of the Bulgarian Cabinet. Chakurov will present Bulgaria's position while in Brussels on March 2 for a session of the EU Environment Council, which gathers environment ministers from around the European Union. A final decision on the temporary ban on the use and sale of genetically modified corn in Hungary is expected to be taken at the council's meeting. Bulgarian law is "very conservative" concerning genetically modified organisms, with GMOs being negatively viewed by the public, Chakurov said to Lang. The two also discussed further possibilities for co-operation in the environmental sphere, including preservation of the Danube River. In Bulgaria, the Health Ministry is responsible for the approval, regulation and use of GMO products. _______________________ Key points on WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and RTRS (Round Table on Sustainable Soy GM Watch, 27 February 2009. We recently circulated detailed comments on the misleading nature of the new "WWF Statement" defending its continued involvement in the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) in tandem with Monsanto and Syngenta. Here is a summary providing the key points of both WWF's statement and our rebuttal. For WWF's full statement see: WWF's Involvement in the RTRS due to its Connection to the GM Soy Industry http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/policy/news/?156602 For the full commentary on their statement see: http://tiny.cc/8882o KEY POINTS ON WWF STATEMENT WWF says it has a history of promoting GM-free soy, as evidenced by its development and promotion of the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy.
	COMMENT: But, in fact, when the multinational soy processors refused to engage in WWF's Basel Criteria, WWF abandoned this programme in order to start the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS). One of the primary differences between the Basel Criteria and the RTRS is that RTRS allows GM soy. So WWF's real history on this issue is one of retreat.
WWF says it will "Work with the RTRS to explore and promote options for identifying and labeling RTRS soy that is GM-free".
	COMMENT: But such a commitment is meaningless when the governing board of the RTRS is dominated by multinational corporations that are deeply committed to GM soy, and the board has established a strong policy of RTRS criteria NOT considering the GM dimension of the soy.
WWF says it will "Encourage companies to pursue GMO-free production and commit to GMO-free soy in their procurement policies."
	COMMENT: But if WWF were really serious about this, they would have done this years ago. Instead, they allowed the RTRS process to proceed without any consideration of the GM issue to the point where it is virtually impossible to incorporate it in the assessment process. WWF's membership generally opposes GMOs and wants real protection of the Amazon, not weak criteria - see below - that can be used to greenwash GM soy.
WWF claims it supports a moratorium on GM releases until research has been done and "safeguards" are in place.
	COMMENT: But WWF's written policy opposing GMOs exists only on paper, and it's outside the bounds of the RTRS. Leading scientists on the staff of the WWF (most notably Jason Clay) state clearly that WWF makes no judgments regarding GMOs. They say that technologies like GM are not their focus, but that they are focusing on "preserving habitat" and other critical environmental issues. In the context of the RTRS, WWF have opened wide the door to GM being labelled as "responsible," despite abundant evidence that GM soy has been a central element in the expansion of agricultural practices that exploit and degrade the environment and rural people. In other words, WWF's GM policy is simply not being implemented in the soy sector.
WWF claims that the RTRS can help prevent the environmental impacts of soy production, such as forest conversion, habitat loss, soil degradation, water use and pesticide use, in relation both to GM soy and GM-free soy.
	COMMENT: But the RTRS criteria fail to prevent many, if not all, of these environmental impacts. Most worryingly, although the RTRS was supposedly established to protect the degradation of the Amazon region, the RTRS criteria have only extremely weak provisions to protect the Amazon. They state that any area zoned by local government for agricultural development may be exploited and soy produced thereon will be considered "responsible." Local zoning authorities are often influenced by incentives, including bribes, to zone any land that a developer wants to develop, including high conservation value areas like Amazon rainforest. In other words, WWF's RTRS program will classify as "responsible" land zoned as suitable for agricultural development even if it's based on bribery.
RTRS states that high conservation areas are excluded from development under all circumstances.
	COMMENT: But this is only a temporary, short-term (3-year) exclusion. The system is that if mechanisms are not in place within 3 years to compensate owners of high conservation value areas for NOT commercially exploiting those areas, then these areas can be cleared for agriculture. Since it is unlikely that such mechanisms will be in place within the 3-year time-frame, the RTRS will not protect the Amazon or other high conservation areas from destruction.
WWF says the RTRS doesn't yet have a certification system in place to verify compliance with its criteria for responsible soy production.
	COMMENT: Its criteria are designed to serve as the basis for developing a certification of soy as "RTRS compliant." This will certify soy as "responsible." At least two certification programs in the pipeline aim at using the RTRS principles and criteria as the basis for certifying GM soy as "sustainable." 1.One is owned by Aapresid, the Argentinean No-Till Farmers Association (no till is synonymous with GM soy production in Argentina). All of the major biotech seed companies, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Pioneer-Dupont, and Dow, are members of Aapresid. 2.The other is being developed by an organization called UTZ. The same member of the WWF who is on the RTRS Development Group (which is the committee responsible for developing the RTRS principles and criteria), is also on the board of directors of UTZ. In reality, everything WWF says it's trying to do on the GM soy issue is window dressing. Either the key decisions affecting RTRS have already been taken, or WWF - under pressure - is offering to do things that are simply too little, too late. Only by quitting the RTRS can WWF expose this greenwashing exercise for GM soy rather than enhancing it with the panda logo. We also know that this is not just the view of GMWatch but is the view of people right across the environmental movement including many of WWF's own supporters.
--- Note from GM Watch: See related article below from 2005:
	'Sustainable soy' proposal sparks protest Third World Resurgence No. 176 April 2005 http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=265 A roundtable conference in Brazil in March initiated by the World Wide Fund for Nature provoked a counter-meeting and protest by peasant, indigenous and workers' movements who viewed it as a diversion from the fundamental problems associated with large-scale soya production in the region. Lilian Joensen explains the background to this revolt by those involved in local, subsistence agriculture against agribusiness which dominates the global market. SOY, the signature crop of the biotechnology industry in South America, continues to create turbulence. Over 600 people from peasant and indigenous movements, worker unions and unemployed worker organisations from Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil gathered in San Miguel do Iguaz£, Brazil from 16 to 18 March. They were at a counter-meeting against the first Roundtable Conference on Sustainable Soy. This counter-meeting was called by Argentine NGO Grupo de Reflexi¢n Rural and peasant organisation Via Campesina Argentina, and supported by Via Campesina Paraguay and Brazil. The 600 participants, most of whom had travelled long distances by bus, held lively and intense discussions in several workshops and conferences at the Technological and Educational Institute for Agrarian Reform (ITEPA). The counter-meeting ended with a two-hour-long demonstration outside the Bourbon Hotel against the proposal for sustainable soy production where the Roundtable Conference was taking place on 18 March. The Roundtable was organised by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Coop (Switzerland), Grupo Andrç Maggi (Brazil), Unilever (Netherlands), Cordaid (Netherlands) and Fetraf-Sul (Brazil). What the counter-meeting opposes The idea of the peasant counter-meeting originated when WWF announced in the world media the publication of the report Managing the Soy Boom: Two Scenarios of Soy Production Expansion in South America, by the Dutch consultant AIDEnvironment. This report commissioned by WWF's Forest Conversion Initiative mentions superficially some negative impacts of soy expansion in South America, without questioning the agro-export model behind this development. It accepts that this is a trend likely to continue and therefore it proposes the need to discuss and find solutions that agree with the stakeholders responsible for the disaster that soy has meant to South America. The variety grown is mainly genetically modified Roundup Ready soy. This herbicide-tolerant soy of Monsanto is grown legally in Argentina and illegally in Paraguay and Brazil. The first page of the Managing the Soy Boom report already provoked rage among several peasant and indigenous organisations from the Southern Cone of Latin America. It assumes that soy demand is expected to increase 60% to over 300 million tons per year in 2020. Furthermore it states that since China and the US have little arable land reserves, future expansion will be accommodated primarily in South American producer countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay. When WWF announced the Roundtable, it became clear that the idea was to sustain and increase soy production in South America to secure the supply of fodder for animal protein production in Europe and China. While trying to show an objective point of view, the Roundtable disregards the fact that soy production has spawned two opposite and irreconcilable points of view. On one side is the view of those who have profited enormously during the last few years from soy production and export since the soy boom started, pushed by the demand for cheap animal feed in Europe and China. On this side are the GM seed and agrochemical companies. All these are allied to the soy producer business, such as AAPRESID (Zero-Tillage Farmers, the main GM soy lobby in Argentina), CAPECO (Chamber of Cereals and Oilseeds, Paraguay), and Grupo Andre Maggi (main soy producer in Matto Grosso, Brazil). Other actors who have direct interest in sustained soy production are the 'alternative' food industry such as Unilever (soy 'egg', soy 'milk', etc), animal product producers and retailers in Europe. All these stakeholders with direct interests in soy production participated in the Roundtable. On the other side are the victims of the Zero Tillage GM and hybrid-seeds lobby, who must suffer the consequences of the industrial intensive agriculture involved in this system. Consequences such as repression and eviction from the land, unemployment, poisoning by agrochemicals, and loss of crops and animals that are indispensable for peasant and indigenous peoples' economies, are a daily fact in Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. Moreover, the environmental and human health effects of genetic engineering have not even begun to be taken up. Behind the Roundtable and the AIDEnvironment/WWF report Some NGOs believe that the current market conditions of globalisation are here to stay and not much can be done about it, whether we like it or not. Therefore they are allying with agribusiness. To justify these alliances, some NGOs say this is the only way to prevent further deforestation, since fighting the companies would be suicidal. 'Experts' from the industrialised world, funded by their respective development agencies, banks and transnational companies, are choosing and consulting 'experts' from NGOs in the developing countries that best suit their interests. 'Expert' reports are produced and continuously improved in language to sound more 'progressive' and 'democratic' to the common unskilled target. These reports propose solutions to the problems that the same industrial ideology of 'progress' has created. They state that bad consequences of current trends are inevitable and pragmatically address the need to convince the industry that there can be 'good business' in showing a more humane and environment-friendly image through inventing criteria of 'sustainable' production of commodities and management of the environment. These NGOs see as good news the fact that 'agro-ecological' production controlled by companies such as seed giant Cargill and Grupo Andrç Maggi is becoming big business. The companies can even profit from certification or environmental services if they get a green light from certain NGOs as being environmentally safe and socially fair, in order to get their products sold in supermarkets, fast food and clothing chains. Certification and environmental management can give the common citizen in the industrialised world the sense that the poor and the environment in developing countries are benefiting from the sales of products in the industrialised world or from tourism. These kinds of proposals can be gathered from the AIDEnvironment report and the initiatives towards sustainability pushed by WWF and other NGOs together with the soy-related industry. However, they are denounced by peasant, indigenous and environmental organisations in Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil as mere 'greenwashing' initiatives that will only benefit the transnational corporations and threaten even more the rights of the local communities. In the case of the AIDEnvironment report, it proposes a 'better policies and practices scenario' to avoid deforestation. It states that 'intensifying production along existing roads and near existing population centres will reduce the need to expand additional frontiers and investment in costly infrastructure projects'. This shows complete ignorance of recent years' development in the countries of the Southern Cone of Latin America. Thus, it does not take into account the fact that these areas are already saturated with GM soy and people in urban neighbourhoods are suffering severe health problems due to constant fumigation with chemicals such as glyphosate, paraquat, atrazine, 2,4 D, and endosulphan. At the same time, this 'better case scenario' ideally suits the interests of the Zero-Tillage lobby that goes hand in hand with GM seeds and agrochemicals, as has been proved in Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. There are also concerns that 'agro-ecology' in the hands of agribusiness will undermine genuine efforts in ecological agriculture. The '100 million sustainable Forum' Meanwhile, in Argentina, WWF's associate Fundaci¢n Vida Silvestre (FSVA) is promoting the '100 million sustainable Forum' together with the Argentine Association of Agribusiness, as a way of solving the environmental and social problems caused by the conversion of wild areas to agricultural production in the country. They refer to this forum as a process of open dialogue. Among the points they wish to agree on is the 'necessity to identify the geographic localisation of 5 to 12 million hectares of new projected agricultural areas in the plan to achieve the production of 100 million tons of grains and oilseeds'. Greenpeace Argentina participates in this initiative as an environmental NGO. Most of the institutions and companies that participate in the 100 million Forum were also at the March Roundtable. This forum triggered indignation among Argentine organisations that seriously question the agro-export model imposed on the countries in the Third World. This model only benefits the seed, agrochemical and export corporations and can by no means be made sustainable by further increasing and intensifying the agricultural areas. According to the Argentine NGO Grupo de Reflexi¢n Rural, the participation of well-known environmental NGOs that have some prestige among the public will be used by agribusiness to legitimise their goals of making profit with the aid of greenwashing initiatives. Roundtable versus counter-meeting While the Roundtable concluded by expressing appreciation of the importance of having started a dialogue on the issue of soy and acknowledges that soy production 'brings about social, economic, environmental and institutional benefits and problems', the participants of the counter-meeting unanimously agreed that sustainable soy production is not possible in South America. Growing fodder in the South American continent to satisfy the demand of meat production in other continents will never meet the needs of peoples' food sovereignty and therefore cannot be done responsibly. Agronomist Adolfo Boy from Grupo de Reflexi¢n Rural explained at the counter-meeting that the scheme behind the new idea of agro-ecology defended by agribusiness-friendly NGOs cannot be thought of as sustainable. Their proposal is to work with certified seeds and will bring into play technological-agroecological packages developed by companies. These packages utilise approved pheromones, organic fertilisers, etc. This means that the companies will profit from certification in all instances of production from seed to port. Farmers will be tempted to go into this 'agro-ecological' production with secured markets, good credits and high prices, if they agree with the companies. The idea behind this is that subsistence agriculture is abandoned and that virgin land which today belongs to small-scale producers will be used to produce agro-ecological crops for the needs of the global market. Even the concept of land reform will be bastardised if this path is followed. Ownership of land by peasants will not be important, as long as agribusiness can decide what and where to produce. The worst aspect of the current export-oriented agricultural model is that it leaves defenceless societies with no capacity to respond. The counter-meeting is the starting point in pushing initiatives to defend the land, seeds and subsistence and local agriculture against the global market. Anything else will be suicidal, not only to the forests, but also to peasant societies. NGOs must understand this and not be under any illusion that agribusiness can be environmentally sustainable and socially just. Dr Lilian Joensen is a member of Grupo de Reflexi¢n Rural in Argentina. She worked as a molecular biologist with the Dr Mario Fatala Chaben National Institute of Parasitology in Argentina from 1991 to 2003. References 1. http://www.iguazu.grr.org.ar 2. http://www.aseed.net/agrocadabra/soy-rss.htm 3. http://www.wervel.be/EN/dossiers/fm_200502/fm_200502-0502.htm 4. Soy boom threat to South America, BBC News, 3 September 2004. 5. Jan Maarten Dros, AIDEnvironment. Managing the Soy Boom: Two Scenarios of Soy Production Expansion in South America, June 2004. 6. The Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production, August 2004, Prepared by ProForest for Coop Switzerland in cooperation with WWF Switzerland. 7. http://www.unilever.com.ar/ourbrands/foods/ades.asp 8. Unilever-funded egg replacer for cost and health opportunities http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-ng.asp?id=58551-unilever-funded-egg 9. http://www.rel-uita.org/agricultura/agrotoxicos/silvino_villasboa.htm 10. http://www.rel-uita.org/agricultura/agrotoxicos/desastre.htm 11. Joensen L. et al. 'Argentina, a case study on the impact of genetically modified soy'. 12. Joensen L. 'Argentina, the GM paradox'. Third World Resurgence No. 159-160 (Nov/Dec 2003) 13. http://www.panda.org/downloads/forests/rssacuerdofozenglish.pdf
_______________________ More Examples Of Patents Harming Research Tech News AM, 27 February 2009. http://techdirt.com/articles/20090224/0137483881.shtml From the can't-research-these-bioengineered-seeds dept. JJ points us to the latest in a long list of examples of how patents are being used not to "promote the progress" but to actively hinder it. In this case, bioengineering companies are using intellectual property claims to stop academic researchers from doing any research on genetically modified seeds and crops [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all]. Even though the seeds can be bought, the companies are using IP rights to put in place ridiculous licensing agreements that forbid any research on those seeds or the crops that come out of them. A group of scientists are now complaining about this to the EPA, but perhaps they should be complaining to the USPTO and Congress, as well, as it's time that this sort of abuse of intellectual property was stopped entirely. _______________________ Tesco defends its long-term food strategy to MPs Farmers Weekly Interactive (UK), 27 February 2009. By Caroline Stocks. http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/02/27/114519/tesco-defends-its-long-term-food-strategy-to-mps.html Tesco has defended criticism that it is not thinking seriously about maintaining secure food supplies in future. MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee accused the retailer of being too short-term in its relationships with producers and its plans for procuring food. Speaking at an evidence session on how to secure UK food supplies up to 2050 this week (25 February), committee chairman Michael Jack said the retailer's view was too consumer-led. "In reality it is the longer term [which is important] and you should be taking an interest in the types of threat that could impact on your businesses," he said. "I don't get the feeling you are as proactive as you should be." But Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Tesco executive director, said DEFRA cuts in funding for research and development had made it difficult for retailers to consider long-term issues such as GM foods as a solution for securing food supplies. "We don't use GM in our own brands, but if research came along we would look at it," she said. "I would support R&D into these ideas [such GM crops]. R&D has fallen back by 45%. "That's a pity because the challenge we have of trying to produce more food is an ideal challenge for agricultural science businesses to improve productivity." Ms Neville-Rolfe said Tesco had invested £25m into climate change research at Manchester University but said there were other areas of the industry which desperately needed investment. She said the retailer had invested heavily in the dairy sector, offering one of the best prices in the industry of 28p/litre for its Tesco Dairy Group members. Tesco had also helped fund a dairy "centre of excellence" in conjunction with Liverpool University to improve producer efficiency, she said. "It would be good if DEFRA could find some public money to fund this type of activity as well," she added. _______________________ Bulgaria supported Hungary for ban on genetically modified foods News Bulgaria, 27 February 2009. By Olga Yoncheva. http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_1471590306 Bulgaria supported Hungary in the country's decision for a temporary ban on the production, distribution, import and sale of genetically modified corn on its territory. This position was presented today by the Bulgarian minsiter of environment and waters Dzhevdet Chakurov to the ambassador of Hungary in Bulgaria Mrs. Judith Lang during their meeting in MOEW. Minister Chakurov pointed out that Bulgaria's position was approved on yesterday's decision of Council of ministers. Dzhevdet Chakurov will present it on the scheduled for 2nd March session in Brussels of the Council of the ministers of environment in EU, in which he is personally going to take part. The Council is expected to take a decision regarding the temporary ban on the use and sale in Hungary of genetically modified corn. The Bulgarian legislation is very conservative regarding the GN organisms, the society has negative thoughts towards these kind of products, pointed out minister Chakurov to Judith Lang. The two officials agreed on experts from the ministries of environment of both countries to review the existing agreement for cooperation in the field of environment between Bulgaria and Hungary and to make suggestions for its updating. In addition, the cooperation regarding the preservation of the Danube river will also be intensified. _______________________ France - GM Food Farming UK, 27 February 2009. http://www.farminguk.com/news/France-GM-Food.12195.asp PARIS -- Genes from genetically-engineered corn have been found in traditional crop strains in Mexico, according to a new study likely to reignite a bitter controversy over biotech maize. The paper, by scientists from Mexico, the United States and the Netherlands, backs a 2001 probe that sparked a row over the safety of genetically-modified (GM) crops. Green activists say GM crops are a potential hazard, arguing that their genes could spread to related plants through cross-pollination. Their campaign has helped drive bans on GM crops in some countries, including Mexico itself, the ancestral home of maize, as corn is also called. In the 2001 study, published in the prestigious British journal Nature, researchers reported finding transgenes in samples of corn taken from the Sierra Juarez region of Oaxaca. But this study was blasted for technical inaccuracy and choice of samples. In an exceptional slap, Nature distanced itself from the paper, saying the evidence had not been strong enough to warrant publication. This damning verdict was underscored by a further study, carried out in 2005 by a different team, that was unable to replicate the results. But new research now says the original study was right. A team led by Elena Alvarez-Buylla of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City looked at nearly 2,000 samples from 100 fields in the region from 2001 and 2004, and found that around one percent of the samples had genes that had jumped from GM varieties. "We confirmed that there was contamination in 2001 and also found contamination in 2004, which means that it either persisted in the local maize that we sampled or that it was reintroduced, which is less likely," Alvarez-Buylla told AFP. She said the difference between previous studies and her research lay in the samples chosen for gene sequencing and in the molecular technique for decrypting the DNA. The investigators looked for two specific genes that had escaped from biotech corn, and found them in some fields but not in others. Alvarez-Buylla said the evidence shed stark light on the failure of efforts to shield Mexico from unauthorised GM corn. The country imposed a moratorium on the planting of transgenic maize in 1998 in order to protect genetic diversity. It is the home of about 60 traditional domesticated strains, also called landraces, as well as several wild strains. Transgenic seeds are entering the country, most probably from the United States, and getting mixed with local seeds in trade among small farmers, Alvarez-Buylla believed. "It is very hard to avoid gene flow from transgenic maize to non-transgenic maize in Mexico, even though there has been a moratorium," she said. "It is really worrying that the government of Mexico has not been efficient enough in biosecurity monitoring," she said, accusing watchdogs of failing to establish rigorous molecular monitoring that was independent of data provided by biotech giants. Alvarez-Buylla's team did not explore the impact of the escaped genes on the native corn, on the local environment or human health, nor did it test whether the foreign genes passed on to progeny plants. The study appears in the latest issue of Molecular Ecology, a peer-reviewed journal published by Britain's Blackwell group. It has been endorsed by a lead author of the 2005 paper. GM crops have had genes inserted into them to produce benefits for farmers. For instance, they exude natural toxins that kill off pests, or are resistant to herbicides, enabling a farmer to spray a field in one go and not kill the crop. GM producers say there is no evidence of any threat to human health or the environment. The overwhelming view of scientists is that, so far, this is true. But suspicions remain strong in many countries, especially Europe, where several governments retain safeguard measures against GM corn despite EU-wide approval. _______________________ GM work boosts apple disease resistance Horticulture Week, 27 February 2009. By Brian Lovelidge. http://www.hortweek.com/channel/EdiblesProduction/rss/article/883765/GM-work-boosts-apple-disease-resistance/ Apples are being genetically modified in the Netherlands to make them resistant to scab and in due course other diseases, too. The technique being used should be more acceptable to environmentalists and consumers because the resistance genes being used come from wild apple species rather than a foreign source. This type of genetic modification, called cisgenesis, was described by Henk Schouten of Plant Research International, based at Wageningen University, at Agrovista's spring fruit meeting, which took place on 11 February at Ashford, Kent. He explained that with conventional breeding the production of scab-resistant varieties of good eating quality and suitability for commercial production takes as long as 50 years. This has been done using a crab apple, Malus floribunda, as the source of scab resistance. The trouble is that only one resistance gene is involved and in Holland this resistance has broken down within 10 years of the resistant variety being introduced. The big advantages of cisgenesis, Schouten claimed, are that it is a much quicker process; several resistant genes can be used, making the breakdown of resistance unlikely; and the genes are inserted into the genomes of good-quality, established varieties, so no lengthy cross breeding is required to get commercially acceptable varieties. Furthermore, as the production of resistant GM varieties takes only seven years, cisgenesis is potentially cheaper than the conventional approach. "Science now knows how to isolate genes (for resistance) and introduce them into the DNA of existing varieties," said Schouten. "Once we've got the right gene in our hands it will cost about EUR500,000 (£440,000) to get it into a variety." However, he admitted that there is a potential problem in getting a cisgenesis variety approved by the EU Commission for commercial production. This is because EU laws do not differentiate between varieties containing genes introduced from foreign and same-species sources and to get a GM variety approved is very time-consuming and costs around EUR6.8m (£6m). "We are proposing (lobbying for) much faster and more cost-effective approval for cisgenesis varieties by getting them exempted from the GM regulations," said Schouten. "In Holland this is supported by all political parties." _______________________ Pakistan may scrap Monsanto BT cottonseed deal Textile News, 27 Feb 2009. http://tiny.cc/6txmz Pakistan may scrap the deal with Monsanto on BT cottonseed after signing the agreement with China, reliable sources told Business Recorder on Thursday. Recently, Pakistan has signed an agreement with China on BT cotton. Sources said that China itself introduced BT cotton seed in its country after signing a Letter of Intent (LoI) with Monsanto in 1996 but it developed its own Bt cottonseed after re-inventing it in Chinese laboratories. The government had signed a LoI with Monsanto a year ago in order to initiate collaboration in biotechnology. Monsanto cotton traits are currently approved in 13 countries of the world. The LoI signed between India and Pakistan outlines a strategy to enhance co-operation in the field of transgenic technology. According to the sources, the Monsanto has demanded $16 per acre as royalty, which according to Pakistan is a huge amount. Sources said that the government is not ready to pay even a single penny to Monsanto that is why even after signing the LoI, Pakistan has not finalised its agreement with Monsanto in this regard yet. In the agreement signed between Pakistan and China on Bt cotton, later has promised to transfer its 'double gene technology' of cotton to the former, they said adding that this technology has been invented by fusion of the gene invented by Monsanto into the gene of its own cotton variety. Monsanto is an agricultural company. It invests almost $1.5 million a day globally to look for and bring to market innovative technologies. The company has developed Bollgard cotton, commonly known as Bt cotton in order to control pest injury in production agriculture. Sources said that another issue with Monsanto was that the government is in favour of bringing a new model of BT cotton to Pakistan and had insisted on Bollgard II technology of BT cotton from Monsanto. Sources further disclosed that earlier, Monsanto brought 20 varieties of BT cotton but nothing has been performed up to the mark. Due to the non-availability of approved BT cottonseeds in the market, the farmers have started smuggling these seeds from India. Almost 60 percent farmers in Punjab and 40 percent in Sindh are making the use of illegal and unapproved BT cottonseeds. Raw material from unapproved BT varieties, result in reduced quality cotton, which the traders refuse to export. Sources in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Minfal) told Business Recorder that it might take another two years to develop our own BT cottonseed that would be most resistible against the attacks of mealy bug and the Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCV). He said that Pakistani laws ask for the owner of a transgenic seed to guarantee that the crop variety will have no harmful and disastrous impact on the environment as well as the human being. _______________________ Ukraine - GM Food Farming UK, 27 February 2009. http://www.farminguk.com/news/Ukraine-GM-Food.12196.asp The Cabinet of Ministers approved state registration of production containing genetically modified organisms (GMO). If food products have GMP exceeding 0,9 percent, import will be prohibited to Ukraine. According to the governmental decree, all products imported to our country will be examined in the form of state ecological examination on the border.. It concerns both food products and cosmetics and medicines, Delo reports. The decree on compulsory labeling of food products will be approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in March. According to the head of DNA laboratory at Ukrmetrteststandard Ruslan Holubetz, about 30 percent of food products in Ukraine contain GMO. Most often genetically modified soya occurs (80 percent of cases). Also genetically modified tomatoes, corn, rice, beet occur often. Also genetically modified organisms are included into sausages, tinned food, bread and flour products, chocolate, and confectionery. Currently only import of infant food containing genetically modified organisms is prohibited to Ukraine. At the same time, the government decided to create the State register of genetically modified organisms, the Cabinet's press service reports. The government made a decision about it at the meeting on February, 18, Ukrayinski novyny reports. _______________________ Australia - Contents of Animal feed. Farming UK, 27 February 2009. http://www.farminguk.com/news/Australia-Contents-of-Animal-feed.12191.asp Australia's pig producers can now be better informed about stockfeed containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) published a report, providing an indication of market acceptance of edible products from pigs and other farm animals fed on GM stockfeed. Presence According to ABARE's executive director, Phillip Glyde, the increasing adoption of GM crops has led to a greater presence in stockfeed mixes, both Australia and overseas. Glyde said this report found that there was little evidence of consumers in Australia and the country's major export markets rejecting animals fed stockfeed containing GM ingredients. However, the ABARE report noted that consumer awareness of the current use of GM ingredients in stockfeed appears to be low both in cases. Aversion While the few studies conducted on consumer acceptance in Australia and the United States indicate some consumer aversion to consuming products from animals fed GM feed, there is no evidence to suggest this is lowering their demand. ABARE says given current GM regulations, and degrees of consumer acceptance and awareness in Australia and its major livestock product export markets, it seems unlikely Australian livestock producers who choose to use GM feed will be disadvantaged. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland: In 2005, one million citizens of EU member states signed a Greenpeace petition demanding mandatory labelling for meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed. 50 European Regions now have adopted Quality Agriculture strategies which avoid the use of GM animal feed. _______________________ 26 February 2009 New Genetically Engineered Corn Contains Proteins from Mysterious Sea Creatures Experts say the engineered corn product will likely contaminate the food supply if authorized. Mother Earth News (USA), 26 February 2009. From the Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/USDA-Allows-Genetically-Engineered-Corn.aspx
	[Editor's note: UN-BEE-LEEV-A-BLE!!! We may soon all be eating corn that contains proteins discovered in three mysterious deep-sea creatures found only near hot vents in the ocean. The Syngenta Co. has genetically engineered corn to produce the new proteins found in the mysterious creatures, and now the USDA is about to approve widespread cultivation of the new GE corn, which is intended to be used for ethanol production. Problem is, corn is wind pollinated, which means that the proteins Syngenta has added to their corn will almost certainly spread quickly and end up in everybody else's corn. If you prefer not to have your food contaminated with material from plants that have been engineered to produce drugs or industrial products, you need to let your congressional representatives, the secretary of agriculture and the president know ASAP. See below for more information, prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists, on this startling genetic engineering controversy. – Cheryl Long, editor in chief]
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently closed the public comment period for its proposal to permit – for the first time – widespread cultivation of a food crop engineered for biofuel production. If authorized, the new ethanol corn would also be the first genetically engineered industrial crop destined to be planted on millions of acres annually. Grown at such an enormous scale, the ethanol corn would inevitably contaminate corn intended for the food and feed supply, exposing people to new engineered proteins that may pose an allergy risk. In comments submitted to the USDA, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) called on the agency to ban the outdoor production of ethanol corn and all other food crops engineered for industrial or drug purposes to protect the food supply. Additionally, UCS supports moving beyond corn – engineered or not – as a biofuel source because it may contribute to, rather than reduce, global warming pollution, and because alternative sources can be obtained in a more responsible and sustainable manner. Background Last November, the USDA announced its preliminary decision to grant non-regulated status to Syngenta Company's genetically engineered ethanol corn, and invited public comment on both the decision and the draft environmental assessment that details the agency's reasons for its decision. After reviewing those comments, the USDA will decide whether to deregulate the new industrial crop. Deregulation would mean the product would no longer be subject to USDA oversight and could be grown without any restrictions at any scale in the United States. Syngenta, a giant, multinational pesticide company, developed the ethanol corn to reduce the costs of producing ethanol from corn kernels. By engineering the crop to contain a new protein that breaks down corn starch under the high temperature phase of ethanol production, the company expects its new product to supplant the current method of using proteins derived from microbes. The genetic engineering process ensures that most of the novel protein is produced at relatively high levels in the corn kernel. Syngenta patched together the engineered protein from ones it obtained from three unusual and relatively unknown organisms that live near extremely hot deep sea vents. Scientists have found them to be so extraordinary that they cannot be classified with such well-known organisms as yeast, bacteria, plants or animals, but must be assigned to an entirely new category. If grown at the scale Syngenta intends, the new corn would certainly contaminate the food supply, according to UCS scientists. As a result, people would wind up consuming these new proteins, which have never been in food and were never intended for human consumption. In fact, except for a small cadre of scientists, human beings have never encountered them. Without this history of human exposure, scientists are uncertain if these new proteins will produce allergic reactions. UCS Recommendations In comments to the USDA, UCS urged them to ban the outdoor production of the ethanol corn and any other food crop genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical or industrial substances. Absent a ban, UCS urged the agency not to move ahead with a decision regarding Syngenta's product until newly appointed officials are in place and have had an opportunity to review the ethanol corn request and broader biotechnology regulations. Trade groups and companies involved in milling, refining, and exporting corn, including the Corn Refiners Association, National Grain and Feed Association, North American Export Grain Association, and North American Millers' Association, also opposed USDA approval of this engineered corn, citing concerns that its engineered protein could damage food products such as breakfast cereals and snack foods, as well as disrupt exports of such products. UCS also urged the USDA to delay a decision because, according to UCS' analysis, the agency's decision-making process on the ethanol corn did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To meet NEPA requirements, UCS urged the USDA to revise its draft environmental assessment, or prepare an environmental impact statement that details the major environmental impacts that widespread cultivation of the new corn may cause. UCS found that the agency's initial assessment failed to comply with NEPA in three respects. First, it did not allay concerns that the industrial corn's new protein may cause allergies in people. Second, the assessment did not consider the potential economic effects of commercial production of the ethanol corn, including impacts on exporters and growers if the corn were to contaminate shipments to countries that have not approved it. Third, the USDA only partially addressed alternatives to Syngenta's corn, ignoring other products that may offer significant advantages over the industrial crop. Finally, UCS opposes a USDA decision to deregulate Syngenta's product because producing ethanol from corn may actually contribute to – rather than reduce – global warming emissions. Recent studies suggest that the production of biofuels from corn and other food crops – genetically engineered or not – may increase climate changing pollution. However, given the enormity of the global warming challenge, UCS believes that the United States should take advantage of the opportunity presented by biofuels by turning away from today's unsustainable food-based biofuels to tomorrow's sustainably produced non-food biofuels, such as mixed native grasses, agricultural waste and other cellulosic-based sources. In a related matter, just before inauguration day, the USDA – at the request of UCS and others – extended the comment period for a controversial rule that would substantially weaken oversight of all engineered crops, including pharmaceutical and industrial crops. UCS submitted comments last November on the proposed rule, lambasting the USDA's rulemaking as "a serious abdication of its responsibility" to ensure that genetically engineered crops are produced and used safely. The extended public comment period, which ends March 17, gives the Obama administration an opportunity to weigh in on this important rule. --- The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., and has offices in Berkeley, Calif., Chicago and Washington, D.C. For more information, visit the UCS website http://www.ucsusa.org _______________________ Jeffrey Smith speaks in Hawaii on Genetically Modified Plants Hawaii Health Guide, 26 February 2009. By Joan Conrow. http://www.hawaiihealthguide.com/healthtalk/display.htm?id=741 The Islands also grow seed for mainland farmers from transgenic crops that are engineered to produce their own insecticides or resist herbicides. So far, the government has approved transgenic varieties of soybeans, corn, canola, sugar beets, zucchini, crookneck squash and papaya, which means that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are widely present in our food supply. That's where Jeffrey M. Smith comes in. He's the founder and director of The Institute for Responsible Technology, and the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating. His recent tour to Hawai'i promoting his new book, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, and the Institute's Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Joan Conrow interviews Jeffrey Smith on his recent Hawaii Tour: JC: Why have you devoted your life to this issue? What's your primary concern here? JS: Hopefully, it won't be my whole life. Hopefully we'll end the dangers of genetically engineered food quickly so we can move on to something else. But what I learned in 1996, just before they introduced genetically engineered foods widely into the environment, was they were doing something with a completely infant science with a primitive technology based largely on unproven or disproved assumptions and they're going to deploy this technology into the entire food supply and release it into the environment, where we had no way to recall it. I was appalled. GMOs expose the public in a way that no other technology has, in food fed to a billion people. My background is as a communicator and educator. I figured, we need to start getting this information out to people. The GMO issue is multifaceted. We've got multinational corporations trying to control the world's seed supply. Britain's Daily Mail reported an estimated 125,000 farmers in India have committed suicide because they were financially ruined by their foray into transgenic cotton. Then we've got the environmental issues, like unintentional cross pollination with cultivated and wild plants, as well as an increased use of herbicides, pesticides, water and fertilizers associated with these crops. JC: With all these hot topics to choose from, why did you decide to focus on food and health concerns? JS: It was strategic, actually. I was aware of what happened in Europe in 1999. In January of '99, the biotech industry was still projecting a 95 percent take over of all commercial seeds in the world within five years. They were expecting to basically replace nature. But three weeks after they made their prediction, there was a high profile food scandal related to GMOs that erupted in Europe, and suddenly everyone was buzzing about the potential health dangers. That created a tipping point of consumer rejection. Using GM ingredients became a marketing liability in Europe, and within a single week in '99, virtually every major food company committed to stop using GMOs. JC: What are some of the most worrisome health effects? JS: There are many, but let's start with one. There's been just one known human feeding study, and it showed that herbicide-resistant Round-Up Ready genes survived digestion and were present in gut bacteria. We may have compromised our gut bacteria in America and that is not trivial. It's an important part of our immune system. There's also the potential for allergens. Studies done on rats show intestinal damage, anemia, depressed immune response, low birth weight, increased infant mortality, organ damage, toxicity and more. Very few animal studies have been done, and they were not long-term feeding studies. Laborers working in fields of cotton reported rashes, asthma, itching, skin eruptions. JC: Your institute is conducting the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which is aimed at creating a tipping point here, similar to what happened in Europe. Tell us more about it. JS: If companies believe they are losing market share and they sense it is a trend, they will change. Just 5.6 million people could change it. We are in a situation where it should be very easy to reach the tipping point. We're already seeing it happen with rGBH, the bovine growth hormone. Starting about three years ago, consumers said they didn't want to eat anything from cows injected with rBGH. So one by one, companies have been jettisoning it, including Wal-Mart, Safeway, Starbucks and now Dannon. We're going to nail the coffin shut on that one. And this was done because people were educated about the health risks. GMOs are successful in the United States only because of consumer ignorance. JC: If you're effective in killing the market for transgenics in America, will that serve to increase pressure on developing nations to buy these crops and seeds? The corporations behind them have invested more than $220 billion in this technology. Can we expect they'll just roll over and give up if they lose the American market? JC: No, we can't expect them to roll over. But ending the demand for GMOs in the U.S. will reduce the pressure on developing nations in two ways: A lot export into Europe and they don't grow GM because their customers won't buy it. If GMOs are rejected by Americans, it would double their reason for not growing it. Another reason GMOs have survived is because of bullying by the U.S. government. We fund the State Department to push GMOs into African nations. JC: And if the industry isn't stopped? JS: They have over 100 products waiting in the wings, and that includes virtually every fruit, vegetable and grain you might want to eat. And the "terminator technology," which prevents a plant from making seeds, has not yet been deployed. JC: Much of the transgenic crop is used in animal feed. Are eggs and meat from these animals tainted? JS: No studies have been done on the effects of eating animals that have eaten genetically engineered grain. In our campaign to get President Obama to make good on his promise to label GMO products in the U.S., we are trying to close the loophole in Europe's labeling law, which does not require labeling of animals fed GMO feed. JC: How can people avoid eating genetically engineered foods? JS: Junk food is going to be GMO foods. In restaurants, ask what kind of oil they use, as GMOs are often hidden there. Blue corn, red corn and popcorn are not GMO. In the store, you can buy organics, products that are labeled non-GMO and the items in our shopping guide, which can be downloaded for free at http://www.responsibletechnology.org. _______________________ GMO maize strains move closer to approval EU Observer, 26 February 2009. By Andrew Willis. http://euobserver.com/9/27687/?rk=1 EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU scientists failed on Wednesday (26 February) to approve or reject a commission proposal to grant biotech companies a licence to produce two strains of genetically modified maize. The two strains being considered by a European Commission scientific standing committee, Bt-11 maize produced by Swiss company Syngenta and 1507 maize produced jointly by Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroScience, however have both already been approved by the European Food Safety Authority. "This decision only adds to our frustration with the lengthy and unscientific process to get our safe Bt11 maize product approved in Europe," Syngenta said in a statement. However, European environmental groups who oppose the maize strains on ecological grounds fear EU voting systems will result in the licences being eventually granted anyway. This is despite the fact that a majority of EU states currently oppose the cultivation of genetically modified crops. "The commission is pushing forward with its completely pro-GMO agenda," Greenpeace activist Marta Vetier told EUobserver. At Wednesday's expert meeting, six member states (with 91 votes) voted in favour of the proposal whereas 12 (with 127 votes) voted against it. Scientists from seven member states abstained, while those from Germany and Malta were not present for the vote. The 127 votes against the proposal does not represent the qualified majority (255 votes) necessary to end the licence application so the decision will now go to the Council of Ministers - representing member-state governments - for a decision. "All of the evidence before member states provides a firm basis for authorisation," said Syngenta. "We hope that the council will seize the opportunity provided by the next vote to give EU farmers a choice to use a technology capable of making a significant contribution to sustainable agriculture." Again here, a qualified majority is needed amongst ministers to either approve or reject the commission proposal to grant the 10-year licences to the two companies. In the event that this qualified majority is not achieved, the commission may decide to go ahead and issue licences. Precedent suggests that it will. To date only one GMO product, a maize strain produced by Monsanto, has been licensed for production in the EU and that was as far back as 1998 when rules governing such crops were different. In recent years however, there has been an increase in the amount of GMO crops imported into the EU for both human and animal consumption. Debate on GMO crops Supporters of GMOs argue that they are a legitimate food source, with the potential to bring down food prices and greatly reduce world hunger. They point to countries such as Argentina and the US where such crops are grown successfully. There is also extensive debate as to whether the EU's almost total ban on GMO production is in breech of WTO rules. Additionally, advocates argue that genetic engineering of crops so that they resist common pests results in reduced levels of chemical spraying, something environmentalists should welcome, they say. Environmental groups, however, point to a series of ecological concerns. The Bt-11 maize currently up for debate contains a gene normally found in the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that causes the host species to produce a pest-killing toxin. They point to US studies identifying extensive detrimental effects on insects that come into contact with such plants, whether they are considered pests or not. There are also fears in the scientific community that bacteria can transfer such toxin-producing genes from one plant to another, thus transferring the pest immunity to other plant species that may not be considered beneficial to humans. Likewise, new pests will frequently replace those avoided by genetic engineering of plants says Ms Vetier, so the argument for reduced spraying has little validity, she argues. _______________________ Letter To The Editor: In Response To 'Roundup Ready Reality' Hay & Forage Grower (USA), 26 February 2009. http://hayandforage.com/news/0226-roundup-editor-letter/ The science of genetic engineering (GE) systems must include management. (See Roundup Ready Reality, January issue http://hayandforage.com/hay/farming_roundup_ready_reality_0101/.) It is not responsible to select most of our crops to be herbicide-resistant. Super weeds are increasing. Was Roundup Ready alfalfa selected for some pesty weeds in southern Wisconsin and parts of California or was it the expected ease to gain monopoly control of the alfalfa-seed industry? The responsible control and management of perennial alfalfa pollen flow, seed contamination and liability costs are not possible. Less than 1% of alfalfa acres were planted to Roundup Ready alfalfa. Parts of these acres have been removed by producers, reducing impact on their neighbors. Buffer zones and cutting before bloom are not working. Who is responsible for contamination seed tests? A proposed 1-5% tolerance on GE seed contamination will reduce independent competitive conventional alfalfa seed sources. Safety tests have not been done, also. Mexico, Canada and Europe do not want genetically engineered alfalfa, either. The qualities of conventional alfalfa are excellent and alfalfa breeders have not come up with much improvement. The biggest moneymaker would be monopoly control of the seed market. Overall, genetic diversity is important. The lack of genetic diversity led to potato famines and millions of deaths in the last century. I use sustainable crop rotation and nitrogen credits from alfalfa as do others very effectively. There is a conflict-of-interest question. Universities and labs get grants and contracts from biotech companies. There are large costs, technical control and management issues/risks and liability as things go wrong. This would be the demise of the independent conventional alfalfa seed producer if Roundup Ready alfalfa is commercialized. Chuck Noble South Dakota alfalfa and seed producer. _______________________ Dow may sell AgroScience division PANNA (Pesticide Action Newtwork North America), 26 February 2009. http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20090226#3 Dow Chemical Co. may be forced to sell Dow AgroSciences in an effort to raise cash. Currently the sixth largest producer of pesticides worldwide, Dow has quietly been shopping it's profitiable AgroScience division because of a cash shortage from two failed deals that are now in litigation. In late 2008, a joint venture with Kuwait's state-run Petrochemical Industries Co.-- that would have allowed Dow to complete a $15.3 billion acquisition of Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Co -- collapsed. Facing litigation on all sides, Dow sued Kuwait to make good on their planned $9 billlion cash infusion to facilitate the purchase, while Rohm and Haas sued Dow to try to force it to complete the transaction, reports the Indianapolis Business Journal. TheDeal.com listed potential buyers of Dow AgroSciences as DuPont Agriculture and Nutrition, Syngenta AG and Bayer Crop-Science AG, which would lead to a further consolidation of the pesticide and genetically-enginered crop transnationals from the "big six" to a "big five": BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta. Comment from GM Watch: PANNA places Dow AgroScience as the "sixth largest producer of pesticides worldwide". Etc. group, basing itself on sales makes it fourth among the world's "big six" pesticide firms by market share (based on agrochemical sales in 2007) 1.Bayer (Germany) - $7,458m - 19% market share 2.Syngenta (Switzerland) - $7,285m - 19% 3.BASF (Germany) - $4,297m - 11% 4.Dow AgroSciences (USA) - $3,779m - 10% 5.Monsanto (USA) - $3,599m - 9% 6.DuPont (USA) - $2,369m - 6% _______________________ Scientists blocked from researching GM crop impacts PANNA (Pesticide Action Newtwork North America), 26 February 2009. http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20090226#3 Biotechnology companies are stopping scientists from researching the efficiency and environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops, according to a statement submitted to U.S. EPA by 26 specialists in corn pests. The scientists, primarily from land-grant universities, submitted the statement anonymously for fear of being blacklisted. Andrew Pollack of the New York Times interviewed the scientists, whose stories of the industry's chokehold on research include outright prohibition of research and laundering of data. Leading agricultural biotech companies, including DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta, are also the primary producers of insecticides and herbicides. Scientists are concerned that neither EPA nor farmers can get enough non-industry-controlled science to make informed decisions about whether GM crop technologies are worth either the money or the risks increasingly associated with biotechnology. "U.S. agriculture uses far more biotech than any other nation. The companies foisting these technologies on the developing world at a considerable profit are U.S.-based. The fact that neither U.S. regulatory agencies, nor American farmers, can get independent scientific assessment is especially alarming," said PAN Senior Scientist, Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman. Risks and unintended consequences are only slowly coming to light, and include reduction rather than increases in yields, potential uncontrolled spread of food allergens and other genes, human and animal health harms associated with eating GM foods, and more. Genetically engineered crops have failed to deliver on industry promises of increased yields, nutritional value, or drought-tolerance. Herbicide tolerance (particularly for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's RoundUpTM) is the engineered crop trait that does appear to work, and is in broadest use (82% of biotech crops worldwide). According to a World Watch Institute report, wide adoption of such herbicide-tolerant crops in the U.S. has increased use of pesticides, resulting in the spread of 15 species of glyphosate-resistant "superweeds" in the U.S. alone. In the 1990s there were two such species of "superweeds." Interview with Chuck Benbrook about GM crops http://tiny.cc/Q8wug _______________________ Syngenta not actively pursuing biotech wheat: CEO Reuters, 26 February 2009. By K.T. Arasu. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE51P6HO20090226 WASHINGTON -- Syngenta AG, the world's largest agrochemical group, is not actively pursuing genetically modified wheat because of consumer resistance, Chief Executive Michael Mack told Reuters on Thursday. "We are not actively pursuing it in the face of the fact that the biotechnology we have today is still facing consumer resistance," he said on the sidelines of the annual USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum here. He said biotech wheat was not receiving "the same sort of resources and focus from the company as some of our other products." But Mack was confident that genetically modified wheat -- like corn and soybeans -- would eventually win acceptance among consumers. "I will tell you, in 10 years people will begin to see the benefits of biotech wheat," he added. Even as most consumers around the world have come to accept genetically modified corn and soybeans that are largely used as livestock feed, they have been opposed to biotech wheat that is used to make bread, noodles, pastries and pasta. Wheat and corn account for 40 percent of the world's food and 25 percent of calories consumed in developing countries, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture organization. There is no transgenic wheat currently in the world due to the strong opposition from public and consumer organizations. U.S. biotech giant Monsanto has shelved its project to develop herbicide-resistant wheat due to consumer resistance. Syngenta's Mack said he did not expect the sharp decline in grain prices from the record highs set last year to set back increased acceptance of transgenic crops like corn and soy. He said that countries that pushed through regulatory changes to accept biotech crops when prices hit record highs were doing it for the wrong reasons. "We shouldn't adopt biotechnology in the face of a crisis. This is safe technology. This is technology that is not a silver bullet. I thought it was wrong for the advent of a food crisis to be something governments would rush to change the regulatory framework," he added. "I hope that now that food prices have come back, we will go into a sensible discussion about where (biotech crops) can be adopted," he said. (Editing by Christian Wiessner) _______________________ Leibniz Institute in research agreement with Bayer Science Business, 26 February 2009. http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20090226#3 Collaboration Bayer CropScience and the German Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) have entered into a research agreement in which they will develop genetically modified, high-yielding canola (oilseed rape) hybrids. The aim is to incorporate advances made by IPK into Bayer's InVigor Canola seed business in North America, and to develop oilseed rape products for global markets. "This collaboration with a global company like Bayer CropScience demonstrates that our research is attracting international attention outside the scientific community", said Andreas Graner, Managing Director of the IPK in Gatersleben. "[Using] basic research carried out at the IPK to breed improved agricultural crop plants is a major contribution towards safeguarding the food supply in the long term and providing renewable raw materials." Canola, a Canadian oilseed rape, is one of the most important crops for producing vegetable oils. Apart from its use in the food industry, it is a feedstock for biodiesel. The oil content of conventional Canola is around 45 per cent and Bayer and Leibniz believe that there is potential for increasing the oil content by genetic modification. _______________________ Why We Should Worry About Farm Control Bills OpEdNews.com, 26 February 2009. By Patricia Ormsby. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-We-Should-Worry-About-by-Patricia-0rmsby-090225-181.html I wrote this originally as a letter to friends and family, who'd received a blind cc of my letter to one of the Senators working on the bills for USDA/FDA centralized control over agriculture. It occurred to me they hadn't been following Monsanto's actions to suppress organic or sustainable farming, and therefore could not understand why I was so upset. I also sent out a link a few months ago on a bill in Iraq to prohibit that country's farmers from storing and using their own seed. I don't recall the exact details, but I hear that bill passed, and now the Iraqi people have to deal with a new kind of oppression and potential genocide: dependency on the whims of large corporations, especially Monsanto, for their food. India has no similar law, but many of its cotton farmers have been driven to suicide as the result of Monsanto's questionable business practices (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA) I predicted that if they could achieve that kind of control over agriculture in Iraq, they would then attempt to achieve it elsewhere. Well, here they are now, in America. At last count, they have four bills before the Senate and Congress being rushed through closed-door sessions, all ostensibly to protect food safety, but in fact, designed to curtail agricultural freedom in one way or another for the benefit of large corporations and trade associations. The implications are Stalinesque. I have little specific information about these bills, but I hear that they include legislation dictating what and how much pesticides, antibiotics, etc., can be used (thus taking control from the farmers and altering "organic" in favor of a corporation-friendly definition). The NAIS tracking system would also become compulsory (see http://sovereignty.net/library/nais-no/player.html which is a video running about 30 min. explaining who supports and benefits by NAIS and who pays for it. It benefits neither consumers nor producers and creates a huge bureaucracy.) The worst thing I can say about the bills right now is that they are being rushed through closed-door sessions by people with a record of support for big agri-business. The new Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is notably pro-Monsanto. The United States does not even need to ask its police or USDA to enforce the new regulations, should they pass. Monsanto has already demonstrated its ability and eagerness to do the job itself. Over the past ten years, Monsanto has been involved in efforts to force its system of agriculture on farmers the world over. If you are unaware of Percy Schmeiser's case in Canada, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser. In essence, when genetically modified seeds from a neighboring field blew onto his land and contaminated his crops, Monsanto successfully sued Mr. Schmeiser for patent infringement. Since then, Monsanto has been sending its agents around the US Midwest, threatening farmers with lawsuits if they don't pay up for imaginary infringements. See this link: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/08/tthe-most-evil-company-on-the-planet-monsanto.aspx Linn Cohen-Cole has been writing about these bills at Op-Ed News, and her most recent article, with further background information is at http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-corporations-the-soil-by-Lynn-Cohen-Cole-090224-251.htm I am including a link below to a warning about our dependency on petrochemicals in agriculture, because many people note that we face serious food shortages the world over; therefore, aside from the health considerations of relying on large corporations to provide our food (that's another topic entirely), we must consider learning how to grow our own organic gardens and how to keep chickens and so on, because it might very well mean the difference between starvation and survival. ---------- Eating Fossil Fuels By Dale Allen Pfeiffer [ Note: The most frightening article FTW has ever published is now a free story for all to read. Our paid subscribers read it last October. As Peak Oil and its effects become a raging national controversy it's time everyone reads the story that puts the most serious implications of Peak Oil and Gas into perspective. Your biggest problem is not that your SUV might go hungry, it's that you and your children might go hungry. What has been documented here is no secret to US and foreign policy makers as China experiences grain shortages this year and, as CNN's Lou Dobbs recently reported, the US and Canada will soon no longer be the world's breadbasket. - MCR ] http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil Patricia Ormsby is an environmental and health activist living Fujinomiya, Japan. She obtained her bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Colorado in 1981 and studied Linguistics at the University of Michigan Graduate (more... http://www.opednews.com/author/author11383.html) _______________________ Climate change: New Thinking to Tackle Old Problems Inter Press Service (IPS), 26 February 2009. By Kristin Palitza. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=45905 ROME -- Organic and eco-friendly farming can feed the world, contrary to the common belief that biotechnology and chemical-intensive farming are indispensable, modern strategies to increase production, agricultural experts say. "It is not necessarily about producing more food, but about producing more quality nutrition through less energy use and pollution," declared Hans Herren president of the Washington DC-based Millennium Institute, a non-profit organisation promoting long-term, integrated, global thinking. "We have to invest heavily into research on how to increase eco-agricultural production." The best way to mitigate climate change and gain food security is to support small-scale, ecological farming, scientists and economists said during the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Governing Council in Rome, Italy, in late February. This would be a turnaround from international agricultural strategies of the past two decades that heavily promote monocropping and the use of biotechnologies. "Nobody has really thought yet about how and if we can mitigate climate change in agriculture," admitted Dr Josef Schmidhuber, head of the global perspectives study unit at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), indicating that although there is a lot of talk about averting the impact of climate change, no policies have been implemented yet to solve the problem. "It starts and ends with governance, with convincing key decision makers to change strategy," said Herren. "We know what the solutions to climate change are, but they are not put into practice because governments are in bed with the biotechnology industry. They are more interested in making a quick buck than in the long-term benefits of farmers." Herren believes industrial agriculture is "bankrupt by definition", because it costs too much energy to produce: "For every calorie you produce you have to put in ten, if you look at fuel, fertiliser and labour needed." He lobbied policymakers to focus on prevention rather than fixing crises: "In agriculture, it takes a long time to rebuild what we destroy. It takes years to replenish soils and re-create diversity. We have to go back to the source and ensure that healthy soils grow healthy crops." Chemical-heavy agriculture has been systematically destroying soils, Herren complained, by causing mineral depletion, erosion and reducing soils' ability to retain water. "For small-scale farmers, water is far more important than having a pest-resistant, genetically modified plant, which is only resistant to one particular type of pest anyway," he said. Downward spiral Agriculture is the main income source for poor rural people in the developing world. At the same time, it is the human activity most directly affected by climate change. Climate change will affect smallholder farmers (who own less than two hectares of land) through increased crop failure, a rise in diseases and mortality of livestock, increased livelihood insecurity resulting in assets being sold, indebtedness, migration and dependency on food aid. Other consequences will be desertification and land degradation, rising sea levels causing floods, diminishing natural resource productivity and, in some areas, irreversible loss of biodiversity. Climate change is expected to put 49 million additional people at risk of hunger by 2020, and 132 million by 2050, according to IFAD. In sub-Saharan Africa, an additional 17 to 50 million people could be undernourished in the second half of the century due to climate change. Generally speaking, climate change is expected to lead to a downward spiral in human development indicators, such as health and education, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. "To feed the world, we will have to scale up productivity, but in an ecological way, by polluting less and making use of low-cost technologies," said Michel Griffon, executive director of the National Research Agency of France. "We need a holistic approach to the entire ecosystem, including soil, water, plants, animal management, pests and diseases. It will be an immense challenge." Change in rainfall One of the key consequences of climate change is changing rainfall patterns. This will particularly affect African countries where 95 percent of cultivated land is rain-fed. "Less than ten percent of cultivated land is irrigated and only 20 percent is irrigable," explained Ides de Willebois, director of IFAD's Eastern and Southern Africa division. In Africa alone, between 75 million and 250 million people will be exposed to increased water stress caused by climate change by 2020. Since the 1960s, the Sahel region has had a 25 percent decline in rainfall. If farmers carry on with "business as usual", productivity could decline between ten percent and 25 percent by 2020, predicts Herren. In some countries, the yields in rain-fed agriculture could even be halved, he believes. "Such trends clearly threaten the achievement of the MDGs. We need new thinking to tackle old problems." Since rural people in developing countries manage vast areas of land and forest, they could be important players in natural resource management. "Climate change will affect us for the next 30 years, even if we take good measures now, so we do need efficient adaptation plans," said Asian Farmers Association secretary general Estrella Penunia. "Policymakers need to re-direct investments to small-scale, ecological, diversified farming," she advocated. "Smallholders will be most affected by climate change, yet they are the ones most likely to use sustainable farming methods, such as diversification and inter-cropping." Agricultural experts at IFAD advise farmers to adapt to climate change by altering timing and location of cropping activities and to utilise water management to prevent water-logging, erosion and nutrient leaching in areas where there is an increase in rainfall. Farmers should also 'harvest' water in areas with less rainfall to conserve soil moisture and use water more efficiently. In addition, farmers should diversify their income though additional activities, such as livestock raising, and use seasonal climate forecasting to reduce production risks. Other strategies include soil conservation, incentives for sustainable production practices and payment for carbon reduction and avoided deforestation. "We need to find solutions to reduce risks and create more safety nets for smallholder farmers," explained Herren. "A most important move would be to increase crop diversity (and move away from mono-cropping) to diminish the risk of crop failure through variety." Resilience against climate change goes down with less plant variety, Herren explained, "because if one invader or disease attacks a mono-crop, everything gets destroyed". He also believes that transgenic plants do not produce a higher yield per hectare than natural plants: "They might produce more efficiently, but gains are nullified because farmers have to pay more for their seeds and buy them every year (because the seeds of genetically modified plants cannot be saved)." _______________________ Ukraine enacts state registration of GMOs and products thereof destined for use in food, medical and cosmetic purposes Black Sea Technology Association (BSBA), 26 February 2009. http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2009/february/25292.htm On 18th February 2009 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved the "PROCEDURE for the State Registration of Genetically Modified Organisms of Food Source, Food Products and Medicinal Agents Containing Those Organisms or Derived Therefrom" (text). The procedure enters into force on the 1st June this year and covers not only GMOs and products thereof but also products containing them or derived through their use. The application shall be accompanied with the enclosure of the "opinion of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Expertise and State Ecological Expertise if the Products contain genetically modified organisms or their parts are capable of self regeneration or hereditary factor transfer". State registration shall be free of charge and the approval will be given for five years period by inclusion of the product in the State Register. "Information set forth in documents filed for the state registration of the Products shall be deemed confidential and may not be disclosed to or used for the benefit of a third party unless an Applicant gives its consent". Time period for considering an application file shall not exceed 120 days upon its receipt. Agency responsible for the State Registration and handling the State register is Ministry of Health Care. _______________________ The plight of the bumblebee Santa Ynez Valley Journal (California), 26 February 2009. By Diane Wilee. http://www.santaynezvalleyjournal.com/archive/7/9/3958/ Where were you May 31, 2002, when CBC News Radio's As It Happens aired a report titled "Scientists investigate demise of bees in P.E.I. (Prince Edward Island)?" Right ... I don't know either. I did not hear of it or read about it in our stateside newspapers. The gist of that report was that about 50 percent of the products we eat require pollination by bees and that "honey bee populations have been dying off at alarming rates since the mid-1990s," with mortality rates of "up to 90 percent in their apiaries" in P.E.I., New Brunswick, Ontario, the Prairies and parts of the United States. Jim Kemp, botanist at the University of P.E.I, and his colleagues wanted to find out if residues from a potato pesticide called Admire, manufactured by Bayer, were responsible for the honey bee demise. In the first year of results, the researchers did not find anything that pointed to Admire. They said other factors, such as management, stress or disease could be causing the problems. On April, 15, 2007, an article by Amy Ellis Nutt ran in the Newark, New Jersey-based Star Ledger about the crucial importance of honey bee colonies to agriculture, and the demise of their colonies across the country. Now, in our own backyard, I still did not know about it. Did you? Nutt noted that 140 billion commercially raised honey bees are responsible for pollinating about $20 billion worth of crops, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Waves of migratory beekeepers follow the blossoming trees and orchards up and down the United States, crating millions of bees to fields of sweet clover in Colorado; sun-drenched citrus groves in Florida; cucumber and melon patches in Virginia; apple orchards in Maine, New York and Wisconsin; cranberry bogs in New Jersey; cotton fields in West Texas; and almond trees in California. Nutt also reported that, unlike farmers, beekeepers receive no government subsidies for their work. Many bee experts have given up the business in recent years and there are, in most states, no bee experts on the government payroll. Sorta shortsighted, don't you think? I guess, much like global warming, most politicians don't want to be tainted by belief. Across the U.S., many hives placed near cornfields have completely emptied. Apiarists are calling these baffling phenomena Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Beekeepers reported estimates as high as 80 percent loss of their honey bee colonies. Penn State University entomologist Diana Cox-Foster and Nutt reported, after lengthy study, that genetically engineered corn may be the prime culprit (think Ethanol). The chemical imidacloprid, an environmental pesticide used to coat corn kernels to repel insects, is toxic to honey bees, suppressing their immune systems, and was the primary cause of a huge die-off in France during the 1990s. The USDA and EPA have failed to adequately assess the potential for lethal impacts of engineered crop pesticides on pollinators such as honey bees and wild bees. Laurel Hopwood, the chairwoman of Sierra Club's genetic engineering committee, stated in 2007: "In searching for the cause of massive honey bee losses nationwide, we must leave no stone unturned to find the answer. Is the release of genetically engineering organisms the smoking gun?" She indicated that government regulators don't look, so they don't find. Dr. Barry Commoner, a prominent biologist, said in 2007: "Genetically engineered crops represent a huge uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic." Genetic engineering involves the artificial transfer of genes from one organism into another, bypassing the protective barrier between species. Another practice thought suspect is the feeding of honey bee colonies genetically engineered corn syrup, which the government has also failed to study adequately. If genetically engineered crops are killing honey bees, a moratorium on their planting should be strongly considered. Other causes under investigation are mites, microbial disease and habitat decline. In 2002, customs officials seized hundreds of queen bees being smuggled into Alberta, Canada, from the U.S. Canada has banned the import of bees from the continental U.S. to prevent the spread of parasitic Varroa mites, which can weaken honey bees. A 2007 report in Science News noted a possible combination of sources is causing the bees to progressively and simultaneously lose their sense of direction, sense of smell and ability to communicate. The cohesion of the colony is destroyed and the bees just drift off to die alone, abandoning their queen. Now, for the probable truth of the matter: The effects of mobile radio and wireless communication as noted by bioscientist Dr.Ulrich Warnke in his September, 2008, paper titled "Effects of EM radiation on life." Warnke said we have "overwhelming evidence that EM (electro-magnetic) radiation is indeed the cause of the disappearance of the bees, as well as other insects, birds, bats and other creatures." One common feature in their disappearance is disorientation caused by interference in their capacity to direct themselves by the earth's magnetic field. In the Jan. 16 issue of "In These New Times," it was reported that mobile radio and wireless communications, such as WiFi and cell phones, are indeed the main culprits. Humankind is among the creatures affected. Albert Einstein once said: "If all the honey bees disappeared, all the plants and animals, including man, would follow in less than four years." I'd give it five or six, as I have abundant body fat. You may respond directly to Diane Willee at dianewillee@yahoo.com. _______________________ Farmers warn of GM concerns Weekly Times (Australia), February 26 2009. http://tiny.cc/Pkq5J TWO North American Farmers are touring Australia to warn about their experiences with genetically modified (GM) food crops. The farmers, Moe Parr and Ross Murray. say more than a decade of growing GM crops in North America has resulted in increased corporate control of farming and reduced profits for farmers. As Australian farmers prepare to plant this year's canola crop, the North Americans will speak at forums across key canola growing regions in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales. The farmers are speaking to parliamentarians at the Victoria Parliament today, and will be speaking to farmers in Horsham on Saturday at 2pm at the Wellesley Performing Arts Centre. In 2008, small quantities of GM canola were grown commercially in New South Wales and Victoria after these two states lifted moratoria. Western Australia has also announced that it will allow large-scale field trials of GM canola for the first time this year. Mr Parr, a seed cleaner from Indiana, in the United States, was sued by Monsanto in 2007 for allegedly "aiding", "abetting" and "encouraging" GM soy farmers to break the patent law by saving seed. Mr Parr said he was unable to afford the legal fees to defend himself and was forced to settle out of court. As part of the settlement, Mr Parr says he now has to have each lot of seed he cleans tested for GM contamination and send the results to Monsanto. "In effect I have become an unpaid enforcement officer for Monsanto." Mr Parr said. "Because of GM contamination and the monopoly control of seeds by bio tech companies, in the United States it is nearly impossible to go back. Farmers in Australia still have a choice about whether they want to go down the GM path or not." Mr Murray, a farmer from Saskatchewan, Canada, grew GM Roundup Ready canola for some years. He said he found that it failed to deliver industry promises. "GM canola doesn't stack up; it doesn't yield more than conventional canola, whereas it costs more to grow," he said. "But now farmers don't have a choice; non-GM canola has been eliminated by genetic contamination." Julie Newman, a Western Australian canola farmer and member of the Network of Concerned Farmers, says: "GM canola will risk the livelihoods of non-GM canola farmers. The end point royalty system, under which Monsanto can deduct fees from non-GM canola farmers even for accidental contamination, leaves them completely without choice." She said concerned Australian farmers were calling on the federal and state governments to protect their choice and livelihood by introducing liability legislation to protect non-GM farmers from any economic losses caused by GM contamination. "Our governments must put the interest of farmers before those of multinational agribusiness companies. All we are asking for is fair risk management", Ms Newman said. _______________________ Conservation Council stands strong against GM canola Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 26 February 2009. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/26/2502173.htm The Conservation Council has vowed to continue its campaign against the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops in Western Australia. Yesterday, Agriculture Minister Terry Redman announced preliminary land boundaries for the commercial trials of GM canola, with exact locations to be revealed next month. Mr Redman says the 20 farms selected to plant the crops will be located in the great southern and wheatbelt, between Cranbrook, Borden, Northam and Cunderdin. The council's Piers Verstegen says he is not giving up the fight against GM crops. "GM canola has been tried and failed in the eastern states, where yields were actually reduced by 17 per cent," he said. "There's no reason to contaminate our state with GM against the clear wishes of the WA community." _______________________ 25 February 2009 Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene YouTube, 25 February 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50&eurl=http://www.examiner.com/x-3157-LA-Mens-Health-Examiner~y2009m2d25-Gay-Scientists-Isolate-Christian-Gene _______________________ EU deadlocks on gene-altered corn International Herald Tribune, 25 February 2009. By James Kanter. http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/25/business/bio.php BRUSSELS - European Union experts deadlocked Wednesday over whether to allow gene-altered corn seed to be marketed within its borders, setting the stage for a political showdown between governments. The two strains of corn seed, one produced by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a unit of DuPont, with Dow AgroSciences, and another strain by Syngenta, would be the first to be approved for growing in Europe in a decade. Under European procedures, national governments now must decide, possibly before the summer, whether to support a technology that proponents say could reduce food prices but that offends many voters in countries like France and Poland, where opposition to such products runs deep. Mike Hall, a spokesman for Pioneer, said he wanted governments to vote "at the earliest possible opportunity to put us on track to give additional choice to farmers by spring 2010." The safety of the seeds has been hotly debated. In 2007, the EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, recommended stopping both products from being grown in Europe. Dimas said the corn could harm monarch butterflies, affect food chains and disturb life in rivers and streams. But Dimas has had to retract his opposition under pressure from pro-biotechnology members of the European Commission, and after additional safety approvals issued by the European Food Safety Authority, a body that advises the commission and governments. Pressure to back down also came from Pioneer, which sued the commission in 2007 for failing to act swiftly. Opponents of gene-altered seeds said Wednesday that there still was ample evidence to stop the products from reaching the market and that Europe needed more rigorous testing procedures before governments voted. "These crops should not been grown in Europe," said Helen Holder, the coordinator for genetically modified organisms at Friends of the Earth Europe. Both seeds had been engineered to produce a toxin that kills insects that threaten corn crops, but Holder said that the toxin also could be dangerous to other insects. Holder said the crops had been engineered to tolerate glufosinate, a herbicide that environment ministers and the European Parliament already have agreed to phase out in Europe. Hall, of Pioneer, said glufosinate is not permitted for use on corn crops in Europe and that resistance to glufosinate was created in the seeds for scientific reasons. If the governments also fail to reach a clear decision, the commission, which has recommended approval for the seeds, is expected to authorize them to be put on the market in a final decision that could come by the end of the year. Winning permission to market the seeds would mark an milestone for the biotechnology industry in Europe, where only one product, a strain of corn produced by Monsanto, is grown. In recent years only two countries - Britain and Sweden - consistently voted in favor of permitting gene-altered crops. And since 1998, the European Commission and governments have not approved any applications for farming gene-altered crops. The biotechnology industry has claimed it is winning more support among governments than before, as countries increasingly see the crops as a way to bring down food and feed prices after sharp price spikes last year that put a new strain on household finances across the trade bloc. Making it easier to grow modified crops also would relieve legal pressure on Europe that is coming from important trading partners like the United States, and coming from companies like Pioneer. On Wednesday, 6 national experts voted in favor of the seeds while 12 voted against and 9 either abstained or were absent, which under a weighted voting system was not enough to produce a decision. Terms of Use _______________________ EU meeting on GM maize ends in deadlock Reuters, 25 February 2009. By Pete Harrison. http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSLP81060120090225 BRUSSELS - A meeting of European Union biotech experts ended in deadlock on Wednesday after failing to agree on whether to allow more cultivation of genetically modified crops, hugely controversial in Europe. The applications for two GM maize types will now be sent to EU ministers for a decision. Two GM maize types were considered at the meeting -- Bt-11 maize, engineered by Switzerland's Syngenta (SYNN.VX), and 1507 maize -- jointly developed by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a unit of DuPont Co (DD.N) and Mycogen Seeds, a unit of Dow AgroSciences (DOW.N). "This decision only adds to our frustration," Syngenta said in a statement. "Today's long-awaited vote could have marked a watershed for the current slow and highly-politicized approach to authorising biotech crops in Europe." "Farmers have been growing Bt11 maize safely and successfully for over 10 years in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, the Philippines, Uruguay and the United States," the company added. New modified crops for cultivation are the most contentious GM issue in Europe, and none have been approved since 1998. However a string of modified products have been approved for import since 2004 for use in food and animal feed. "1507 maize has been grown commercially around the world since 2003 without any negative impacts on the environment, food safety or consumer health," Dow said in a statement. "We regret that Member States failed to cast a deciding vote based on the scientific evidence and common sense," it added. But environment group Greenpeace said the stalemate reflected the need to tweak the EU's process for authorising GM crops, something already recommended by environment ministers. "The Commission has utterly ignored these recommendations," said Greenpeace campaigner Marco Contiero. "The concerns of EU citizens on GMOs can no longer be ignored." "EU member states have every right to maintain total control over what is grown on their own territory until the recommendations for a review of the GMO process are taken seriously by the Commission," he added. While diplomats say approving a new GM crop for growing is almost impossible in the EU's current climate, if ministers also fail to agree, the applications would then return to the Commission. If that happens, the Commission would -- probably -- end up issuing standard 10-year licences by default. But that may take some time. (Reporting by Pete Harrison; editing by Mark John and Peter Blackburn) _______________________ EU rejects plans for new GM crops Bid to allow two new GM crops into the EU is blocked; just one form of GM crop is allowed in the EU. EuropeanVoice.com, 25 February 2009. By Zoë Casey. http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/02/eu-rejects-plans-for-new-gm-crops/64086.aspx A committee of experts from EU nations has rejected a proposal to allow two new types of genetically modified (GM) maize to be grown in European fields. The proposals, which related to GM maize Bt-11 developed by biotech company Syngenta, and maize 1507 developed by Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer, will now be submitted to the Council of Ministers for further scrutiny. "The Committee was unable to find a qualified majority either for or against the proposal", the European Commission said on 25 February, shortly after the meeting of experts. Among the countries known to have voted in favour of the proposal are Estonia, Finland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Germany and Malta are understood to have abstained from voting. The 12 other member states voted against. Thomas Lyall, a spokesman for Dow AgroSciences, said that he was "frustrated" at the vote. He argued that member states are not voting based on scientific evidence. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) first approved both GMs in 2005, and later in 2006 and 2008. Only one GM crop is authorised for cultivation in the EU - a maize called Mon810. EU politicians have since been reluctant to approve other crops for growing due to fears of a public backlash and the emergence of other studies that question GM crops' impact on health and the environment. Helen Holder of the campaigning group Friends of the Earth Europe said that the GMs in question are developed to tolerate a pesticide that the European Parliament has said should be phased out due to risks on human health. "These crops should not be grown in Europe," she said. _______________________ Oh no, GMO Honolulu Weekly (Letters), 25 February 2009. http://honoluluweekly.com/letters/2009/02/oh-no-gmo/ House bill 1226, introduced to prohibit the state from passing bans on genetic modification, is complete nonsense. The goal of GMOs is to generate seed patents for large corporations and restrict the seed market to a few branded seeds for which farmers and consumers will pay dearly. This bill must die on arrival. Being against GMO is not being anti-science, I am all for GMOs (especially for medicinal purposes) in a controlled, enclosed lab environment. Growing GMO in the open is just too great a contamination risk. Contamination by foreign genes in seeds destroys native seeds, their history and lineage. And there is something quite unethical and abnormal about unnaturally forcing foreign genes into other genes when nature really did not intent for genes to cross species. Furthermore, growing GMO in Hawai'i and contaminating organic seeding will close most world markets to our products, in particular for coffee, macadamia nuts and so forth, because most European and Asian countries will not buy tainted food. GMO experimenting should never have started in Hawai'i, we are getting close to the point of no return where no native food will be able to grow naturally, and since we have no label laws, and my children and I will be eating God knows what. Granted, Hawai'i is the perfect place for experimentation may it be GMOs, nuclear power, virus culture and so forth, after all we are an island, and corporations – with your tacit support – have declared us expendable. Please get informed and educated, kill HB1226, and start passing laws expanding organic farming and laws requiring the labeling of our food products so that we know what we are eating. Jacques Bargiel Kailua _______________________ Member States fence-sit on GM maize approval ENDS Europe, 25 February 2009. http://www.endseurope.com/20767?referrer=bulletin A committee of member state experts failed to decide whether or not to authorise the cultivation of two new types of GM maize in the EU in a vote on Wednesday (EE 22 01/09). Twelve EU countries including Austria and France rejected the European commission's proposal to authorise GM maize Bt11 and 1507 for cultivation, ENDS understands. But with six countries voting in favour of the proposal and a further nine abstaining, the committee failed to reach the necessary qualified majority. EU environment ministers must try to reach a decision on the authorisation within 90 days, after which the commission can approve it unilaterally. _______________________ Alliance welcomes Minister's GM statement GM-free Cymru (Wales, UK) press notice, 25 February 2009. Today's statement by Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones has been welcomed by GM Free Cymru and the GM Free Wales Alliance (1), since it confirmed that Wales would continue to implement the most restrictive GM policies in the United Kingdom, designed to keep Wales effectively free of GM crops. The Minister announced that the draft Coexistence Regulations, due to go out for consultation within the coming weeks, will include provisions for:
•	imposing strict liability on GM crop growers and introducing a voluntary industry-funded compensation scheme;
•	a statutory redress mechanism where harm is suffered;
•	GM-free zones which might coincide with local authority areas, depending on the wishes of local people;
•	a ban on GM crop cultivation in statutory conservation areas such as national parks and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs);
•	a statutory and freely accessible national register of all planned and actual GM crop plantings;
•	a "statutory requirement to inform all neighbours and landowners" to ensure that GM crops were kept a sufficient distance away from other crops;
•	significant isolation distances between GM and non-GM crops and buffer zones incorporating pollen barriers or traps;
•	a requirement placed on producers to keep records and to train all staff handling GM crops.
She also emphasized the role of the precautionary principle in Welsh policy relating to GM, and stressed the importance of science-based assessments of risks, benefits, and health and safety issues. The members of the Alliance have written to the Minister to commend her approach, and also to congratulate her on recognizing that social, economic and even political factors do have a role to play in GM decision-making, as recognized by the EU Environment Council on 4th December last year (2). Commenting on the plans, spokesman Dr Brian John said: "We have been waiting for these draft regulations for some time, and we are pleased that the Minister is using the powers delegated to Wales to bring in a much more restrictive GM regime than they have in England. That is entirely in tune with the wishes of the people of Wales, and we hope that the Assembly Government will now get cross-party support. The Government has correctly identified a considerable competitive advantage for Welsh farming that will flow from GM Free status. We accept that the Assembly Government does not have the power to declare Wales as "a GM Free country" since we do not have full national status within the EU. But large parts of Wales can be kept free of GM crops through the use of legal measures. We are delighted that protected areas including national parks will be protected from GM contamination of valuable habitats; and that local communities will be given the right to declare themselves GM Free. "We hope that the draft regulations will complement those of the Environmental Liability Directive (3) which will soon be brought into law. What we want to see is a situation in which anybody who does want to grown GM crops in Wales will have to accept a very strict regulatory regime and full liability for compensating neighbours and paying for damage in the event of GM "trespass." There must be openness and transparency across the board -- and we hope that there will never again be any murky or secretive GM plantings such as that which has recently occurred in the Brecon area, causing tremendous local distress." Contact Brian John GM Free Cymru Tel 01239820470 Notes (1) The members of the GM Free Wales Alliance are GM Free Cymru, the National Federation of Women's Institutes (Wales), FoE Cymru, and FUW. (2) On 4th December the Environment Council of the EU made a number of significant changes to the assessment process for GM foods and crops in Europe. The "Coexistence Proposals" for Wales are modelled on the corporate wishes of the EU Environment Ministers, and on their unanimously agreed statement. http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice05Dec2008.htm http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/fr/ envir/104510.pdf (3) The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (Wales) Regulations are designed to implement the European Environmental Liability Directive, which seeks to ensure that in contamination incidents the "polluter pays" principle is applied effectively. The Regulations have been through the public consultation phase, and are due for formal adoption by the Assembly within the next few weeks. _______________________ Germany - GM food Germany having second thoughts Farming UK, 25 February 2009. http://www.farminguk.com/?show=newsArticle&id=12093 Germany should reconsider its policy of permitting farmers to grow maize with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and consider banning biotech crops, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said on Friday. Gabriel is the second minister to raise a change of GMO policy this week, following Farm Minister Ilse Aigner's statement she may review permission to grow MON 810 GMO maize, developed by U.S. biotech group Monsanto Co.. Germany should consider following countries like France, which had imposed a unilateral bans on GMO maize cultivation, Gabriel said in a statement. "We should also follow this prudent course taken by our neighbors," Gabriel said. MON 810 maize has been approved as safe to cultivate by the European Union and all farmers in the bloc are theoretically free to grow and sell it. The maize is resistant to the corn borer, whose caterpillars damage plantings.. France and Greece have imposed unilateral bans which are controversial in the face of the EU wide approval and are claimed by some to break EU regulations. Moves are under way to force both countries to lift their bans, although EU biotech experts on Monday failed to agree on issuing an order to both countries to allow GMO crop cultivation. Gabriel said Germany should review its policy of permitting GMO cultivation before this season's crops are sown in the spring. "The top priority in the use of genetic technology in agriculture must be placed much more on the precautionary protection of people and the environment," Gabriel said. In early February, German farmers registered intentions to plant 3,567 hectares of GMO maize for the 2009 harvest, up slightly from the 3,207 hectares cultivated in 2008. But the total is an insignificant part of the German annual maize cultivation of around 1.8 to 2.0 million hectares. Earlier this week Monsanto hit back at German government criticism, saying its MON 810 GMO maize had been approved as safe by Germany's own Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety along with the European Food Safety Authority, the EU's key food safety agency. _______________________ Nigeria: 'Super Cassava' to enter field trials Fresh Plaza, 25 February 2009. http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=38891 An ambitious attempt to bioengineer cassava into a "complete meal" took a step forward last week with the approval of field trials for the plant by Nigeria's National Biosafety Committee. The genetically modified cassava contains 30 times as much beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, as its normal counterpart. Ultimately it is hoped the cassava will contain increased levels of iron, protein, zinc and vitamin E that will meet the minimum daily allowance in a 500 gram meal. "This is one of the most ambitious projects ever attempted in a major crop plant," said Richard Sayre of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St Louis, Missouri, who spoke at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Chicago, the United States last week (13 February). Sayre directs the BioCassava Plus programme, which began in 2005 under the Grand Challenges for Global Health Programme. The challenge is to provide complete nutrition in a single staple crop. Some 250 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa - and 800 million people globally - rely on cassava as their main source of energy. But it is low in nutrients, vulnerable to plant viruses, and it lasts only two days without processing. As well as adding extra nutrients, the team has successfully produced varieties with increased virus resistance, decreased amounts of poisonous cyanides - which can remain in cassava if the crop is poorly processed - and a longer shelf life. "We're transforming it into a staple that will provide complete nutrition," Sayre told SciDev.Net. Laboratory and greenhouse tests have been successful - for example, iron levels were increased ninefold, zinc fourfold and protein fourfold. The next stage is confined field trials - small-scale field trials to evaluate the performance of the crop under stringent conditions. If those succeed, there will be nutrition trials, first in animals and then in humans. Nigeria's approval is the first it has granted for a GM confined field trial, said Sayre - though the document awaits the signature of the country's environment minister. The Nigerian National Root Crops Research Initiative will oversee the trials. So far the traits have been introduced individually into plants. The first product with multiple traits is likely to contain just elevated vitamin A, iron and protein as well as virus resistance. "To add the other four is going to be technologically more challenging," said Sayre. The team also hopes to begin confined field trials in Kenya, to be overseen by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, before the end of 2009. "We are now in the process of training African scientists in our labs. They are going to learn the technology to make a transgenic cassava plant. They will return and make the final products themselves," said Sayre. _______________________ 24 February 2009 Welsh Assembly Statement on GM crops Welsh Assembly Plenary, 24 February 2009. Official transcript. http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-home/bus-record-of-proceedings.htm The Minister for Rural Affairs (Elin Jones): The Welsh Assembly Government's precautionary approach to genetically modified crop commercialisation is underlined through our 'One Wales' commitment to maximise restrictions on GM crops in Wales. This position has been supported by a long-standing consensus across all parties in the National Assembly. Members will be familiar with the fact that we have no powers to ban GM crops and that our position has been to adopt the most restrictive policy compatible with our legal obligations. A report by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development published in April 2008 supports a precautionary approach to GM. The report is the product of contributions from more than 400 scientists from around the world. These experts continue to debate the potential benefits and threats of GM with research showing that there have been variable yield gains and declines. The report warned that the assessment of this technology is lagging behind the process of its development, thereby increasing our uncertainty about the risks to the environment, human health and our economy. Our precautionary approach therefore remains unchanged and, today, I am announcing my plans to undertake a full public consultation on co- existence arrangements. The European Commission has stated that no form of agriculture, whether GM, traditional, or organic, should be excluded in the European Union. I therefore intend to publish a public consultation in a few weeks' time setting out proposals to put in place co-existence arrangements between GM, traditional and conventional crops in Wales. Co-existence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between GM, conventional and organic crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and purity criteria. The possibility of the presence of GM crops in conventional and organic crops cannot be dismissed, and may have commercial implications for the farmers whose crops are affected. Consequently, suitable measures during cultivation, harvest, transport, storage and processing are necessary to ensure co-existence. Co-existence measures aim to protect farmers of conventional and organic crops from the possible economic disadvantages of accidental contamination by GM crops. Our restrictive stance on GM crop cultivation in Wales can be seen through the approach that we intend to take on the implementation of the GM aspects of the environmental liability directive. The directive is aimed at preventing significant environmental damage by forcing businesses that pollute to pay for the costs of prevention and remediation. Following our public consultation on the environmental liability directive last year, the proposals that we have made in relation to the GM aspects of the directive will shortly be put into effect through domestic legislation. This will give added protection to our environment in Wales by making the growers and biotechnology companies, namely the permit holders, responsible for any unforeseeable damage to the environment that a GM crop might cause. The intention is for co-existence to be tightly regulated in Wales. Our proposed measures will be more restrictive than those proposed in England and Northern Ireland. I would like to take a few moments to outline some of the key features of our co-existence proposals. On seed thresholds, we will seek views on whether the present 0.1 per cent default seed threshold should be retained, as in many EU member states, where separation distances have been established on that basis. On liability, we will include options for imposing strict liability on GM crop growers and introducing a voluntary industry-funded compensation scheme. Consideration may also be given to an option for a statutory redress mechanism. On GM-free zones, we will seek views on the desirability of a statutory prohibition on GM crop cultivation in all statutory conservation areas. On a GM crop register, we will propose a statutory national register with public access. To grow GM crops will require registration with the Welsh Assembly Government three months prior to planting. In addition to the implicit need for consultation with neighbours, in order to ensure compliance with separation distances, it is also proposed that there will be a statutory requirement to inform people living in the vicinity and neighbouring landowners. It is proposed that record keeping should be a statutory requirement for GM producers, as will training for all on-farm handlers who have any intent to grow GM crops. The field measures that I will be proposing are based on our average arable field size in Wales of fewer than 3 ha. I will also propose significant isolation distances between GM and non-GM crops and buffer zones, incorporating pollen barriers or traps. I am conscious that a growing world population, climate change and increasing food costs have given rise to concerns regarding future food security. The debate on the potential role that GM crops have to play in meeting food security has increased. I do not believe that there is any clear evidence that GM crops do have a role to play. However, all parties in the Chamber will, no doubt, be reflecting in depth on this debate. My officials continue to liaise proactively with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to the DEFRA-managed England-and-Wales research and development budget. This includes GM and sustainable food and farming programmes. My officials are also engaged with the UK Government's Foresight programme, which includes land use and food security. The Welsh Assembly Government will continue to review evidence, as we do in all policy areas, to ensure that our approach to GM remains informed and takes into account new and emerging evidence. Current evidence supports the continuation of a precautionary approach and it is my intention to maintain as restrictive a policy approach to GM as is possible within our legal obligations. I look forward to receiving comments on the proposals for co-existence arrangements, which will help us to put in place an appropriate regime to control any future GM crop development in Wales. ______ DEBATE Brynle Williams: Diolch i chi, Weinidog, am eich datganiad heddiw. It is obvious that GM crops are a controversial subject, not just in Wales, but all over the world. There are a few questions that I would like to ask, Minister. When can we expect the public consultation on co-existence arrangements to begin, and when will the regulations be implemented? There are grave concerns about co-existence measures, as organic farming is expanding throughout the principality. What will the buffer zones be? The other issue that I have noted is one of liability. What do you mean by 'compensation money'? Will it be voluntary compensation? Will it be voluntary from all farmers in Wales or will it be top-sliced from the agriculture budget? On the GM register, what would happen if I decided to grow GM crops and I farmed next door, effectively, to a registered organic producer? Would it be up to the Minister to decide who is permitted to grow crops in certain areas? Will the seed companies or the farmers be responsible for cross-contamination if it occurs and if litigation is brought about? That is our great concern. Finally, Minister, I welcome your precautionary approach to the GM problem, and I eagerly await your comments. Elin Jones: Thank you for that list of questions. I apologise to you and to other Members because, although I am making a statement on my intention to consult, the proposals themselves are not yet fully out for consultation, although I have given a pretty full outline of them. Finding the answer to a number of Brynle's questions will involve inviting people who are interested in this field to comment during the consultation process. With regard to a GM register, if Brynle Williams or anybody else were to decide to grow a GM crop, the proposal in the current consultation would mean that they would need to publicly register their intention three months in advance of planting or sowing. The environmental liability directive and the regulations that were consulted on at the end of last year, including the part on GM, put the responsibility for contamination and environmental damage as a result of planting GM on the permit holder, be that the farmer, the seller or the biotechnology company. I hope that I made it clear in my statement that Welsh Ministers do not have the power to ban GM crops from Wales if they are authorised at the European level. We are, therefore, through the environmental liability directive and its regulations, and now through the consultation on co-existence regulations, putting in place the most restrictive policy - I welcome Brynle's support for the precautionary approach - so that we can ensure that conventional farming, which includes, for this purpose, organic farming, can be protected from any aspirations to grow GM crops in Wales. Joyce Watson: It is right that our position on GM be informed by the best evidence available and that it should always take account of new evidence as it emerges. That said, I am pleased that you have used this opportunity to restate our precautionary approach to GM. Time has elapsed since the UK completed its large farm-scale trials in 2003, which concluded that GM crops had a damaging impact on farmland wildlife. In the light of recent news stories and the apparent confusion over the regulations governing how and where GM crops can and cannot be grown, I welcome the fact that plans for a full public consultation on the arrangement are in the pipeline. You mention the importance of labelling to ensure that consumers are informed of farmers' decisions to grow GM, conventional or organic crops. I agree with this approach, and add that we need to improve on the current system. I am sure that you are aware that some businesses and organisations in the poultry industry are considering dropping their current self- imposed ban on GM soya feeds because of the extra costs in sourcing non-GM feed. Their argument is that other classes of livestock and dairy products in the UK are produced using GM feeds, about which the public is often unaware. Minister, have you held any discussions with the industry on this issue? Do you agree that products should be clearly labelled to inform consumers about all GM sourcing, be it for the crop itself or feed to be used in other ways? Will the consultation address the use of other herbicide-resistant varieties of crops? There are concerns that some of the new varieties of crops that are being developed using conventional plant-breeding techniques are potentially more harmful than GM crops, but, because they are being developed using conventional techniques, they are not subject to the same controls as GM crops. Elin Jones: Thank you for your support for the precautionary approach that the Government is adopting towards GM crops. There are regulations currently in place on traceability and labelling, although I have had discussions with a number of interested parties, including the GM Free alliance in Wales, regarding the need to improve labelling and information to consumers - whether the consumer is the farmer or the person consuming the food - on the GM content of any food or feedstuff. In general, this would be a matter for European consideration and not a matter to be considered on a Wales basis, in that we need to ensure that our consumers have confidence in labelling. On the issue that you raised in terms of the acceptability - or otherwise - of some conventionally bred crops, it is not an issue that has been raised with me or on which I have received advice. However, if you want to give me more information on some of your concerns on this issue, I would be very happy to listen and to respond in due course. Mick Bates: The Welsh Liberal Democrats recognise that the Minister has a good record on maintaining the most legally restrictive policy possible in relation to GM crops, and we praise the strong efforts being made to maintain this policy. The Welsh Liberal Democrats oppose the commercial growing of genetically modified crops, and we are proud of the cross-party support in the Assembly in 2000 to a motion to adopt the most legally restrictive policy possible in relation to GM crops. We remain deeply concerned about the way in which GM crops are grown around the world, and the ability of multinational companies that own the patents on GM seeds to make poor farmers dependent on a monopoly supplier. I urge the Minister to comment on that, in view of the fair trade statement that has just been made, and how we wish to maintain fairness in trade throughout the world. Clear labelling is needed on GM foods, particularly those that are imported. Is the Minister able to state that even tighter restrictions could be introduced on the content of GM in food? Currently, we have an internationally accepted contamination level of 0.9 per cent. We have the best agri-environment policies and organic farming policies, but they could be under threat; that is why we welcome your proposal to consult on the co-existence policies that are in place here and in other parts of the world. However, will you, in the consultation, specify the distances that were proposed in the second organic action plan that runs from 2005 to 2010? For example, it was suggested that the separation distances between GM and organic holdings should be set at 4 km for beet crops, 8 km for maize crops and 10 km for oilseed rape crops. It is particularly important that the consultation gives consideration to the fact that different GM crops require different separation distances, because, otherwise, the good work that you and previous Government have undertaken in this regard could be threatened. I am pleased to see that issues around a GM register and the need to notify all neighbours will be part of the consultation. How will you enforce that? For regulations to be trusted it needs to be known that they will be enforced, so will you, as part of this consultation, recognise the need for extra investment to enforce the results? What have you done on that issue? Similarly, is it possible to provide a timetable? As you say, you have only announced today your intention to consult, and have not published the consultation document. No clear date on when that will take place has been given, so there is no clear date for the statutory period of 12 weeks that would follow the consultation and there is no timetable for when you would aim to introduce the results of the consultation to protect the ever-increasing status of Welsh food, in the quality of which the Government has invested. Elin Jones: Thank you, Mick, for your strong and continuing support for the view of the Government and the Assembly on growing GM crops in Wales. Part of what I am announcing today is the putting in place of legislation following earlier Assembly decisions and votes. This is an appropriate time to put regulations on co-existence in place. You asked about the ability to consider wider political parameters in decisions on GM. It is important to stress that, while decisions at the European level on seed authorisation are currently taken based on scientific advice alone, it is this Government's opinion that wider parameters should be used, allowing member states and the Council of Ministers to take decisions based on socio-economic and ethical factors, as well as the scientific considerations that are, quite rightly, always needed. The consultation will have proposals regarding separation distances between GM crops and conventional crops. The proposal will be to treat all non-GM crops in a way that does not differentiate between organic and other, conventionally grown, crops. This means that that the separation distances will be between GM crops and all other crops. The possibility of contamination is a consideration for both organic and conventional farmers. The point regarding enforcement is important, and one that will have to feature in the final decisions on the exact nature of the regulations that we put in place. Enforcing those regulations is necessary if we are to make the whole legislative context meaningful. There will be a full 12-week consultation period once the consultation is published, which I hope will be in the next few weeks. Leanne Wood: Thank you for your statement, Minister. I warmly welcome the Government's continued commitment to maximising the restrictions on GM crops by following the precautionary principle. Wales has a growing organic, high-quality food sector, which has become an important aspect of our economy, as well as an important part of our tourism industry. I am concerned that the sector could be seriously undermined if the strictest co-existence measures are not put in place. We have developed a niche market, a market that I sincerely hope will be sustained through the difficult economic times that we face. People are likely to feel an extra squeeze on their finances, and I hope that these strict measures can only help in that respect. I welcome your intention to ensure transparency through a statutory national register that will be open to the public. I am hoping that this will send a clear signal to farmers that they have no right to plant genetically modified plants behind people's backs. I accept your point that there are grave worldwide concerns about food security. Genetically modified crops are not the answer, at least not for us here in Wales. Climate change has already resulted in water shortages, and this, combined with Governments displacing food crops for biofuels and high oil prices, has seen food prices go up considerably recently. I am sure that many Members share my concerns about this, but I share the Minister's view that allowing genetically modified crops to be grown in Wales will not help to overcome that problem. I am not saying that we should not do anything about the global food crisis, but I would argue that our focus should be on cutting our carbon emissions and not on growing genetically modified crops. I wish to conclude by drawing your attention to a vote that is due to take place in the European Commission on 2 March. This proposal would allow some countries to grow a form of genetically modified maize called MON810. Campaigners are calling for a re-evaluation of the safety MON810 and for the Council of Ministers to represent the public's view on this and oppose the commission. I am only too aware, as you are, Minister, that Wales has no direct voice on the Council of Ministers, but I would be grateful if you could undertake to do all you can to ensure that Wales's views on genetically modified crops are communicated to the relevant UK Minister with a view to opposing this move at an EU level. Elin Jones: Thank you for your comments, Leanne. I am pleased that Plaid Cymru is supporting the Government view on GM policy. With regard to confidence for producers, you are absolutely right to say that those producers who are very proud of their conventional or organic forms of agriculture might have invested heavily in developing and marketing their food product on the basis of its quality or organic status. Such producers need to have the confidence that they are able to protect that investment from any possibility of contamination from genetically modified crops. They need the confidence that, first, they would be informed of any intention to plant genetically modified crops in the vicinity and, secondly, that, should there be any environmental damage as a result of such crops, the liability will rest quite clearly with the permit holder of the genetically modified crops. Like you, I am not convinced that the introduction of genetically modified crops or any support for them should be the reaction to the possible food shortages that could affect the global community. That would be a knee-jerk and simplistic political reaction to the issue. I would not shut out any consideration of the technology in future, but at this point in time I am not convinced of its contribution to food production, and I therefore want to ensure that, in Wales, and within our powers in Wales, we are able to protect those farmers who are of a similar view to me in taking a precautionary approach to genetically modified crops. With regard to any voting that takes place within the Council of Ministers on any authorisation or safeguard action for genetically modified seed, discussions take place between the four countries of the United Kingdom in preparing the UK voting position in advance of any voting. As I said in response to Mick Bates, I am quite clearly of the view that scientific advice should be taken on any decision or vote relating to the authorisation of genetic modification, and that we should have wider socioeconomic and ethical parameters before a decision is taken by any member state on how to cast its vote. Alun Davies: I join others in welcoming this statement, if not, perhaps, the tone of the statement and everything that the Minister has said. I agree that genetic modification should not be seen or perceived to be a knee-jerk reaction, and the adoption of GM technology should not be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to climate change or to food shortages. However, you said in your last answer that genetic modification is a valid technology. For any government to take such an antagonistic approach to any valid technology is a disappointment in many ways. I welcome the public debate on the matter, which will follow this statement today, and I hope that the Government will listen to that public debate with an open mind, and approach a public debate with an open mind. I visited the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences on Friday and saw impressive presentations on the work that the institute does in Aberystwyth, and also on its ambitions for the future. IBERS is quite clear that it wishes to be a world-class research institution that can be compared with the best in the world. It was also clear that the current policy pursued by the Welsh Assembly Government will inhibit its ambition to be among the best in the world, perhaps not in the next few years and perhaps not in the short term, but certainly in the medium and long term. There is a direct contradiction between the stated ambition of the Government, which is to have an economy that is based on knowledge, and a policy that prevents the accumulation of knowledge. You cannot have it both ways. For too long, we have adopted an approach that has been rooted in what we call the precautionary principle. However, I think that, in fact, we mean conservatism. I hope that you will approach the consultation, Minister, with a view to considering what is possible and allowing a public debate to take place. It will be a positive debate and it will ensure that the policy that we have reflects not only what is needed for the economy in the future and what our agricultural economy needs, but the perception of Wales. I believe strongly that Wales has to be perceived internationally to be a place where things get done and where things happen, and not a place where we seek to stop things from happening and to prevent things from being done. In addressing this policy, I hope that we will do so in a way that seeks to drive forward, not inhibit, research, and seeks to support our universities and higher education sector and, at the same time, seeks to explore the possibilities and the potential of GM technology. Elin Jones: I hope that nothing that I have said thus far this afternoon has indicated that I would want to inhibit research. In my answer to Leanne Wood, I said that I - like most people here, hopefully - would not close my eyes entirely to the potential role that all new technology, and even GM technology, might play in the future. At present, this Government and I are not convinced that the argument for an open-door policy on GM introduction is there. Current research shows that consumers remain unconvinced about the role of genetically modified food in Wales. Although I, as Minister, have not discussed this issue with IBERS, I would say that IBERS has aspirations to be a world-class research institution. It already undertakes world-class research on conventional breeding, and it may well have aspirations for GM technology research in the future. If that is the case, it will need to make its case to the Welsh Government, because we will have powers of consent in relation to such research, and I am sure that the institute will make that case to me and to the Government at an appropriate time, when it is ready to do so. However, I am putting in place today a consultation on regulations that will allow conventional and organic farmers in Wales to be informed and to feel protected from the effects of possible cross-contamination on their daily business arising from any farm in Wales deciding to grow any authorised GM product. That meets the aspiration of Assembly Members to have a proportionate approach that is within the legislative capacity of the Assembly, but within the overall framework of European legislation. _______________________ Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (VIB) receives authorisation to field test its GM poplar trees in Belgium SeedQuest.com, 24 February 2009. http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2009/february/25259.htm Ghent, Belgium -- After an initial negative decision in May 2008, VIB recently received an authorisation to field test its genetically modified poplar trees in Belgium. VIB had appealed the negative decision at the Council of State, which in December 2008 ruled in favour of VIB and suspended the refusal. Final negotiations with the Belgian federal government led to a permit. This permit is a landmark in the Belgian field trial history as it is the first permit for a field trial in Belgium since 2002. The poplar trees have an altered wood composition which renders them more suitable for the production of bio-ethanol. Wood produced in the greenhouse produces 50% more bio-ethanol than conventional poplar wood. The field trial will test whether trees grown under natural conditions will also produce wood that can be converted to bio-ethanol more easily. In May 2008 the federal competent authorities had refused to give a permit, even though the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council and the regional Flemish environment minister had both given a positive advice. VIB decided to appeal the negative decision and to investigate alternatives for its field trial. In October 2008 VIB asked for a permit in the Netherlands to do its field trial there, to be sure that it would be able to start the trial in 2009. The Belgian permit now means that VIB does not have to go abroad with its trees. It will however proceed in the Netherlands to also get the permit there, as this will keep options open to start trial activities there in the coming years as well. VIB, the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology, is a non-profit research institute in life sciences. About 1100 scientists and technicians conduct strategic basic research on the molecular mechanisms that are responsible for the functioning of the human body, plants, and micro-organisms. Through a close partnership with four Flemish universities - UGent, K.U.Leuven, University of Antwerp, and Vrije Universiteit Brussel - and a solid funding program, VIB unites the forces of 65 research groups in a single institute. The goal of the research is to extend the boundaries of our knowledge profoundly. Through its technology transfer activities, VIB strives to convert the research results into products for the benefit of consumers and patients. VIB develops and disseminates a wide range of scientifically substantiated information about all aspects of biotechnology. For more information, please visit: http://www.vib.be. _______________________ Non-GM farmers to pay for unwanted GM contamination Network of Concerned Farmers (Australia), 24 Feb 2009. The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) have called a halt on GM canola trials in West Australia due to unacceptable contract conditions that they claim will force non-GM farmers to pay for contamination. The controversial details of an interim briefing note between West Australian bulk handling company CBH, and Monsanto has been exposed today to the W.A. ABC Country Hour. The briefing was submitted by CBH as part of a 246 page compilation of comments by the members of the Ministerial GMO Industry Reference Group on the draft GM canola paper planned to be released soon and Julie Newman (NCF) is a member of this committee. "Charging farmers for contamination that they did not want and could not prevent is not acceptable business practise and clearly anti-competitive." said Julie Newman, Newdegate farmer and National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers. "CBH must not sign this contract and trials can not proceed until this issue is resolved and further contracts are investigated fully," The NCF interpretation of the contract briefing notes between Monsanto and CBH is CBH will be paid an additional $7.50/test to test non-GM farmers canola using sensitive test kits that can register positive for GM as low as 0.5% GM contamination. If positive (ie. over 0.5% contaminated) CBH must charge the non-GM canola farmer a "significant penalty" as set by Monsanto and the positive test strip must be retained for Monsanto. NCF believe Monsanto can then pursue the farmer for further royalty payments and push farmers to sign contracts with Monsanto. "Minister Redman has indicated that contamination up to 0.9% is acceptable and expected with GM canola trials, but he did not explain that non-GM farmers have to pay CBH and Monsanto for it," said Mrs Newman. "This is a similar situation to Brazil where all farmers pay Monsanto's fees unless they can prove they have no GM contamination which is too difficult and too expensive to achieve." NCF have further concern for other contracts involving industry, including the research, breeding, seed production, agronomic management, delivery, marketing, processing and farm lobby groups and are calling for these contract details to be made public. "This information is a rare exposure of contract conditions that have been introduced to all sectors of the supply chain and farmers are not aware of the intention to introduce closed loop marketing through these contracts." "Everybody along the supply chain is being promised more money and the only sector of the industry that is going to be made to pay for it is farmers. GM canola has proven to be a failure in Australia but there are plans to extract money from farmers incomes even if we do not agree." "It is obvious that the intention of the GM sector is to contaminate and collect from all farmers by contracting all industries to remove choice. This is not acceptable and can not be permitted." Contact: Julie Newman Phone 08 98711562 or 08 98711644. www.non-gm-farmers.com Exact wording of David Fienberg (CBH) comments in "Comments by the members of the Ministerial GMO industry reference group on the December 2008 Draft of the GM canola paper (12th February, 2009) "Note following the meeting: We need to confirm that the position of the CBH business with industry is as follows - that the deliverer of GM canola will be charged a fee for service that will include meeting the cost of testing the deliverer of non-GM canola for the presence of GM product. This is a policy different to the east coast grain companies (according to a verbal report by Kim Chance) and is in conflict with the intent of Monsanto for the business to manage the GM canola trial for the 2009/10 harvest. Monsanto have intended that the cost of receiving GM and non-GM canola be equitably pricedÖ there is no price disincentive for GM growers. To date we have yet to see a contract proposed by Monsanto, however the attached briefing note has been provided as an interim measure. The interim 'briefing note' from Monsanto has the following implications:-
•	Monsanto will license only CBH to receive their GM canola - does this have the capacity to persist and force growers to use their designated storage agent. If not signed, do we (CBH) remove our capacity to receive Canola owned by 'Monsanto' growers.
•	Mutually agreed sites for receival.
•	Reference to Better Farm IQ to suport the receival and management.
•	CBH will charge fees nominated by Monsanto.
•	Significant penalties be charged by CBH for deliveries of non-Monsanto GM canola growers.
•	We (CBH) will use a test kit and protocol approved and provided by Monsanto. CBH will be paid $7.50/test. CBH will be paid $5.13 per tonne for all canola received.
•	Random testing by Monsanto of non-licensed growers for the GM trait.
•	CBH to retain the positive test strips and provide to Monsanto on demand.
•	Payments for collecting the fees be made electronically to Monsanto.
•	The right of growers to have grain returned is removed by the Monsanto provisions to only deliver to food processors.
NCF further comments: Monsanto issues an exclusive license to a specific storage and handler providing contract conditions are met. If not approved, alternative storage and handler will be sought which puts pressure on CBH to accept terms. CBH is to charge fees nominated by Monsanto. These include significant fines (? value) + Technology user fee (currently $10.20/tonne). Monsanto could also set the fees for storage and handling (need contract specifics). There must be no price disincentive for GM growers. CBH will be paid an additional $5.13 per tonne by Monsanto for all GM canola received. Monsanto could set a cheaper fee for GM growers, and Monsanto will compensate CBH to $5.13/tonne. CBH will be paid $7.50 per test by Monsanto to use the test kit and protocol approved and provided by Monsanto (which is sensitive to 0.5% GM contamination). CBH must retain all positive test strips and provide to Monsanto on demand. Random testing is to be undertaken by Monsanto of non-licenced growers for the GM trait. "Significant penalties be charged by CBH for deliveries of non-Monsanto GM canola growers." A positive test will be triggered with only 0.5% contamination which is the amount allowed in non-GM seed for sowing. CBH must impose "significant penalties" on the non-GM grower for this and tests must be retained by Monsanto (for further action.) Payments for collecting the fees be made electronically to Monsanto which effectively removes Monsanto from the key role of policing their royalty collection. The right of growers to have grain returned is removed by the Monsanto provisions to only deliver to food processors which allows Monsanto to dictate the buyer of their GM canola in a closed loop marketing arrangement. As early as 1999, the research sector revealed the intention of genetically modified crops to pursue a closed loop marketing system involving the whole of industry. A government submission extract from 1999 by the Crop Research Centre (CRC) http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/primind/gtinq/ sums up this intention: "Companies are establishing alliances to involve groups at all stages of the chain - breeding, seed production, agronomic management of crops, grain delivery, marketing, processing and consumers - with the aim of achieving profits at each stage. The producer will be affected not only by the cost of seed, but through an End Point Royalty imposed on delivery, and the price paid for the product... There may be contractual obligations between the farmer and the seed supplier or the marketer that are not currently present." _______________________ Tighter Wales GM rules unveiled BBC News, 24 February 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/7906439.stm Plans to tighten up rules on the planting of genetically modified crops in Wales have been announced by Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones. She told AMs [Assembly Members] that "co-existence" regulations between GM, conventional and organic crops should be tougher in keeping with a "precautionary approach" The assembly government cannot ban the planting of approved GM crops but can make regulations to stop contamination. Conservatives welcomed the statement and said they would study the plans. Welsh ministers have consistently sought the most restrictive policy possible on GM crops, within EU and UK legislation. Those regulations can limit the ways in which those crops can be planted, harvested, and processed in order to avoid any contamination of non-GM crops, and possible damage to the livelihoods of other farmers. Ms Jones said the measures proposed would be "more restrictive than those proposed in England and Northern Ireland". Options to be considered during a three-month consultation include:
•	imposing strict liability on GM crop growers and introducing a voluntary industry-funded compensation scheme
•	a statutory redress mechanism
•	GM-free zones
•	a ban on GM crop cultivation in statutory conservation areas such as national parks and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
Ms Jones said a statutory national register which the public could access was planned, with farmers needing to register with the assembly government three months before planting GM crops. She said there would be a "statutory requirement to inform all neighbours and landowners" to ensure GM crops were kept a sufficient distance away from other crops. There would be "significant isolation distances between GM and non-GM crops and buffer zones incorporating pollen barriers or traps," she said. GM producers would also be required to keep records and to train all staff handling the crops. Cross-party Ms Jones pledged to "continue to review evidence as we do in all policy areas to ensure that our approach to GM remains informed and takes into account new and emerging evidence". She said she hoped to begin the consultation over "the next few weeks". Genetically modified crops were one of the first major issues the first assembly grappled with. In 2000, AMs voted unanimously to keep Wales GM-free. On Tuesday, however, just a third of AMs were present in the chamber for Ms Jones's statement. Conservatives rural affairs spokesman Brynle Williams maintained the cross-party approach to the matter "We welcome the minister's announcement today and we will study her proposals closely, " he said. "The issues surrounding GM crops are controversial and the needs and wishes of farmers and communities must be considered," Mr Williams added. 'Valid technology' But a note of discord came from Labour AM Alun Davies, accusing the minister of taking an "antagonistic approach". "For any government to take such an antagonistic approach to any valid technology is a disappointment in many ways," he said. He urged the assembly government to listen to the public debate on GM with an "open mind", warning ministers of the danger that they could be "inhibiting research". Mr Davies insisted Wales needed to be seen throughout the world as "a place to get things done, where things happen and not a place where we seek to stop things happening and to prevent things being done". _______________________ Wales plans tougher approach to GM crops Farmers Weekly Interactive (UK), 24 February 2009. By Robert Davies. http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/02/24/114448/wales-plans-tougher-approach-to-gm-crops.html The Welsh Assembly has set out a range of proposals to protect conventionally grown crops from contamination with genetically modified organisms. Wales rural affairs minister Elin Jones announced a public consultation on the proposals to reinforce the assembly's already restrictive policy on GM crops. Ms Jones told the assembly that it was not legally possible to declare Wales GM-free but the country would continue to take a tough line on GMs. "The intention is for co-existence [of GM and non-GM crops] to be tightly regulated in Wales. Our measures will be more restrictive than those proposed in England and Northern Ireland," she said. "We will include options for imposing strict liability on GM crop growers and introducing a voluntary industry-funded compensation scheme. Consideration may also be given to an option for a statutory redress." "We will seek views on GM-free zones and the desirability of a statutory prohibition on GM crop cultivation in all statutory conservation areas such as National Parks and Sites of Special Scientific Interest." Ms Jones proposed a GM register which would be available to the public and she added that GM crops would require registration with the Welsh assembly three months prior to planting. "In addition to the implicit need for consultation with neighbours, in order to ensure compliance with separation distances, it is also proposed that there will be a statutory requirement to inform all neighbours and landowners." She proposed that record keeping should be a statutory requirement for GM producers, as would training for all on-farm handlers of GM crops, significant isolation distances between GM and non-GM crops, and buffer zones incorporating pollen barriers or traps. Views would be sought on whether the present 0.1% default seed threshold should be retained, and Ms Jones promised to ensure that the assembly's approach to GM would remain informed and took into account new and emerging evidence. _______________________ Welsh GM crop farmers face tough new rules South Wales Argus (UK), 24 February 2009. http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/4151235.Welsh_GM_crop_farmers_face_tough_new_rules/ Farmers in Wales will have to comply with tough new rules if they want to grow GM crops, Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones said today. She is preparing a set of regulations which will say how far GM crops must be grown from conventional crops to stop cross-contamination. The Assembly Government cannot declare Wales GM free as farmers are permitted to grow crops authorised by the EU. But Ms Jones said the Welsh regime would be stricter than those in England and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government has not introduced such measures in an attempt to keep GM crops out of Scotland. Ms Jones said: "The consultation will be a lot stricter than what has been recommended in England and Northern Ireland. "GM crops that are authorised on an EU level cannot be legally prohibited from Wales, so we have to operate within that context." She said she was "sceptical" about the role GM food could play in Welsh agriculture, but added: "I would not want to be in a position where Wales is in any way seen as Luddite." The proposed set of rules are being unveiled on the same day that an increase in farming incomes was predicted, thanks in large part to the exchange rate. Despite the recession, the income of the average farm business is forecast to rise 16%. High milk prices are expected to outweigh cost hikes for dairy farms whose incomes are expected to increase 22% between 2007/08 and 2008/09. _______________________ EU court ruling "victory for democracy" Scottish National Party News, 24 February 2009. http://www.snp.org/node/14895 Scotland's only full member of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee has reacted with delight to the European Court of Justice ruling on the cultivation of GM crops in the EU. The Court ruled in the Sausheim Commune v Pierre Azelvandre case that cultivation of GM crops must be publicly disclosed. The case was brought by the French Conseil d'Ètat to the European Court of Justice over a dispute in which Mr Azelvandre had, in 2004, sought from the Commune of Sausheim, near Strasbourg, information on any GM authorisations in the area and had been refused access to the information. The Court ruled that the public do have a right to know if, and where, GM crops are being cultivated and that the grounds for refusal used by the Commune (the protection of public order) could not be relied upon as rounds for refusal. Speaking after having analysed the judgment, Smith, himself a Solicitor by profession, said: "This is a hugely significant judgment, and puts a very clear line in the sand for those who seek to undermine by stealth the EU's opposition to GM. "The GM issue is regularly raised with me as I travel across Scotland, and I am quite clear in my view that anything that risks Scotland's reputation in the eyes of the public for healthy, wholesome local food production must be viewed with extreme caution. The SNP government's policy on GM is spot on, and a calm, measured and rational stance compared to the hysteria we see from some quarters. Right or wrong, the public hysteria which could be whipped up over GM cultivation could see a food scare to dwarf all previous food scares, and it is right that we jealously guard Scotland's healthy, wholesome reputation. "The actions of the GM companies have not been helpful to their pro-GM cause and we have seen many instances of questionable behaviour from them, not least in the developing world. I also do not accept the argument put forward by some that the European anti-GM stance hinders GM research globally. South America, North America, Africa, China, India and plenty of other places are open for GM experiments, yet we have still not seen the oft-promised supercrop. Likewise, I see no cost advantages to European farmers from any adoption of GM. "The ruling helps reassure the public that nothing will be done by stealth. If anyone wants to cultivate GM let him come forward with a clear case based on facts, and I have no doubt that the balance of opinion will clearly favour the continuation of the precautionary principle. But that debate must be open and honest, based on facts and held publicly. This ruling makes clear that those who would seek to introduce GM by the European back door will find it firmly closed and I welcome that wholeheartedly." _______________________ Politics of the plate: beeting the system Sugar from GM beets could soon be finding its way into our foods - but 73 grocers and food manufacturers have pledged to avoid it. Gourmet.com, 24 February 2009. By Barry Estabrook. http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/02/politics-of-the-plate-gm-sugar-beets Last fall, American sugar beet farmers, who produce more than half the sugar consumed in the United States, reaped their first genetically modified harvest - beets bioengineered to survive being sprayed by Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup. Those beets have now been processed into sugar, and could be finding their way into our foods. But we won't know for certain. There is no legal requirement that GM products be labeled as such. In response, 73 grocers and food manufacturers have taken it into their own hands to do what the government won't do. They have formed an organization called the Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry and have pledged to avoid GM beet sugar whenever possible. Most of the companies are small natural foods stores, but the list does contain larger players like Organic Valley, a seller of dairy products, and Catholic Healthcare West, a large medical care firm serving California, Nevada, and Arizona. Small as it may be, this movement can't be good news for David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar Co., who, before the GM seeds were introduced, told The New York Times that he was confident food processors will accept GM sugar. "We have not run into resistance," he said. Now he has. Whether larger grocery chains and food manufacturers join the Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry remains to be seen. But if you're interested in avoiding bioengineered sweetners, here's a list of companies who support the Non-GM Registry. _______________________ Sugar biz booming Wyoming Business Report (USA), 24 February 2009. By MJ Clark. http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article.asp?id=98798 POWELL - While energy production grabs the headlines, Wyoming's sugar beet growers have quietly outdone themselves with a record-breaking 2008 harvest. Agweek revealed that the national average projected grower payment for the 2008 crop is $1,278 per acre, averaging $52.08 per ton. According to an article in the Lovell Chronicle, records were broken in both yield and price, due in part to a higher than average sugar content in the beets. Average sugar content of beets processed at Western Sugar Cooperative's Lovell plant is 17.3 percent, well above the premium price threshold of 16.5 percent. Lovell farmers earned $48.87 per ton this season, compared to about $40 last season. One reason for the record production was Roundup Ready beets, which were available to farmers for the first time in 2007. The new beets are genetically modified to withstand the Monsanto-produced herbicide Roundup. The combination of the Roundup Ready seed and the ability to broadcast application of Roundup (instead of targeting application between the rows) reduced costs for fuel, labor and herbicide. All is not sweetness however. In early 2008, the Organic Seed Alliance brought suit against the USDA-APHIS for improper deregulation of the Roundup Ready (RR) sugar beet. According to the alliance's Web site, the 10 percent increased yields for RR beets does not justify the exposure of organic seed stock to genetic contamination by genetically engineered stock. (According to the Pinning Isolation Rules of the seed association, contamination via cross pollination can happen with fields as far as three miles apart.) Organic consumers as well as many overseas buyers refuse to accept seed stock tainted with genetically engineered stock. A similar suit against RR alfalfa pulled the seed from the market in 2007 while a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement was developed. RR alfalfa may again be available this year, after review of the EIS. One farmer compared Roundup Ready stock to a "buffalo bull, likely to cross the fence and make little beefalos where they are not the intended kind of cow ... milking beefalos will not do for the dairyman." On the Web: Monsanto: http://monsanto.mediaroom.com Organic Seed Alliance: http://www.seedalliance.org _______________________ Plastic from Switchgrass, Six Months Later Good Clean Tech [sic], 24 February 2009. http://www.goodcleantech.com/2009/02/plastic_from_switchgrass_six_m.php If you are one of our regular readers with a penchant for biotech there is a good chance that you already know about Mirel -- a genetically engineered set of bioplastics that can be used for everything from credit cards to plastic containers and even car parts. Last year the Massachusetts biotech firm Metabolix found a way to forge this Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHA) material by growing it in switchgrass. The result was an eco-friendly industrial stock with a value-added performance as a bioenergy crop. As such Mirel was immediately hailed as a biotech breakthrough and has since yielded sheet grade resin and other fully biodegradable and compostable products. What's more, Metabolix has formed a joint venture called Telles with an agricultural giant Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). The two plan to commercializing Mirel, having launched construction of a massive production plant designed to turn out up to 110 million pounds of Mirel annually. Want to learn more about switchgrass-based PHA polymers? Check out Metabolix' new website http://www.mirelplastics.com/index.html Comment from GM-free Ireland: What will the Americans think of next? Releasing this "eco-friendly biotech breakthrough" will contaminate the food chain and ecosystem with Polyhydroxybutyrate, used to make plastic! According to Wikipedia, "Panicum virgatum, commonly known as switchgrass, is a perennial warm season grass native to North America, where it occurs naturally from 55° N latitude in Canada southwards into the United States and Mexico. Switchgrass is one of the dominant species of the central North American tallgrass prairie and can be found in remnant prairies, in native grass pastures, and naturalized along roadsides. It is used primarily for soil conservation, forage production, game cover, as an ornamental grass, and more recently as a biomass crop for ethanol, fibre, electricity, and heat production. Other common names for switchgrass include tall panic grass, Wobsqua grass, blackbent, tall prairiegrass, wild redtop and thatchgrass." _______________________ Pharm animals America.gov, 24 February 2009. By Daniel Gorelick. http://blogs.america.gov/science/2009/02/24/pharm-animals/ The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first drug produced by genetically engineered livestock on February 6. The drug, called Atryn® or recombinant antithrombin, will be used to treat patients suffering from hereditary antithrombin deficiency (also known as ATIII deficiency), a genetic disorder in which patients have either low levels of the antithrombin protein or produce dysfunctional variants of antithrombin. The end result is the same - excessive blood clotting. Thrombin is a blood protein that promotes clotting; the antithrombin III protein, as its name suggests, inactivates thrombin and promotes the dissolution of blood clots. People with hereditary antithrombin deficiency are at risk for a thromboembolism, when a clot forms in a blood vessel and then breaks loose and is carried by the blood stream to another part of the body. A migrating clot can lodge in blood vessels in the lungs (pulmonary embolism) or brain (stroke), with terrible and often fatal consequences. More than 200,000 people worldwide are estimated to suffer from the disease. Atryn will be used to prevent thromboembolisms in hereditary antithrombin deficient patients during surgery or childbirth. Atryn will not be used to treat thromboembolisms. What makes Atryn unique is the way in which it is produced. Scientists took the human antithrombin gene coding region DNA and placed it downstream of a promoter that drives gene expression in goat's milk (milk protein promoter + protein coding DNA). This DNA is then inserted into the genome of a goat egg, the egg is implanted into a surrogate mother, allowed to develop, and then born - a transgenic goat. The transgenic goat is then mated with a nontransgenic goat to produce transgenic offspring. Scientists can purify Atryn from goat's milk at lower cost and in greater quantities than extracting antithrombin from donated blood or producing it in cultured cells. Need more Atryn? Breed more goats. Generating transgenic animals is standard practice in research labs - I generated a strain of transgenic zebrafish as part of my postdoctoral work, and I'm hardly a scientific pioneer. Recombinant insulin (such as Lilly's Humulin), produced by transgenic E. coli bacteria, is used to treat diabetes, but Atryn is the first FDA-approved drug produced from transgenic livestock, whose sole function is to produce medicine. The European Union approved Atryn in August 2006. This new type of drug production raises some questions: Could the health of the animal affect protein production? Could a viral or bacterial infection modify the protein, altering its efficacy? Could transgenic goat meat enter the food supply? Could a transgenic goat escape and breed with normal goats? What do you think? [You can comment on this blog at http://blogs.america.gov/science/2009/02/24/pharm-animals/] _______________________ GM will save the world (and Tesco's bank balance) Indymedia UK, 24 February 2009. By Meagan Freman. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/02/422763.html Tescos have really outdone themselves this time. At the London 'City Food Lecture', Chief Executive Terry Leary has announced that Tescos will be willing to 'back' GM foods, due to changing consumer attitudes and some sort of misguided belief that people starving in Africa are only doing so due to the UK's and Europe's lack of acceptance of GM foods. In a bizarre, poorly informed statement, which leaves out all the right words to make GM sound like the victim, Tesco's Chief Exec has thrown the weight of one of the most ruthlessly expansionist food retailers of all time behind the promotion of genetically modified crops. "You get a sense that whilst always the scientific evidence was clear, governments let alone retailers stopped short of wholehearted endorsing it and I think that that certainly didn't help in the case of GM..." Maybe someone should have told his speech writer that the word 'whilst' should be replaced with 'because', and then we might be a little closer to the truth. GM crops have not flooded agriculture in this country precisely because there has been so much resistance to their introduction. Leahy's statement that 'there also seemed to be a growing appreciation by people that GM was likely to play "a vital role in feeding the world, in adapting to climate change and indeed in producing some of these more nutritional products - foods - that people will need"' sounds like pure fallacy in the light of a little independent research. A late 2007 Independent article states clearly that 'no experiments are currently underway in Britain after 400 potato plants were destroyed on a farm run by the University of Leeds in June. Almost all of the 54 GM crop trials which have been conducted since 2000 have been targeted by opponents and vandalised'. The whole premise of this article is that, at the time, the government was to start GM crop trials in secret in the UK, because of all the opposition to them. So not only are the government not against GM, but the people certainly aren't for it. Perhaps the people Leahy is referring to are the very few people who sit at the top of the corporate ladders. People who presumably get nothing but the finest organic produce from their chefs and housekeepers, but who stand to make a massive profit if they get to replace vast areas of agricultural land with GM crops and technology (which, in true corporate style, they will surely sell to the farmers and indebted governments). So we move to the science. The evidence against the propagated view of GM as some sort of safe, superior and saving angel that will miraculously solve world hunger and make all the nasty effects of climate change just go away, is all too clear. Here are just two examples [your own research is infinitely more valuable than anything I can tell you]. A 2008 Austrian study by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna found that genetically modified corn greatly reduced fertility. Also in 2008 a disease linked to GM oysters in France wiped out between 40 and 100% of the regular oysters. How can GM be so beneficial if it not only destroys human health, but also ravages the natural agricultural and eco systems? The institutionalised guilt tripping over GM is really quite impressive. Not only are those who speak against it responsible for not releasing things like 'cancer fighting tomatoes' onto the market [hey, there's a whole load of cancer fighting B17 in apple kernels and lots of other seeds and bits you're taught to throw away, to name but one example], but we're also stopping the kind, compassionate governments from feeding the world. Now, there was world hunger before anyone had even heard of GM. There were common sense ways to solve it, too. There was huge criticism leveled against the Thatcher government for refusing to send massive UK stockpiles of unwanted food to parts of Africa. How GM is going to solve a food distribution 'problem', almost entirely created by the corporations and governments who want to push GM, is anyone's guess. Professor Lord Krebs, former chairman of the UK Food Standards Agency, said at the same event: 'To me the real moral tragedy of the whole GM debacle was not so much the impact on our food here in the UK, but the fact that the European prissiness about GM has affected its adoption in Africa. The tragedy in terms of human loss and starvation has been in Africa. I hope as we move forward, somehow European attitudes can change and so African attitudes will also change'. Almost all the countries starving, especially in Africa, have been somehow ravaged by Western influenced wars, landgrabbing, economic raping, and climate change wreaked by industrialising 'civilisation'. Another load of messing with nature by the self same institutions is not going to change anything. It's illogical and not in their interest. To endorse GM is to pander blindly to the corporations that produce and market these mutated crops. Corporations like the concentrated evil that is Monsanto, a company with such a long list of food and animal tinkering, law suits, corporate and journalistic hush ups and farmer exploitation that it deserves a good looking through. Here's a good selection from CorpWatch: http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/corpwatch? q=monsanto&is=corpwatch.org&x=20&y=2 Of course there's an interest for Tescos to do this. And it's money money money. Although the quoted passages of Leahy's speech leave it oddly unclear as to whether this official 'backing' will mean that Tesco's will sell this produce, this surely must the case. And how do all supermarkets 'back' things that they sell? They make them cheap, cheap, cheap. In a global recession that has in the past few weeks seen fast food outlets in the UK, like KFC and even McDonalds, create thousand of new jobs and hundreds of new outlets; where a quick perusal of supermarket shelves will see much of the 'crunch busting' own brand products stuffed with poisonous sweeteners like aspartame; the last thing we need is people in the grip of economic crisis filling their stomachs with poorly researched, probably dangerous 'food'. It's in a whole lot of big shots' financial interest. And we all know good health is much less profitable than disease, Original article on Leahy statement: http://www.farminguk.com/news/United-Kingdom-Tesco-in-keeping-with-the-times.11436.asp _______________________ Tighter Wales GM rules expected • Plans for strict new rules on the planting of genetically modified crops in Wales are expected to be announced. BBC News, 24 February 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/wales_politics/7906439.stm [Photo caption: In 2000 AMs (Assembly Members) voted unanimously to keep Wales GM-free] Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones is due to tell AMs that "co-existence" regulations between GM, organic and conventional crops should be toughened. Welsh ministers have consistently sought the most restrictive policy possible on GM crops, within EU law. The assembly government cannot ban the planting of approved GM crops but can make regulations to stop contamination. Those regulations can limit the ways in which those crops can be planted, harvested, and processed in order to avoid any contamination of non-GM crops, and possible damage to the livelihoods of other farmers. It is understood the rules being proposed are intended to be stricter than those in other parts of the UK. A consultation on the plans is expected to begin in the Spring. In 2000 AMs voted unanimously to keep Wales GM-free. _______________________ Europeans won't swallow GM that easily • Food safety scientists ambivalent over Monsanto GM maize safety Alliance for Natural Health, 24 February 2009. http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/europeans-wont-swallow-gm-that-easily EU food chain experts failed to reach a qualified majority on Monday 16th February in favour or against the European Commission's plans to force France and Greece to lift their biotech bans on Monsanto's GM maize. Only 9 of the 27 EU Member States represented in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) supported the European Commission's (EC) call for having the bans lifted in France and Greece. Sixteen either opposed the motion or abstained from voting. Whilst this is a positive step in the right direction for the millions of health conscious consumers living in the EU, who don't wish to have GM produce or cultivation foisted on them, it by no means represents a 'done deal'. In the absence of consensus from the SCFCAH, the real bullyboy tactics are yet to come when the decision is referred to EU ministers by the EC. Many consumers are concerned that governments who clearly have biotech-fuelled Euro signs shining in their eyes, are not going to adequately represent the views of a concerned electorate in such a vote. In addition to this, the pressure from the biotech lobby is increasingly evident in government PR spin campaigns extolling the virtues of GM, but not surprisingly, leaving out many of the salient truths about the threats to both human health and the environment. Monica Frassoni, co-chair of the Italian Greens Party (part of the European Greens), reminds us that, "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". Some EU Member States safeguard their populations Monsanto's maize (MON810) strain is the only GM crop approved for cultivation in the European Union. Last year France invoked 'a safeguard clause' and suspended cultivation, whilst Greece has maintained the ban since 2006. Worryingly the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said the maize is safe (two EFSA opinions) and that there is no scientific evidence to justify the bans, but we would ask where is the evidence to justify safety? France and Greece have done well to resist increasing pressure from the European Commission, which is keen as mustard to get all European Member States to say yes to the cultivation of the Monsanto's GM maize. Europe's highest authority on foods safety says MON810 is safe....erm... They've after all received the go ahead from the EFSA http://www.efsa.europe.eu/efsa – the very same organisation that said it's okay to put toothpaste toxin in food supplements. EFSA, the highest scientific authority in Europe, has come under heavy criticism http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/anh-open-letter-to-the-european-food-safety-authority from the ANH recently given their risk assessment methodology and lack of transparency over some highly scientifically questionable opinions on fluoride. (EFSA-Are You Trying to Poison Us? http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/efsa—are-you-trying-to-poison-us; EFSA says it's ok to put toothpaste toxin in food supplements http://www.anhcampaign.org/files/090126_ANH_EFSA-sodium-monofluorophosphate-opinion.pdf) The two opinions from EFSA saying that MON810 is safe can be found at: Main opinion by EFSA - 2005 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620770082.htm Subsequent attempts by various countries to provide supplementary evidence on health or environmental risks to invoke the safeguard clause in EU law to prevent the cultivation of MON810, all rejected by EFSA: Greece - 2008 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902001981.htm Austria - 2008 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902209965.htm Hungary - 2008 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902002009.htm How can the the risks be ignored? There is actually a considerable body of evidence suggesting the potential for human health risks from MON810. High on any regulator's list of concerns should be that fact that it has been shown that in MON810 the promoter sequence that turns on the foreign gene is only partially incorporated into host DNA. In this case, the inserted gene is meant to trigger expression of the CryIA(b) protein from Bacillus thuringiensis that provides resistance to caterpillar pests. But actually the transgene has been shown to be truncated during insertion so that the protein expressed is actually coded both by the transgene and the host DNA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18306044?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum. This signals – or should signal – warning bells!! It means that commercial MON810 crops could cause effects that are entirely unpredictable. Unpredictability implies a potential or probability of risk! It is not dissimilar to Russian roulette. Pressure from international expert panels However, because regulators such as EFSA and their counterparts in the FDA, and most of the same scientists who sit on international expert panels in Codex [http://www.anhcampaign.org/campaigns/codex] all choose to ignore such things, they view MON810 as safe. This means that this is also the view of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which has unparalleled powers to hold countries to ransom under its dispute settlement procedures http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm. Reading between the lines of the pro-biotech lobby The so-called 'advocates for agricultural technology' criticise the consumer's view of 'frankenfood', using the argument that these political concerns have little or nothing to do with food safety. However, the ANH is convinced that educated consumers are right to be wary of food where, in total defiance of nature, DNA from one species is inserted into the DNA of another. That the growing concern from geneticists and molecular biologists – many of whom have worked within the biotech industry – that releasing GM into the environment poses a serious threat to human health, as well as nature. That allowing a few biotech companies to control the world's food supply is madness, apart from sounding the death knell to the thousands of small or traditional farm around the world. We could go on, but you can read our full position in the Say NO to GM Campaign page http://www.anhcampaign.org/campaigns/say-no-to-gm. It's up to you Maintaining our access to natural, untainted, non-GM foods is in the end going to come down to public opinion, science (without spin!) and total transparency. Unfortunately we see deception and manipulation of information on a daily basis where vested interests collude to keep the truth about the risks to health and the environment from consumers. At least in Europe consumers have a chance to vote with their wallets given that GM produce must be labelled as such, but US citizens are denied even this basic level of information http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/US-judge-upholds-FDA-GM-food-position. It's time to have your voice heard and for those concerned consumers living in Europe, lobby your elected representatives like mad, given the fact that it's Member States's environment ministers who will now be deciding the fate of our food supply. Here's a selection of this week's news articles: EU foiled in bid to force France, Greece to allow GM crop http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g5UC4dqHX5lo8ZjraGHeq1TwVQrQ GM battles rage down on the farm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7892328.stm EU experts clash over France, Greece GM maize bans http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKTRE51F3U320090216 Back to ANH Campaign http://www.anhcampaign.org/ Back to Say NO to GM Campaign http://www.anhcampaign.org/campaigns/say-no-to-gm _______________________ 23 February 2009 GMOs: Brussels will have the final say Enviro2b.com, 23 February 2009. http://www.enviro2b.com/environnement-actualite-developpement-durable/28296/article.html [Translated from the original French by GM-free Ireland: According to information revealed by Agence France Presse this weekend, the European Commission seems to be in a position to impose the cultivation of GM crops to all EU member states, on the basis that their opponents can't muster enough allies to block them. Since the Commission's decisions are subject to Qualified Majority Voting by the member states, if the proponents and opponents cancel each other out, the European executive imposes its view in the end. While the member states experts met at the permanent Committee on Animal health and the Food Chain on Wednesday, to decide on the approval of two new varieties of GMO maize, Syngenta's Bt11 and Pioneer's BT 1507, it seems that no decision will be taken due to the lack of a Qualified Majority Vote. It thus seems virtually certain that the Commission will impose its choice on the States. The Safeguard Clause in danger The experts will also decide on 2 March regarding the safeguard clauses put in place by Austrian and Hungary. The Commission will then consider those of France and Greece on the 23d and 24th of March. During the last vote, 9 countries voted in favour of allowing the cultivations, and 11 against. For there to be any hope of maintaining these safeguard clauses, it would be simulatenously necessary to bring together the 90 votes of the seven countries which abstained and, especially, convince many of the pro-GM countries to vote against. A European diplomat has told AFP "now that Spain is voting in favour of GM crops, no majority can be found to oppose the Commission." _______________________ Yes, It's True: GMOs Contaminate Mexican Corn Mother Jones (USA), 24 February 2009. By Josh Harkinson.http://tiny.cc/DE01p In April 2002, I sat in the office of UC Berkeley environmental science professor Ignacio Chapela as an ancient telephone chortled incessantly with calls from scientists and journalists curious about his latest study, a paper published in Nature showing how genes from GM corn entered local varieties of the plant in Mexico, where GM crops are banned. Samples of the corn sat in vials on his desk. An international controversy had erupted over the experiment, and earlier that month the prestigious journal published an unprecedented near-retraction. "Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper," said a terse editorial note. Chapela admitted to making a few interpretative mistakes, but stood by his findings even when a study by a different team of researchers in 2005 was unable to replicate his results. His findings were finally corroborated this week by scientists from Mexico, the United States, and the Netherlands who looked at thousands of seed samples from hundreds of Mexican corn fields and found that around 1 percent of them had genes that had jumped from GM varieties. Even before this week, major detractors agreed with Chapela's main point. Corn disperses pollen easily, so one should expect that GM pollen carried by the wind has mated with local corn varieties in much of the world. Although neither expensive--total cost $2000--nor surprising, Chapela's study was attacked because it provoked ongoing feuds. Disagreements about what might happen when GM crops interbreed with their unaltered neighbors are now more than a decade old. Scientists still debate whether transgenics will diminish genetic diversity in local crop varieties, kill beneficial creatures, or reduce the ability of entire plant populations to survive. Scientists already know that pollen from GM crops can kill beneficial insects. For example, the Bt gene in corn poisons pests like the European corn borer but could also inadvertently wipe out the valuable Typhlodromalus aripo. The T. aripo, as it is known, eats both corn pollen and the ignominious green mite, which wreaked havoc on Africa's cassava crop in the 1980s and early 90s. The mite was accidentally introduced from South America and scientists combated it in 1993 by importing the T. aripo from Brazil. After it went to work eating mites, it immediately increased cassava yields by 35%. The addition of Bt pollen to that diet could be a boon to the mites and a disaster for T. aripo and farmers. "If it destabilized cassava," says Andrew Paul Gutierrez, a Berkeley researcher who has done computer modeling on GM crops, "it could destroy the basic food staple for 220 million Africans in an area twice the size of the United States." Accepting such risks becomes even more difficult given that Bt is probably only a temporary solution to insect invasions. Last February, University of Arizona researcher Bruce Tabashnik documented the first case, in GM cotton, of insects developing a resistance to the Bt gene. "My own experience in the history of insect resistance is that they develop resistance to whatever control measure is used against them," he told me in 2002. "I think it's just a matter of time." Even more disturbing to ecologists than the Bt issue is the threat of a GM crop becoming a "superweed," a plant with the ability to invade and dominate the landscape. Many scientists feared that the biotech company Asgrow had created what could become a kudzu-like threat when it introduced a GM squash in 1992. The squash was capable of breeding with wild squash in Texas but possessed a potential advantage: resistance to a virus that had been a bane to squash growers for years. When environmental groups protested, the Agriculture Department commissioned a report by Hugh Wilson, a squash expert at Texas A&M University, who found that the few studies done to approve the crop "point towards the clear presence of risk." If the sobering scenarios of squash superweeds or killer corn were the limits of scientists' concern over genetic engineering, then more people might agree that experts could predict problems with GM crops and design efficient rules to control them. In fact, critics like Chapela point to worries that run much deeper. What troubles some scientists the most about GM crops are behavioral quirks known as pleiotropic effects. These variations in how a plant looks and acts are caused unintentionally when technicians insert plants with new genes, and they can't be predicted. For example, a gene spliced into a plant's DNA may make it resistant to insects, as a scientist plans, but it could also make the same plant change color, grow more slowly, or produce only tiny leaves, all for no foreseeable reason. Scientists in the lab discard GM plants that exhibit such traits--when they notice them. But some negative effects can be difficult to catch, and it is these that Chapela believes could create problems in the field. An unanticipated trait that caused a GM crop to consume more water, kill beneficial insects, or deplete soil nutrients could seriously harm the environment before anyone notices. To be sure, unpredictable effects like these sometimes occur naturally in individual plants when radiation mutates their DNA, scrambling its genes. Yet Chapela says the range of random behavior that a set of genes can create increases dramatically if but one of them has been inserted from another species. "Almost anything you can imagine is possible," he says, "and that's one of the scary things about genetic engineering." The government does not require testing for pleiotropic effects in GM crops, and with a nearly infinite number of the effects conceivable in each engineered plant, doing so would be impractical anyway. No crop approved for commercial use has exhibited an ecologically destructive pleiotropic effect, but some experiments have shown it could happen more easily than once thought. In 1998, geneticist Joy Bergelson at the University of Chicago compared two types of arabidopsis plants equally resistant to herbicide. One had received its resistance through genetic engineering, the other through conventional breeding. She found in field trials that the GM varieties passed on their genes to future generations more effectively, even though both strains of plant grew identically. The study seemed to suggest that something about the transgene caused it to spread more easily. And it pointed to a wide ranging and disturbing possibility: that a GM plant could overrun the environment for reasons scientists don't understand and haven't thought to explore. _______________________ Michael Pollan Fixes Dinner America's favorite food intellectual talks about ethanol, the carrot lobby, and secularizing food. Mother Jones (USA), 24 February 2009. By Clara Jeffery. http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2009/02/michael-pollan-fixes-dinner In our current issue, we interview Michael Pollan, the man of the moment in liberal food policy. One way to get people to eat better, he says, is to team up with allies whose economic interests happen to line up with healthier eating: Mother Jones: What surprised you as you researched In Defense of Food? Michael Pollan: One surprise is how deeply the food system is implicated in climate change. I don't think that has really been on people's radar until very recently. Al Gore didn't talk about it at all; 25 to 33 percent of climate change gases can be traced to the food system. I was also surprised that those diseases that we take for granted as what will kill us - heart disease, cancer, diabetes - were virtually unknown 150 years ago, before we began eating this way. MJ: When you first wrote the mantra "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants," did you have any idea what kind of reaction you'd get? MP: Well, I studied my poetry in school, and I knew there was something about the way it sounded that made it easy to remember. After writing The Omnivore's Dilemma I wanted to write a book that got past the choir, that got to people who didn't care about how their food was grown, but who did care about their health. I wanted to make it almost billboard simple. It started out as just "Eat food." But then I realized, Eh, not quite good enough. You've got to deal with the quantity issue. And then plants; the more you looked, the more you realized that the shortage of plants in our diet could explain a lot. Not that I'm against meat eating. I think we're eating too much. That's why I said "mostly plants." MJ: Did you hear from the beef lobby? MP: No, but there's another group, the Weston A. Price Foundation, who are fierce in their love of animal fat. And a lot of what they say is right, but they really don't like plants. People feel like they have to take sides on this plant/animal divide, and I don't think we do. MJ: There's no dilemma? MP: [Laughs.] No dilemma. And of course a lot of vegetarians were annoyed that I wasn't saying "all plants." It's a thicket. People have strong, quasi-religious views. Secularizing the issue is challenging. MJ: Your books were once very personal and interior. Has the transition to being the public face of food activism been difficult? MP: Very hard. You still have to draw lines between being a journalist and an activist. When Obama announced his pick for agriculture secretary I was disappointed, and I said so in some interviews. I got calls from very prominent activists saying, "You should really keep your powder dry because we want to have access to this guy." Who is this "we"? I felt like Tonto. And I realized that if you are an activist, you do respond tactically. But as a writer you have a pact with your readers that you'll be really straight with them. MJ: So what do you think of Iowa governor Tom Vilsack heading Agriculture? MP: There's reason to be very concerned. He oversaw a tremendous expansion of feedlot agriculture and confinement hog production, ruining the Iowa countryside, ruining the lives of many farmers. He helped gut local control over the siting decisions. He has also been very friendly toward Monsanto and genetically modified products and was named governor of the year by bio, the big biotech trade organization. But people I respect say that he will listen to food activists and is interested in helping Iowa to feed itself. It's a food desert, weirdly enough. All the raw material leaves the state and comes back in processed form. Putting the most positive spin I can on it: He's no longer governor of Iowa, and I'm hoping that as a politician, when he senses where the wind is moving, he'll move with it. MJ: How much of our current agricultural policy can we lay at the feet of the Iowa caucuses? MP: You can't be elected president without passing though Iowa and bowing down before corn-based ethanol, before agricultural subsidies. I mean, even McCain was a critic of ethanol, but when he got to Iowa he was singing a different tune. But this time around the candidates learned there is a progressive farm lobby. Iowa came close to electing a woman organic farmer as its agriculture secretary - until the Iowa Farm Bureau came after her. And Obama said he saw the importance of local control. That idea that there is a monolithic farm bloc - I wouldn't say it's starting to crumble, but there are interesting cracks. The challenge for the food reform movement is to make those cracks bigger. MJ: Obama has praised corn-based ethanol. MP: I think we'll see him back off of that because he's no longer a senator from Illinois, and he has to look at not only the national but the global implications of this folly. It's an experiment that's been disastrous. About 30 percent of the increase in grain prices could be attributed to the decision to embrace biofuels, particularly corn-based ethanol. It has done nothing for climate change, and the business is in real trouble now with the collapse of oil prices. It's completely dependent on subsidies and tariffs. I don't think it's proven itself to be of any value except to Archer Daniels Midland. And Obama appointed Steven Chu as secretary of energy, a fierce critic of corn-based ethanol, a physicist, and a Nobel Prize winner. It will be his job to argue the president and Vilsack out of corn-based ethanol. MJ: Are all biofuels problematic? MP: Well, we don't yet know about cellulosic ethanol. You can't yet do it economically because it takes a lot of energy to break cellulose down. And the kind of refineries that we've been building for corn will not work for cellulose. When you use farms to create fuel, you're going to have to replace that acre of farmland. So people deforest Indonesia, Brazil. It's very shortsighted and based on the fact that oil companies need a replacement liquid. It's what they're good at. And they have gas stations. And the idea that maybe the best way is a sustainably powered electrical grid that we all plug into doesn't sit well with oil companies; they don't have a seat at that table. That's why BP has given half a billion dollars to Berkeley to help develop cellulosic ethanol. I think that Obama will put a lot of money into it to help develop it. I just hope it's not wasted. MJ: Ethanol producers have asked for part of the economic stimulus/bailout package. MP: Can you believe it? They're only, like, two years old and they were started with subsidies and would not exist except for the fact that in 2006 President Bush began these mandates. Now, on top of that, they need a bailout. MJ: If you had a magic wand, would you get rid of subsidies or reform them? MP: I'd give farmers the exact same amount of money to do something else. It's a dead end to try and eliminate subsidies, because then you get all of America's farmers, who have political power out of all proportion of their number, unified against change. Right now the incentives are to produce as much as possible, whatever the costs to the environment and our health. But you can imagine another set of assumptions, so that they're getting incentives to sequester carbon. Or clean the water that leaves their farm, or for the quality, not the quantity, of the food they're growing. MJ: Why is having a secretary of agriculture from an urban community, where the majority of eaters live, such an impossibility? MP: Good question. For many, many years the interests of farmers and eaters were the same thing. When the great public health problem was not enough calories for everybody, having policies that encouraged farmers to produce as much as possible made sense. Now our problem is different; it is the poor who suffer disproportionately from diet-related illnesses and chronic diseases. So merely giving them enough calories is not the answer. One of the more encouraging things that Vilsack said was that he was going to put nutrition at the center of his nutrition programs, which must have struck a lot of listeners as, "Well, duh," but in fact nutrition has not been at the center; disposing of agricultural surplus has been. One thing to consider is getting these programs out of the Department of Agriculture. Eaters are the biggest interest group of all, and their interests are not being taken into account. MJ: The food activism community is criticized as being elitist, blind to the issues of cost. How do we democratize better quality? MP: It is the important question. One of the problems is that the government supports unhealthy food and does very little to support healthy food. I mean, we subsidize high fructose corn syrup. We subsidize hydrogenated corn oil. We do not subsidize organic food. We subsidize four crops that are the building blocks of fast food. And you also have to work on access. We have food deserts in our cities. We know that the distance you live from a supplier of fresh produce is one of the best predictors of your health. And in the inner city, people don't have grocery stores. So we have to figure out a way of getting supermarkets and farmers markets into the inner cities. MJ: By mandates? MP: When we give people on the wic [Women, Infants, and Children] program or food stamps farmers market vouchers, lo and behold, the farmers markets show up in those neighborhoods. That said, one of the best things that Obama could do would be build 12-month farmers markets, especially in inner cities, those beautiful glass buildings you see in Barcelona or Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia. It would drive economic development and local agriculture. The other way that you democratize the food movement is pay enough for the school lunch system to buy local food, fresh food, because right now it's all frozen and processed. You will improve the health of the students and the local economy. Supposedly it would take about a dollar per student per day. MJ: Does wic still specify that you buy dairy? MP: Yes. We had a huge fight to get a little more produce in the wic basket, which is heavy on cheese and milk because the dairy lobby is very powerful. So they fought and they fought and they fought, and they got a bunch of carrots in there. [Laughs.] MJ: Specifically? Who knew: the carrot lobby? MP: Specifically carrots. The next big lobby. But there is also money in this farm bill for fresh produce in school lunch. The price of getting the subsidies was getting the California delegation on board, and their price was $2 billon for what are called specialty crops - fresh fruit and produce grown largely in California. MJ: Should we be trying to go as quickly as possible toward organic and local, or can the perfect be the enemy of the good? MP: That's why I don't know if organic is the last word. It's sort of an all-or-nothing idea. People getting it partly right is very important. Getting your chickens out of those cages is important, even if you're not getting them organic feed. Those will not be organic eggs, but they will be so far superior. There are many varieties of sustainable agriculture we should support; it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let's see what works. The whole problem of industrial agriculture is putting all of your eggs in one basket. We need to diversify our food chains as well as our fields so that when some of them fail, we can still eat. _______________________ German Ag Minister considers cultivation ban for MON 810 SeedQuest, 23 February 2009. http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2009/february/25250.htm USDA/FAS GAIN report GM 9007 http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200902/146327270.pdf Report highlights:
	German Minister for Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection (BMELV), Ilse Aigner has publically speculated about another cultivation ban for MON810 corn varieties. She has indicated that the expected monitoring report on the environmental impact of MON810 will be weighed carefully. Aigner also favors the establishment of state-wide biotech-free regions. NGO's, particularly in Minister Aigner's home state of Bavaria, are increasing pressure over biotechnology in run-up to the European Parliamentary elections in June and German federal elections in September.
In an interview with Berliner Zeitung on February 18 and carried widely on radio and TV, German Minister for Agriculture Food and Consumer Protection, Ilse Aigner said that she is considering a cultivation ban for MON810 corn varieties. The paper quoted Aigner as saying "Here (in Germany) green gene technology does not provide recognizable advantages for the people." She also pointed out that consumers reject genetically engineered plants and that farmers do not want them. Aigner indicated that she intends to review the marketing approval for MON810 corn in Germany. She said that if she considers that the technology provider did not implement the monitoring obligations as expected, she will implement another cultivation ban. The interviewer asked the question whether she has the political will to completely ban cultivation of MON810 corn. Aigner answered "Yes." Aigner also discussed the recent calls from Bavaria for the implementation of biotech-free production regions. Aigner said that she supports the right for separate regions within Germany to declare themselves as biotech-free regions, which would be consistent with EU law. However, she indicated that based on current EU law, there is little scope for this option. Aigner said that she had instructed her Ministry to identify a mechanism to establish biotech-free zones or to declare German states as biotech-free. Aigner said "I completely support this demand," referring to recent calls in her home state of Bavaria for this action. In discussing field trials, Aigner also demanded more sensitivity to local concerns. For example, she said that she had advised the Federal Seeds Register (FSR) not to apply for biotech variety tests in regions where biotechnology is specifically contentious. Comment: Aigner gave this interview two days before the opening of the trade show for organic foods (BioFach) in Nuremberg. Just five days ago, a group of 34 organic and other anti-biotech organizations sent an open letter to Aigner demanding that she take clear position against biotech crop cultivation in Germany. This group stated in a press release that they will use Aigner's response for communication with the public. Two weeks ago, Aigner reportedly refused to accept 45,000 postcards from an anti-biotech NGO during a visit to her parliamentary district. The next several months will be very critical for Aigner's party, the Christian Social Union (CSU) in Bavaria. The CSU is campaigning for the European parliament election in June, 2009. Political polls report that it will be a very narrow race for the CSU to be successful and send Bavarian delegates to the next European Parliament. In order to do this, the CSU must get at least 5 percent of all votes cast nationwide in Germany; because of its regional representation, it is therefore searching for every vote in Bavaria. In the past several weeks, both the Bavarian Minister for the Environment, Markus Soeder, and Gert Sonnleitner, in his position as the Bavarian farmers' association president, have demanded that commercial cultivation of biotech crops should be banned in Bavaria. Interestingly, Sonnleitner did not express this demand for all of Germany in his capacity as president of the national farmers' association. Sonnleitner does not have complete support for this position in the national farmers association. There are farmers that are interested in the tools that current agricultural biotech plant events offer. Across Germany, these farmers are mainly located in eastern regions. While not currently large, there is growing interested even in Northern Bavaria for access to the technology. As of February 17, there have been 3690 hectares of land registered for planting with biotech corn in 2009. Aigner's interview is a clear signal to German politicians and to the industry that she is not interested in biotech crop cultivation. The issue is very contentious in the public so leading politicians have not dared to counter NGO concerns and campaigns with scientific knowledge. The interview also sheds light on the position Germany is likely to take with regard to the upcoming vote on approvals for other biotech corn events. Also, in this environment there appears little chance that Germany would change its position on the cultivation bans in other EU countries. In the past, Germany supported the right of EU member countries to individually decide about biotech crop cultivation in their territory. Source: http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200902/146327270.pdf _______________________ The Future of Food: Frankenfood to GMourmet Yahoo! Finance, 23 February 2009. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Future-of-Food-portfolio-14449423.html More than a decade after Monsanto and other biotech companies first introduced transgenic corn, soybeans, and canola seeds to American farmers, a second generation of genetically modified (GM) foods is poised to hit supermarket coolers: transgenic meat, milk and fish. In January, the Food and Drug Administration paved the way for GM meat to be sold in the U.S., announcing they would evaluate GM animals the same way they regulate new animal drugs. Since then a handful of applications for specific GM animals have been filed with the agency, including a fast-growing "AquaAdvantage" salmon. AquaBounty, the company behind the salmon, hopes for FDA approval of the technology sometime this year. Ron Stotish, CEO of AquaBounty Technologies, knows two things about the coming trade in GM meat and fish. One is that they can potentially make biotech companies like his lots of money. The second is that the market can be stymied by consumers who equate GM organisms with Frankenfood. "I've been approached by people who say it's unethical and it's against God's will," says Stotish, a molecular biologist. Back in 2000, McDonald's told its potato supplier J.R. Simplot to instruct its farmers to stop growing Monsanto's GM "New Leaf" potato, effectively killing the product. The much ballyhooed FlavrSavr tomato suffered a similar fate in the mid-'90s. Today the biotech crop market is just shy of $7 billion globally, but it could have been much larger if consumers had embraced more products. Barbara Glenn, managing director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group, thinks the prevalence of negative attitudes about GM plants was primarily a marketing failure. Monsanto's seeds made it easier for farmers to control pests and generate higher per-acre yields, but the average person doesn't care about that. "People want to know about direct consumer benefits," says Glenn. So this time around the industry is emphasizing the ways in which transgenic animals can be good for both the environment and for consumers themselves. AquaBounty, for instance, is pitching its salmon as something that will require less feed and create less waste, thus producing more food with a lower impact on natural resources. "When you look at all the environmental problems fish farming has had in Chile, we're coming along with an animal that's a green alternative," insists Stotish. Similarly, the so-called "EnviroPig," developed by scientists at the University of Guelph in Canada, will produce waste with up to 60 percent less environmentally damaging phosphorous. Researchers are also working on pigs that produce beneficial omega-3 fatty acids (healthy bacon!), goats whose milk might help children ward off infections, cows that produce lactose-free milk, and cattle and chickens that are resistant to organisms that lead to nasty food-borne illnesses. The biotech and food industries are hoping that these products will be enough to convince American consumers to give transgenic eating a second chance. That is, to change the public image of genetically modified meat and produce from scary Frankenfood to tasty "GMourmet." Still, it's not going to be easy. When you're staring at six ounces of genetically modified top sirloin on your plate or a glass of milk from a cow grown with a mouse gene, it gets personal. Whether for moral or ethical reasons or just the yuck factor of consuming food dreamed up by people in white lab coats, 35 percent of Americans say they would be unlikely to purchase meat or milk from GM animals. (And this study comes from the International Food Information Council, an industry-funded group, so that number is probably low.) For GM animal products to ever gain a mass market, large food companies will have to adopt this new technology. Today companies like McDonald's, as well as meat producers Smithfield Foods and Tyson and processed food companies like Kraft and General Mills, are cautiously optimistic, eager for new foods that can be marketed to the public on the basis of their health benefits and for foods that can be produced more efficiently (read: more cheaply). But for the moment, they're also keeping close tabs on consumer attitudes, hoping that Frankenfoods don't spawn Frankenfish and Frankenfilet-mignon. _______________________ New organic players in the world, while Europe faces the GMO issue GreenPlanet, 23 February 2009. By Antonio Felice GreenPlanet managing editor. http://en.greenplanet.net/point-of-view/editorials/240-new-organic-players-in-the-world-while-europe-faces-the-gmo-issue.html It would be too easy to write: oh, how much we enjoyed in Nuremberg, during Biofach's days, to look at the organic and eco-friendly sector holding out and sailing healthily toward the future. Certainly the general impression we got from Biofach was positive, but we know very well that too many matches are underway and these will determine whether the future is to be organic either GMO or a more or less acceptable mix of the two. In Nuremberg GreenPlanet editorial staff worked hard. And we realized one thing: the sector's players are more and more (you'll find them with their interviews on this website in the coming days), they come from a growing number of Countries, and this is a signal of good health and a good omen for the future. We were positively surprised by the African and Indian participation. Sub-Saharan Africa and India are two macro-areas that could offer a strong increase of organic productions, and we can expect their quality will be greater and greater. At Biofach we noted an increase of export-oriented African and Indian companies: though some of them are still small-sized, the presence of associations and consortia as well as the governmental and international support these events usually get couldn't be ignored. This is the upcoming future. A future in which the Mediterranean won't fail to assert itself, like Spain, Italy and Tunisia highlighted with their strong presence in Nuremberg's big exhibition. On Friday, in the very middle of Biofach, the German Minister for Environment Sigmar Gabriel supported the Ministry for Agriculture's decision to examine the possibility of banning the Monsanto GM maize type MON810, the only one allowed in Europe. A few days before, the minister of Agriculture Ilse Aigner had revealed to the German newspaper Berliner her intention to have the MON810 re-examined so as to determine if it is actually in line with the German environmental standards. "Genetic engineering hasn't brought any quantifiable benefit to citizens" the minister claimed. Is Germany making a step backward? GMO supporters in Brussels, at the European Commission, are showing signs of uneasiness, especially after the British newspaper The Independent accused the EC President Barroso to be subject to multinational corporations as revealing a reserved meeting between him and pro-GMO lobbyists. If Germany is to ban MON810, the game would become very hard in all Europe for genetics corporations. It is hard to figure out a future without GMO, but a future where GMO are under control and biodiversity is granted, as well as the development of organic produce, is absolutely necessary. In this perspective the EU's position is very important, also due to the weight the European market has on the whole world's organic productions. _______________________ New study points to GM contamination of Mexican corn Agence France Presse (AFP), 23 February 2009. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOy_6Xg1BZGxWwoVg46CnFHLMu3w PARIS - Genes from genetically-engineered corn have been found in traditional crop strains in Mexico, according to a new study likely to reignite a bitter controversy over biotech maize. The paper, by scientists from Mexico, the United States and the Netherlands, backs a 2001 probe that sparked a row over the safety of genetically-modified (GM) crops. Green activists say GM crops are a potential hazard, arguing that their genes could spread to related plants through cross-pollination. Their campaign has helped drive bans on GM crops in some countries, including Mexico itself, the ancestral home of maize, as corn is also called. In the 2001 study, published in the prestigious British journal Nature, researchers reported finding transgenes in samples of corn taken from the Sierra Juarez region of Oaxaca. But this study was blasted for technical inaccuracy and choice of samples. In an exceptional slap, Nature distanced itself from the paper, saying the evidence had not been strong enough to warrant publication. This damning verdict was underscored by a further study, carried out in 2005 by a different team, that was unable to replicate the results. But new research now says the original study was right. A team led by Elena Alvarez-Buylla of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City looked at nearly 2,000 samples from 100 fields in the region from 2001 and 2004, and found that around one percent of the samples had genes that had jumped from GM varieties. "We confirmed that there was contamination in 2001 and also found contamination in 2004, which means that it either persisted in the local maize that we sampled or that it was reintroduced, which is less likely," Alvarez-Buylla told AFP. She said the difference between previous studies and her research lay in the samples chosen for gene sequencing and in the molecular technique for decrypting the DNA. The investigators looked for two specific genes that had escaped from biotech corn, and found them in some fields but not in others. Alvarez-Buylla said the evidence shed stark light on the failure of efforts to shield Mexico from unauthorised GM corn. The country imposed a moratorium on the planting of transgenic maize in 1998 in order to protect genetic diversity. It is the home of about 60 traditional domesticated strains, also called landraces, as well as several wild strains. Transgenic seeds are entering the country, most probably from the United States, and getting mixed with local seeds in trade among small farmers, Alvarez-Buylla believed. "It is very hard to avoid gene flow from transgenic maize to non-transgenic maize in Mexico, even though there has been a moratorium," she said. "It is really worrying that the government of Mexico has not been efficient enough in biosecurity monitoring," she said, accusing watchdogs of failing to establish rigorous molecular monitoring that was independent of data provided by biotech giants. Alvarez-Buylla's team did not explore the impact of the escaped genes on the native corn, on the local environment or human health, nor did it test whether the foreign genes passed on to progeny plants. The study appears in the latest issue of Molecular Ecology, a peer-reviewed journal published by Britain's Blackwell group. It has been endorsed by a lead author of the 2005 paper. GM crops have had genes inserted into them to produce benefits for farmers. For instance, they exude natural toxins that kill off pests, or are resistant to herbicides, enabling a farmer to spray a field in one go and not kill the crop. GM producers say there is no evidence of any threat to human health or the environment. The overwhelming view of scientists is that, so far, this is true. But suspicions remain strong in many countries, especially Europe, where several governments retain safeguard measures against GM corn despite EU-wide approval. _______________________ Monsanto's Bt Cotton Kills the Soil as Well as Farmers Institute of Science in Society press release, 23 February 2009. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFarmers.php Biosafety refers to ensuring that GMOs do not harm the environment or health. The soil, its fertility, and the organisms which maintain the fertility of soil are a vital aspect of the environment, especially in the context of food and agricultural production. A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4,000 per year). In 3 years, Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus. Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%. Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%. At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food. The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils. The impact of GMOs on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacuna because Bt toxin crops such as Mon810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal [aubergine] have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms. The government of India is trying to grant approval to Bt Brinjal without biosafety studies on impact on soil organisms. The European Commission is trying to put pressure on GMO free countries to introduce Mon810. The Navdanya study - the first that has looked at the long-term impact of Bt cotton on soil organisms - is a wake-up to regulators worldwide. It also shows that the claims of the biotechnology industry about the safety of GM crops are false. To get a copy of the report and for further information, please contact: Navdanya A-60, Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110 016 India Phone : + 91 11 2653 5422 / 2653 2124 Email : vandana@vandanashiva.com Website : http://www.navdanya.org _______________________ GM and non-GM crops up for discussion CheckBiotech.org, 23 February 2009. http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/gm_and_non_gm_crops_discussion An international conference on coexistence between genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops will be held in Melbourne in November. The GMCC'09 conference will bring together the scientific community working on coexistence between GM and non-GM agricultural supply chains. The event will cover key issues from production level to the market place or 'from paddock to plate'. Conference chair, Professor German Spangenberg, sees GMCC'09 as a unique opportunity to showcase the latest research taking place world-wide in biological, agricultural and socio-economic sciences. The research would provide the knowledge base to enable feasible coexistence strategies between GM and non-GM agricultural supply chains to be designed and implemented, he said. "There has been significant growth in the introduction of GM crops in global agriculture over the last decade. This is reflected by the increasing number of countries growing GM crops as well as the growing area under GM crop cultivation globally," Spangenberg said. "Coexistence between GM and non-GM agricultural supply chains is highly relevant in providing choice." The GMCC is the only international conference series that focuses on coexistence issues between GM and non-GM agriculture. The conference program is designed to inform conference participants on the current state of the underpinning science in this field world-wide. This year will be the first time the event will take place outside of Europe. Key issues will include strategies for coexistence and organisational measures across the supply chain, socio-economics of coexistence and many others, as well as highlighting the progress of the Australian approach in the coexistence of GM canola. "We also want to address the planning for coexistence measures in advance of other GM crop introductions such as wheat, rice, sugar cane and pastures," said Spangenberg. Calls for abstracts are due by March 1 on topics including managing coexistence, the global status of coexistence, socio-economics and case studies. More information is available at http://www.gmcc-09.com --- Comment by GM-free Ireland: This appears to be another GM industry propaganda fest, especially designed to soften up Australian resistance to GM crops. GMCC stands for "Genetically Modified Crops Coexistence Conference". The $850 registration feed is prohibitive for most farmers and NGOs. The conference chair is Prof. German Spangenberg from the Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia (who is also the Director and Chief Scientific Officer of Phytogene Pty. Ltd which has applied for a biotechnolgy patent). The organising committee includes Melanie Carew and Ian Christensen from the Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre in Victoria (which is funded by Australian Government, with a commercial arm that owns GM crop patents), Keith Alcock from Alcock Consultancy Services (who claims "the Spanish experience of co-existence... has been shown to work"!!!), and Rosemary Richards from the Australian Oilseeds Foundation in New South Wales (where - along with Victoria - GM crops were first released in Australia in 2008). The conference web site claims GM crops are cheaper than conventional ones, and says "The conference will highlight the progress of the Australian approach to coexistence between GM/non-GM canola. The conference will also address the planning of coexistence measures in advance of other GM crop introductions." The conference announcement, above, suggests that GM crops "provide choice" despite the fact that 216 contamination events in 57 countries prove that "co-existence" actually destroys the choice to grow normal crops. (See the GM Contamination Register at http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org.) _______________________ 22 February 2009 Corporate Control of Food 22 February 2009. By Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC. The geneticists and biotechnologists who are 'using' the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week in May 2009 to demand reduction in the regulatory regimes appear to be living in a parallel universe from many other crop scientists. Nowhere is there better evidence of this, than in the introduction to the paper for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week, "Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development," written by Dr. Potrykus In Dr. Potrykus world just about everyone is conspiring against GMOs. He claims that the current "regulatory regime (established without any scientific justification) prevents using the technology to the benefit of the poor." He also believes that the (negative) "political climate surrounding GMOs which has spread from Europe to the rest of the world" has led to "GMO-over-regulation which makes the use of GMOs for the public sector inaccessible for cost and time reasons." Finally, he states that there is "financial support from governments to professional anti-GMO lobby groups." No one appears have told him that GM crops are being produced by transnational corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta who have powerful political allies in Washington, Brussels and every capital city in the world, A very different scenario is painted by the journalist Andrew Pollack in an article in The New York Times,(Feb. 19th 2009) where 26 scientists write that biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. They are accusing biotech companies of preventing university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of GM crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions," the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. The (U.S) E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops. These 26 corn insect specialists have withheld their names because they fear being cut off from research grants by the companies. The problem, according to the scientists is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honour company patent rights and environmental regulations. These agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes. While the university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the biotech corporation. companies. At times permission is denied. On other occasions the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published. One scientists, Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who has signed the statement told the author, "If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research." These scientists are not opposed to GM technology. "Rather, they say, the industry's chokehold on research means that they cannot supply some information to farmers about how best to grow the crops. And, they say, the data being provided to government regulators is being "unduly limited." William S. Niebur, the vice president in charge of crop research at the biotech company Du Pont defended his company's policies on the grounds that they were following government regulations. Monsanto and Syngenta spokespersons made similar robust defense of their policies. However E.P.A. spokesman, Dale Kemery, said on February 17th 2009, that the government required only management of the crops' insect resistance and that any other contractual restrictions were put in place by the companies. Mark A. Boetel, associate professor of entomology at North Dakota State University, said that before genetically engineered sugar beet seeds were sold to farmers for the first time last year, he wanted to test how the crop would react to an insecticide treatment. But the university could not come to an agreement with Monsanto and Syngenta, the companies responsible, over issues such as the right to publish research findings. One of the most pernicious developments in recent years was highlighted by Dr. Shields of Cornell who points out that financing for agricultural research had gradually shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists at universities dependent on financing or technical co-operation from the big seed companies. "People are afraid of being blacklisted," he said. "If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can't do your job." This is the real world of corporate control of crop research, not the fanciful world being portrayed by Dr. Potrykus. _______________________ Genetically modified science • How biotech companies control research on GMO crops Grist (USA), 22 February 2009. By Meredith Niles. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/20/12417/4918/ Recently I wrote about the dwindling faith the American people seem to have in science, seemingly choosing to either ignore or disregard the latest research on global warming. Why has science lost its place in the hearts and minds of America? Has the media been a culprit? Did the Bush administration dismiss one too many scientific reports? But now, a recent article leaves me wondering if science has not only taken a backseat to American thoughts, but a backseat to industry influence as well. In Thursday's New York Times, Andrew Pollack reported on how crop scientists throughout the country have been unable to perform adequate testing and research on biotech crops, because of the strong hand of biotechnology companies. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 Pollack was likely alerted to the story after a group of 26 corn insect scientists from 16 different states anonymously submitted a statement to the EPA on a docket regarding the evaluation of insect resistance risks with a brand of Pioneer Hi-Bred biotech corn. In their statement the scientists noted that they chose to remain anonymous because "virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research." Remaining anonymous allowed the scientists to fully express their real concern with biotech crop research controlled by the industry through technology and stewardship agreements, required to be signed for the purchase of genetically modified seeds. Such agreements are the same that farmers must sign before purchasing seeds, which prevent them from replanting seeds or thus risk legal action. The scientist coalition noted that such agreements "explicitly prohibit research" and "inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry." The effects were clearly stated -- "no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology." Yet the scientific research community has not always been this way. Before patents were granted for life forms, the Plant Variety Protection Act passed by Congress in 1970 allowed farmers to save and replant protected seeds and gave scientists the right to research protected varieties. The problem lies in the control that biotech companies have over seeds, given to them by patent rights. Effectively, patent protection allows a company to determine who can purchase its product and for what purpose. Pollack's article highlights this problem and details how biotech companies can freely deny permission for seed requests and even review scientific findings before they are published. In an arena where scientific funding has notably dwindled from the public sector, land-grant universities and scientists have increasingly relied on private funding for their research. The effect of this influence is now all too clear. Elson J. Shields, a professor of entomology at Cornell, out it bluntly: "People are afraid of being blacklisted." The Times article is reflective of a larger ongoing problem. In 2002 Nature published an article about an Ohio State University professor who was conducting research on biotech sunflowers. After her initial research indicated that the seed would allow wild sunflowers to proliferate as weeds, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Dow AgroSciences refused to grant her permission to use the seed for follow up studies. Something similar happened to William Meredith, a USDA geneticist, in the late 1990s when Monsanto was trying to bring its biotech cotton to market. Meredith was denied access to the seeds, since in order to obtain them he would have had to sign an agreement with Monsanto agreeing not to test them. To fully understand how alarming the situation is, consider how biotech crops and foods make their way from lab to field to plate in the United States. The USDA does not conduct its own tests on biotech crop varieties when deregulating and approving them for planting in the United States. Instead, it relies on industry studies and data to access their safety on the environment and human health. But if the industry is preventing real research from entering the scientific community, how much should we trust industry biotech studies? A 2003 study published in the journal Nutrition and Health examined peer-reviewed studies of animals fed genetically-engineered foods. Of the 10 studies identified, the five carried out in collaboration with the industry found no adverse health effects. But of the five independent studies, all found adverse effects after feeding lab animals genetically engineered food for only 10 to 14 days. This latest declaration from a variety of scientists who work in biotech research should be yet another red flag about the biotech industry. As Upton Sinclair famously noted a century ago, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." So long as our public universities and scientists continue to be heavily funded by industry interests, we may continue to see inadequate environmental and human health studies about biotech crops. And so long as the U.S. government continues to rely on the industry to provide them with data, the potential adverse side effects of biotech crops will likely remain silent. _______________________ USDA: "GMO contamination happens" The Organic & Non-GMO Report. By Ken Roseboro, editor. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16974.cfm Since 2000, there have been six known incidents of unapproved genetically modified corn and rice entering the US food supply or exports. Common sense would seem to dictate that the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) would want to tighten its oversight of GM crops and force biotechnology companies to make sure their unapproved GMOs stay out of Americans' corn flakes. This is exactly what the Government Accounting Office (GAO) called for. Following the most recent contamination incident involving an unapproved GM cotton from Monsanto mixing with conventional cotton, GAO called for more oversight and coordination among federal agencies – attention USDA – to prevent unapproved GMOs from getting into the food supply. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin said, "When unapproved genetically engineered crops are detected in the food and feed supply, food safety concerns rise, markets are disrupted and consumer confidence falls." "Lessen the regulatory burden" Unbelievably, USDA's has been to propose less oversight, wanting to "lessen the regulatory burden" on biotechnology companies, to quote APHIS spokeswoman, Rachel Iadicicco. Unfortunately, the government's track record of lessening the regulatory burden does not inspire much confidence, as demonstrated by the recent collapse of major Wall Street banks. This has not dissuaded the USDA. In fact, USDA states that in some cases it doesn't want to do anything when unapproved GMOs end up in our food. APHIS's plan states that "a low level presence of [GM] plant materials in seeds or grain may not be cause for agency remedial action," saying such incidents will be evaluated on a "case-by-case basis" and may be "non-actionable." Basically, USDA is saying that GMO contamination happens, so we might as well let it happen. Does that mean that when some GM corn, which contains genes from some unclassified organism found 20,000 leagues beneath the sea (see Syngenta's new GM ethanol corn), gets into someone's taco shell and causes anaphylactic shock that USDA will consider it "non-actionable?" I would hope not. "Serious abdication of responsibility" The Union of Concerned Scientists lambasted the USDA's proposed rulemaking as "a serious abdication of its responsibility." Biotechnology companies are obviously pleased that USDA wants to lessen their regulatory burden, allowing them to avoid responsibility for contaminating the food supply. Monsanto, whose unapproved GM cotton recently got mixed with conventional cotton, expressed its full support of the new rules. A spokesman for Syngenta, which in March 2005 revealed that it had "inadvertently" sold an unapproved GM corn for three years, said that it was "appropriate to establish science-based criteria by which regulated material would be considered 'not-actionable' by the agency." APHIS's new GMO regulations were proposed in the waning days of the Bush Administration. Hopefully, the Obama Administration will ditch these proposals and tighten the "regulatory burden" on companies who should be held accountable if their GMOs contaminate the food supply. _______________________ 21 February 2009 New Study Finds GM Genes in Wild Mexican Maize New Scientist, 21 February 2009. Now it's official: genes from genetically modified corn have escaped into wild varieties in rural Mexico. A new study resolves a long-running controversy over the spread of GM genes and suggests that detecting such escapes may be tougher than previously thought. In 2001, when biologists David Quist and Ignacio Chapela reported finding transgenes from GM corn in traditional varieties in Oaxaca, Mexico, they faced a barrage of criticism over their techniques. Nature , which had published the research, eventually disowned their paper, while a second study by different researchers failed to back up their findings. But now, Elena Alvarez-Buylla of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City and her team have backed Quist and Chapela's claim. They found transgenes in about 1 per cent of nearly 2000 samples they took from the region (Molecular Ecology , vol 18, p 750). "They are out there, but it's hit-and-miss," says Paul Gepts of the University of California, Davis, a co-author of the new study. The escaped transgenes are common in a few fields and absent in others, he says, so gene-monitoring efforts must sample as broadly as possible. What's more, not every detection method - or laboratory - identified every sample containing transgenes. Monitors should use many methods to avoid false negatives, says Gepts. _______________________ Austria fears EU to vote down ban on genetically-modified corn • The last remaining bastion, the safeguard clause, will disappear. • Austria threatens to be defeated in the European Union. • The ban on genetically modified corn cannot be upheld. ScottTrade / BBC Monitoring, 21 February 2009. Report by Regina Poell. http://research.scottrade.com/public/markets/news/news.asp?section=headlines&docKey=100-052n7717-1 Austria is no longer able to maintain its resistance to genetically modified seeds in the European Union. It is becoming apparent in Brussels that the Austrian Government does not have sufficient support from other EU partners to hold on to its safeguard clause. The currently valid ban on the cultivation of the genetically modified corn varieties MON-810 and T25 threatens to run out in the near future. The EU Commission has proposed to abolish the safeguard clause for the third time already. Yet this time, Austria may no longer hope to secure the necessary qualified majority in the Council of the 27 EU Agriculture Ministers to uphold it. EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has personally spoken out in favour of its abolition and has actually good chances of getting his way. Sources in his authority say that the ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops must go. Barroso would insist on that, sources in Brussels say, because he wants to be reelected as head of the commission for another five years in the fall of 2009. "It is All Over Now" In order to license genetically modified seeds, the commission is not only seeking to get the approval of the declared genetic engineering supporters, but also of those governments that have not yet taken a clear stand on the issue. This search has obviously been very successful. "Austria has no longer a chance; this is completely impossible," insiders say. "It is all over now." Should Austria fail to win over a sufficient number of countries at the last moment, the final remaining bastion against genetically modified seeds will collapse. Under an instruction of the EU Commission issued in October 2007, Austria has already been obliged to permit the import of genetically modified corn and its processing into animal feed and also food. Genetically modified food may be put on supermarket shelves if it is labelled accordingly. However, because of huge resistance in the population, retailers have, until now, refrained from doing so. Yet in the course of time, people's rejection could weaken. The end of the currently discussed cultivation ban will formally be voted on at the next EU Agriculture Ministers Council on 2 March, of which Austrian Agriculture Minister Nikolaus Berlakovich (Austrian People's Party [OeVP]) is a member. However, an important preliminary meeting of experts was held in Brussels last Monday [ 16 February]. Following informal preliminary decisions on MON-810, Britain, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Slovakia, and Romania are regarded as determined supporters. The Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and the Czech Republic have not yet declared their position. Yet Spain, for example, together with the Netherlands and Italy, could swing round to the course of the EU Commission completely following a replacement at the Agrarian Ministry. Until now, Spain, which allows genetically modified corn, has been of the view that every country should decide for itself. The other 15 member states, led by Austria and France, are opponents. Yet given the current state of the debate, their votes would not suffice to secure a qualified majority to throw out the proposal of the EU Commission. Should there be no sufficient majority either for or against the proposal, the Commission could decide on its own in the end. Should this option materialize, things are expected to proceed quickly. The safeguard clause may have to be repealed before the end of the year. Final Battle Austria has not yet given up and continues its intensive efforts to win allies. Health Minister Alois Stoeger (Social Democratic Party of Austria) and Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger (OeVP) back Agriculture Minister Berlakovich. Due to lack of evidence, Austria can barely quote risks to the environment, humans, and animals. The European Food Safety Authority has no grounds for believing that genetically modified seeds have negative repercussions. Apart from Austria, the cultivation of genetically modified corn (MON-810) is currently also banned in Hungary, France, and Greece under protective clauses. Most EU states expect genetically modified corn to make agricultural production easier and cheaper. Source: Die Presse, Vienna, in German 18 Feb 09 _______________________ Maui's GMO seed fields deterring foreign tourists Maui News (Hawai'i), Letter to the Editor, 21 February 2009. http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/515169.html?nav=18 Many people, including myself, have been doing our best to warn visitors away from Maui for fear they could be exposed to the same Monsanto experimental viruses and other unknowns, burning cane and racial violence. It might behoove the County Council to take this in mind when trying to convince today's well-informed tourist about coming to the Monsanto test tube formerly known as Maui. I know from overseas communications that the GMO presence has been the No. 1 reason people choose another, safer destination. The assault on tourism from myself and other environmental groups won't stop until Monsanto has closed doors. Our high-end hoteliers might want to grasp this. The worst pollution is what you can't see - chemicals, poisons, experimental pollens. Take a hike, Monsanto, you've ruined my island. Donald Brown Haiku _______________________ US, EU continue to dispute bananas and bio-tech products at WTO Food and Beverage Online, 21 February 2009. http://www.21food.com/news/detail19975.html During dispute settlements sessions at the World Trade Organization on Thursday, the United States and European Union continued to argue over tariffs on banana imports and bans on genetically modified foods. The US alleged that the EU was failing to comply with a judicial body decision on bio-tech products, saying that nine member states had bans in place on the goods which were 'not based on risk assessment,' meaning they were not proven to have negative health consequences or similar concerns. Specifically, Austria came under fire for its ban on insect-resistant maize, a boycott that the US said has spread to other EU countries in spite of the product being safe. The European Commission said its relevant bodies were discussing the issues, and since the bio-tech question were first raised several years back it has authorized about 20 products. It said it believe the appropriate way forward was through dialogue. Also, the Europeans took heat from the US and some Latin American nations for what they said was the EU's failure to change its import regime on bananas to fall in line with WTO rulings by reducing tariffs. The dispute was originally brought by Ecuador, one of the leading banana exporters in the world, which unlike some former European colonies does not enjoy a duty-free tariff quota. It said giving such advantages to certain nations was a violation of international trade rules. Though the US does not directly export bananas to the EU, three US-based multinationals companies, Chiquita, Del Monte and Dole, have plantations in Central and South America. The EU said it was looking to solve the overall issue with Latin America soon, though it has tied the matter in the past to the so-called Doha round of trade talks, which remains stalled. Meanwhile, a WTO appellate body adopted earlier this month a report against the US continuing to use a 'zeroing methodology,' used for dealing with imports, which the EC, among others, said was in violation of trade laws, including anti-dumping requirements. _______________________ 20 February 2009 Golden Rice 20 February 2009. By Fr. Sean McDonagh SSC. How could anyone oppose crop that promises to deliver untold benefits to poor people? This the cri de coer (cry from the heart) will be voiced by Dr. Ingo Potrykus during the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week on Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development (151-19 May). In his abstract "My Experience With Golden Rice," he claims that onerous regulatory processes in many countries have slowed down access to this Vitamin A enhanced rice for the past 10 years. In his estimation the fact that it has taken more than 10 years for this genetically engineered rice to complete the regulatory process has led to the death of 400,000 people. He alleges that, "there is probably no scientific justification for the world-wide established regulatory system which is responsible for such damage." This is quite a generalisation but at superficial reading of the situation many unbiased people might be inclined to agree with Dr. Potrykus's comments on golden rice. How ever, once one digs a little beneath the surface things appear to be different. "Foodwatch", a German non-government organisation, raises serious questions about the Golden Rice. The rice is modified to generate carotenoids which the human body synthesizes into vitamin A. They claim that the serious questions which have been raised about the quality and safety of the product have not yet been answered. Even data about how much carotenoid remains in the rice after it has been cooked or stored have not been made available to the public. In the absence of such basic data it is difficult to judge whether this product is helpful or harmful to human beings and the environment "Foodwatch" points out that, while Dr. Potrykus claims that the product meets the highest safety standards, he is actively campaigning for a broad loosening of the regulatory process. In fact one of the goals of the Pontifical Academy's Study Week is to "explore ways how to change regulations such that it enables use of the technology for the benefit of the poor, without compromising safety..." The Indian Scientists Dr. Vandana Shive dismisses "Genetically Engineered 'Vitamin A Rice' (as) A Blind Approach to a Blindness Prevention. She points out that there are many other sources of Vitamin A such as eggs, chicken, meat, milk and butter. Betacarotene, the vitamin A precursors, is also found in green leafy vegetables such as spinach, carrots and pumpkin. It is also available in fruits such as mangos. She makes the point that concurs with my own experience during the years I spent working in Mindanao with the T'boli people, that the way to achieve lower-cost, accessible and safer alternatives to genetically engineered rice is to increase biodiversity in agriculture." She points out that a shift to rice and irrigation will have serious consequences for water conservation in communities where water is often scarce. Cultivating Vitamin a rice will lead to mining water from aquifers or building of large irrigation dams with associated environmental problems such as salinization and water logging. Sourcing Vitamin A from indigenous green vegetables and fruit is better both for humans and the environment. Furthermore, eating Vitamin A rice at every meal is both monotonous and not a balance died. Why shouldn't the poor have access to a balanced diet which would includes cereals, root crops, fruit and meat? Other reputable scientists dispute Potrykus's claims about the safety of Vitamin A rice. In a letter to Professor Russell of Tufts University in February 2009, more than 20 scientists, including the well-known geneticist David Suzuki, criticised the feeding trials on golden rice which were being carried out at the university. The letter stated, "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 is a genetically modified product which has not been shown to be distinctive, uniform and stable over time. It has never been through a regulatory/approval process anywhere in the world.... More specifically, our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested on animals and there is an extensive medical literature showing that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are both toxic and cause birth defects. In these circumstances the use of human subjects (including children who are already suffering illness as a result of vitamin A deficiency) for GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable. The three Projects listed breach the Nuremberg Code/medical ethics code on a number of counts, and we urge you to call them to a halt immediately." Finally, golden rice is being used by corporations as a battering ram to get support for GMOs globally under the cloak of helping the poor. In fact corporate controlled GM crops would lead to a disaster in food production globally. _______________________ The GM corn wars The European commission shouldn't sacrifice morality to let the powerful biotech firm Monsanto grow genetically modified crops The Guardian (UK), Comment is Free, 20 February 2009. By David Cronin. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/19/gm Imagine, if you can, the inventors of one of the deadliest chemical weapons used in 20th century warfare being regarded as an authoritative source on environmental protection. Even if that might sound more ludicrous than the idea of Gordon Brown joining the Chippendales, such a miraculous transformation has occurred with Monsanto, the world's most powerful biotechnology firm. Though its status as the manufacturer of agent orange - the carcinogenic herbicide that the US army used to destroy Vietnam's jungles - should mean that its every utterance is treated with caution, the European commission considers the company's logic to be unassailable. This week the EU's executive sought to force France and Greece to drop moratoria that they had imposed on the planting of Mon-810, a variety of corn developed by Monsanto. Fortunately, a majority of the union's 27 governments declined to support the commission when they met in Brussels on Monday. But that's not the end of the matter; further talks on the dossier are scheduled for the coming weeks and because this is the only GM crop planted in Europe, their final outcome will have far-reaching implications. Doubtless to Monsanto's delight, press coverage of this story has focused heavily on a report from the French food safety authority, indicating that it's just as healthy to nibble on this corn as one harvested through conventional agriculture. No mention was made of another study (pdf) published by an Austrian federal agency a few months ago, which found that mice fed with traces of Mon-810 had a lower rate of reproduction than those fed with non-GM varieties. In a documentary first broadcast last year, French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin highlighted the cosy relationship between Monsanto and US decision-makers. The biotech industry enjoys a comparable level of access to power on this side of the Atlantic. Europabio, a lobbying organisation representing Monsanto and other top players in the industry, has been taking part in a secretive working group (pdf) established by the European commission to advise it on competitiveness issues. The commission has also been examining how Monsanto can help counter the negative public perception of GM foods. Equally disturbing are the claims that biotechnology provides the answer for how to feed a world population that continues to expand. One look at how Monsanto's aggressive introduction of GM seeds in India has damaged the livelihoods of farmers to the extent that many have committed suicide should be enough to arouse suspicions. And yet Louis Michel, the EU's development aid chief, has spoken in favour of the greater use of GM crops. Normally I feel like vomiting whenever I hear Prince Charles masquerading as an eco-warrior. He is none the less correct to have described biotechnology as a "global moral question". What a disgrace, then, that Europe's agenda-setters are so determined to sacrifice morality for Monsanto. _______________________ SÛlyom campaigns against GM foods Hungary Around the Clock, 20 February 2009. http://hatc.hu/editor_article.php?aid=2165 President László Sólyom has written to an informal network of environmentalist heads of state seeking support for Hungary's moratorium on the production and commercial distribution of genetically modified maize in Hungary. Hungary has not gone along with a European Commission decision to lift a ban on certain genetically modified products. Sólyom argues that Hungary has the right to decide whether to use or ban genetically modified maize. He believes that such products are not conventional commercial items, as they could be harmful to the environment. The question is expected to be tackled by EU environment ministers on March 2. Representatives of Hungarian and international environmental groups will visit the embassies of EU states in Budapest today to seek support for Hungary's stance. _______________________ Another German minister calls for GMO maize ban Reuters, 20 February 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51J4XI20090220 HAMBURG - Germany should reconsider its policy of permitting farmers to grow maize with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and consider banning biotech crops, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said on Friday. Gabriel is the second minister to raise a change of GMO policy this week, following Farm Minister Ilse Aigner's statement she may review permission to grow MON 810 GMO maize, developed by U.S. biotech group Monsanto Co.. Germany should consider following countries like France, which had imposed a unilateral bans on GMO maize cultivation, Gabriel said in a statement. "We should also follow this prudent course taken by our neighbors," Gabriel said. MON 810 maize has been approved as safe to cultivate by the European Union and all farmers in the bloc are theoretically free to grow and sell it. The maize is resistant to the corn borer, whose caterpillars damage plantings. France and Greece have imposed unilateral bans which are controversial in the face of the EU wide approval and are claimed by some to break EU regulations. Moves are under way to force both countries to lift their bans, although EU biotech experts on Monday failed to agree on issuing an order to both countries to allow GMO crop cultivation. Gabriel said Germany should review its policy of permitting GMO cultivation before this season's crops are sown in the spring. "The top priority in the use of genetic technology in agriculture must be placed much more on the precautionary protection of people and the environment," Gabriel said. In early February, German farmers registered intentions to plant 3,567 hectares of GMO maize for the 2009 harvest, up slightly from the 3,207 hectares cultivated in 2008. But the total is an insignificant part of the German annual maize cultivation of around 1.8 to 2.0 million hectares. Earlier this week Monsanto hit back at German government criticism, saying its MON 810 GMO maize had been approved as safe by Germany's own Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety along with the European Food Safety Authority, the EU's key food safety agency. (Reporting by Michael Hogan; Editing by James Jukwey) _______________________ EC Fails to Lift GM Maize Bans in France, Greece International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), 20 February 2009. http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/41093/ French and Grecian fields will remain free of genetically modified (GM) crops for the time being after the European Commission (EC) failed in its bid to force the two countries to lift their controversial bans. The bans targets MON810, an insect-resistant strain of maize manufactured by GM heavyweight Monsanto. It is currently the only GM crop approved for planting in the EU. Despite being deemed safe by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Greece invoked a 'safeguard clause' in 2006 to keep MON810 seeds out of the country and France followed suit last year (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 25 January, 2008, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/9357/). Because the safeguard clause is designed to be a temporary measure, the bans must be perpetually extended. The EC has been under pressure by the WTO to address the non-compliance of these countries on the issue. The WTO argues that the national bans are effectively denying market access allowed under trade rules to countries that use biotechnology in agriculture. Qualified majority elusive In April 2008 the EC asked the EFSA to advise them on the scientific grounding of the ban imposed by Greece. The body responded three months later, saying that scientific evidence does not support Greece's argument that MON810 has any adverse effect on human and animal health and the environment. The EC asked the EFSA to consider the French case on the same grounds. On 29 October 2008 the Authority returned its decision, saying that no new data had arisen since its previous evaluation of MON810 and that the results of its previous risk assessment would stand. In light of this, the Commission had presented the EFSA decisions to the Standing Committee requesting Greece and France to repeal their national prohibitions. The issue came to a head when the EC presented the EFSA evidence to the Standing Committee on food chain and animal health representing all 27 EU member states. On 16 February the committee announced that it was unable to establish the qualified majority - 62 percent or more of the EU population - needed to lift or uphold the bans. In the vote, 9 of the 27 EU member states supported the call to lift the bans, while 16 countries abstained. Germany and Malta did not take part in the vote, Agence France-Presse reported. Background The current EU system of approval for agricultural biotechnology was established after several member states pushed back against an EU decision to approve the Monsanto maize in question in 1998. This friction led the EC to develop a new legal framework aimed at ensuring rigorous safety controls developed from a transparent risk-assessment analysis. The framework that arose from the 1998 squabble came into force in 2004. The system allows the EU to approve GM crops for all EU member states if there is no scientific evidence showing health or environmental dangers. Approvals, handled under the auspices of the EFSA, can also be revisited if new evidence calls the safety of a given crop into question. France seized on this provision when it banned the maize in January of last year after a national report revealed concerns. However, the EFSA said that the newly proposed evidence did not "invalidate the previous risk assessments of maize MON810." While the Monsanto maize is now approved for use in all but the four countries that have imposed national bans, only seven countries currently harvest it. France defiant The French case, in particular, has drawn criticism by some GM proponents, who argue that the country's decision is politically motivated, rather than scientifically. Prior to the country's decision to ban MON810 in 2008, it had been a major cultivator of the GM crop. However, the government implemented the ban after an internal expert report revealed concerns that MON810 had an effect on insects, a species of earthworm, and micro-organisms. It also concluded that wind-blown pollen from MON810 crops could contaminate non-GM crops as far as hundreds of kilometres away. However, the validity of the report was subsequently called into question after 12 of the 15 scientists who compiled it said that their findings had been misrepresented. A new report by France's food and safety committee now contradicts the findings of the controversial report upon which the initial ban was based. The 23 January report had been suppressed until a copy was leaked to French newspaper Le Figaro on 5 February. Following the leak, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon quickly announced that his country's ban would stay in place regardless of what the EU decided. What's next? The next several months will likely see heated debate on the issue across Europe. However, recent polls suggest that European opposition to GM crops may be softening. Indeed, a recent move by UK supermarket giant Tesco to revisit their decision on GM products suggests that consumers may be more likely to accept such goods than they have been in the past. Nevertheless, the MON810 issue shows that Europeans and their governments remain deeply divided on the issue. Because the Standing Committee was unable to reach a qualified majority, a decision on the French and Grecian bans now falls on European environment ministers. They have three months in which to consider the cases. Meanwhile, the Austrian and Hungarian bans on MON810 will come before the environment ministers at a 2 March council meeting. If the ministers are unable to reach the qualified majority needed to make a decision in either decision, the task will fall upon the Commission itself. The EFSA has now approved two additional GM varieties of maize - Pioneer and Dow Agrosciences' BT1507 and Syngenta's BT11 - for European cultivation. These crops are scheduled for discussion by the regulatory committee on 25 February. In December, the EU adopted a series of measures aimed at overcoming differences among members and helping to facilitate the decision-making process. Perhaps most notable of these recommendations is the suggestion that the EFSA become the union's final arbiter on the safety of GM crops after taking national concerns into consideration. ICTSD Reporting; "EU foiled in bid to force France, Greece to allow GM crop," AFP, 17 February 2009; "European disarray on transgenic crops," NATURE NEWS, 17 February 2009; "Tesco boss prepares for GM u-turn," FOOD MANUFACTURE, 2 February 2009; "French agency says Monsanto GMO maize safe: report," REUTERS, 11 February 2009. _______________________ EU prepares for battle over growing GM maize crops Reuters, 20 February 2009. By Jeremy Smith. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssChemicalsAgricultural/idUSLK63954520090220 BRUSSELS -- European Union biotech experts will discuss next week whether to allow more cultivation of genetically modified crops but little progress is expected to break years of EU deadlock on biotechnology. Two GM maize types are to be considered at the Wednesday meeting. If the experts fail to agree, which officials and diplomats say is the most likely outcome, both applications will be escalated to EU ministers for a decision. The crops are Bt-11 maize, engineered by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta (SYNN.VX), and 1507 maize -- jointly developed by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a unit of DuPont Co (DD.N) and Dow AgroSciences (DOW.N) unit Mycogen Seeds. "It's almost certain to be a non-opinion," said one official at the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, meaning that there was unlikely to be enough majority under the EU's weighted voting system to approve or reject the applications: stalemate. The European Union has long been split on GMO policy and its 27 member countries consistently clash over whether to approve new varieties for import but without ever reaching a conclusion. GM crop cultivation is the "big one", diplomats say, in that no new modified crops have been approved for growing since 1998. There has been a string of GM approvals since 2004, however, but only as imported products for use in food and feed. While diplomats say approving a new GM crop for growing is nigh on impossible in the EU's current climate, if next week's GM applications get sent to ministers and then there is a second voting stalemate, they would then return to the Commission. If that happens, the Commission would -- probably -- end up issuing standard 10-year licences. But that may take some time. Even now, more than 10 years later, only one GM crop has won EU approval for commercial cultivation: a gene-altered maize made by U.S. biotech company Monsanto (MON.N), known as MON 810. Other companies want to change that situation and have filed lawsuits against the Commission for what they say is too much delay in getting their products approved and into EU markets. Pioneer is one of those complainants and filed its case in 2007. "The fact is: the 1507 maize cultivation application has been unduly delayed since it was submitted nearly eight years ago, has been imported into the EU since 2006 and has been approved for cultivation in seven countries already," said Mike Hall, Pioneer's communications manager for Europe. (Editing by Keiron Henderson) _______________________ Research and Markets: Going Green Isn't Just Good for the Environment - It's Good for Business Too: "Environmentally Friendly Retailing" PR Safe Newswire, 20 February 2009. http://digital50.com/news/76522 DUBLIN, Ireland - Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/5d0c3d/environmentally_fr) has announced the addition of the "Environmentally Friendly Retailing" report to their offering [http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchandmarkets.com%2Fresearch%2F5d0c3d%2Fenvironmentally_fr&esheet=5901038&lan=en_US&anchor=Environmentally+Friendly+Retailing&index=3]. The 2008 Environmentally Friendly Retailing report provides readers with insight into the recent "green" movement and the implications this presents for the retail industry. Using secondary research garnered from a multitude of resources, this report aims to provide retailers, suppliers, service providers, creative agencies, consultants, and other business with an interest in retail, with an overview of the trend towards sustainable retailing and best practice strategies in achieving this, with case study examples from the world's leading sustainable retail players. "Going green isn't just good for the environment - it's good for business too. By making green a core value, involving the entire enterprise in a process of transformation that embraces all of the supply chain, environmentally conscious retailers are establishing real green credibility and driving significant competitive advantage." – Accenture, 2008 With publicity surrounding the threat of global warming on the rise, environmental consciousness is at an all-time high. In fact, the environment is the most important problem currently facing the World and Australia, according to recent research by Roy Morgan International. However, sustainability is a complex issue: is difficult to define, it affects all business functions, in all regions, and is notoriously difficult to manage. And although it presents implications for all businesses, the retail sector often comes under scrutiny as the ultimate touch point between consumers and industry. The 'green' industry is estimated to be worth, on average, over AUD$500 billion on a global scale annually and British WWP Group estimate that global consumer spending on green products will reach £340 billion in 2008. In Australia, the Mobium Group has revealed that Australian consumers currently spend AUD$12 billion on environmentally friendly goods and services and an overall growth rate of 20 percent is expected to continue, with current trends projecting the market to reach AUD$21 billion by 2010. Driving growth of the 'green' movement across the globe are a number of factors, including global and local government initiatives, Non-Government Organisation (NGO) initiatives, company initiatives, as well as the influence of the media. The major environmental concerns underpinning these factors include climate change, carbon emissions, renewable energy, eco homes and buildings, global water supply, genetically modified (GM) foods, "food miles", and increased amounts of pollution. Some Topics Covered:
•	Factors Driving Demand
•	Environmental Concerns
•	The Green Consumer
•	Leading Green Retail Practice
•	Green Retailing Trends
•	Implications for retailers
•	References
For more information and to view a more detailed table of contents visit: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/5d0c3d/environmentally_fr _______________________ Luxembourg, European Capital, declared "GMO-free City" • Two thirds of the Luxembourg communes refuse GMOs Yahoo France, 20 February 2009. [Translated from the original French by GM-free Ireland.] The city of Luxembourg and the GM-free Luxembourg initiative - which includes Greenpeace Luxembourg amongst its 25 member organisations - have made an announcement on the "GM-free Luxembourg" campaign during a press conference at the Town Hall. The city of Luxembourg, a European capital, has declared itself a "GMO-free city" along with two thirds of the local city communes, thereby refusing the release of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) on its lands and in its funded food catering services. The GM-free Luxembourg intitative is a coalition of 25 civil society organisations which founded and launched the "GM-free Luxembourg" campaign in the summer of 2006. Since then, two thirds of the Communes [local authorities] declared themselves "GM-free Communes", thus aligning themselves with the will of Luxembourg's consumers, 83% of whom reject GMOs on their plates, according to an ILReS pollin 2005. The city of Luxembourg's "GM-free" declaration has symbolic significance, as it is the largest commune in the country, a European capital, the seat of many European institutions, and the birthplace of one of the European Union's founding fathers, Robert Schumann. "This decision has considerable political significance, given the European Commission's attempt to impose dangerous new GMOs on Europe against the wishes of more than 60% of European consumers", said the campaign co-ordinator, Maurice Losch. The capital, together with Luxembourg's 76 other GM-free Communes, thus refuses the cultivation of GM crops on its territory and prohibits the procurement of GM food ingredients by its catering services. At the international level, it made a commitment with Haus vun der Natur [Nature House] to invite Dr. Vandana Shiva for a conference / debate on 18 February. Dr. Shiva is strongly involved in the anti-GM struggle; she is the winner of the 1993 Right Livelihood Award, and the founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in India. The Deputy Mayor of the city with responsibililty for environment affairs, Ms. Viviane Loschetter, said: "GMOs are a global problem with local consequences, which means we are all concerned. For this reason, we all share responsibility, and the City of Luxembourg has played its part. In the name of the Precautionary Principle, we have decided to protect the health of consumers and to prohibit the procurement of GMOs in our canteens and other catering services. The cultivation of GM crops will henceforth be banned on our lands. We call on the other European capitals to follow this example and also declare themselves as a 'European GM-free Capital'". Maurice Losch concluded "In the 'GM-free Luxembourg and Greater Region 2009' Charter, the initiative requests the country's political leaders to commit themselves at the international level in favour of a policy which protect the environment, agriculture and consumer health from the risks and dangers of GMOs. Together with the City of Luxembourg, we invite the political policy makers of the Greater Region to support the concept of a 'Greater GM-free Region'". Note: The "GM-free Luxembourg" initiative is a coalition of 25 organisations: Aide à l'enfance de l'Inde, Association Solidarité Luxembourg Nicaragua, ASTM, Attac Luxembourg, Bauerenallianz, bioLABEL Lëtzebuerg, BIONA, Caritas Luxembourg, Demeter Bond Lëtzebuerg, Église Catholique à Luxembourg, Ëmweltberodung Lëtzebuerg asbl. (EBL), FCPT - SYPROLUX, FNCTTFEL - Landesverband, Fondation Hëllef fir d'Natur, Frères des Hommes Luxembourg, Initiativ Liewensufank, Life asbl., Greenpeace Luxembourg, Lëtzebuerger Natur- a Vulleschutzliga, Lëtzebuerger Landesverband fir Beienzuucht, Mouvement Écologique, OGB-L, Slow Food Lëtzebuerg, SOS Faim Luxembourg, Transfair - Minka, and the Union Luxembourgeoise des Consommateurs (ULC). _______________________ Farmers + Fashionistas = Sex and the Country? Huffington Post (USA), 20 February 2009. By Kerry Truman. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kerry-trueman/farmers-fashionistas-sex_b_168618.html [Excerpt:] To appreciate how truly rare and wonderful a find the [Hudson Valley] Seed Library is, it helps to know a bit about the seed business, which - like pretty much every other sector in the U.S. - has been largely hijacked by a few corporations who've gobbled up the smaller seed companies and now control a frightening percentage of the seeds we need to feed us. It's almost impossible to exaggerate how scary this is, because they're not just shoving their genetically modified seeds down the world's collective throat, they're actively working to stop small family farmers from engaging in the centuries-old practice of saving seeds from one season to the next to preserve rare, non-hybridized varieties--in case you wanted to have the choice to just say "bleech!" to bio-tech foods. _______________________ 19 February 2009 Who Owns Our Food? Thoughts on a New Green Revolution Huffington Post (USA), 19 February 2009. By Paula Crossfield. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/who-owns-our-food-thought_b_168311.html [Note: the original text features hyperlinks not included here] UPDATE: Asia Society reports that Doug Gurian-Sherman, Senior Scientist, Food & Environment Program, from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is speaking tomorrow at the Oxfam panel instead of Rajiv Shah. Seed and chemical giant Monsanto and friends have lately been conducting all-out rebranding campaigns, seeking to present themselves as the answer to world hunger and the actualization of sustainability. As an extension of this tight message control, Oxfam is hosting a panel discussion at the Asia Society in New York tomorrow at 8:30 am called "The Global Food Crisis - Time for Another Green Revolution?" But the discussion seems like it will be rather one-sided. Taking part are Kevin L. Eblen, Vice President, Public Policy and "Sustainability Lead" at Monsanto, as well as Rajiv Shah, Director of Agricultural Development at the Gates Foundation and Dr. Robert Zeigler, Director General, International Rice Research Institute (the institute that conducted the research for the original Green Revolution). Perhaps this group is convening to pat each other on the back for their role in bringing forth a similar Green Revolution to what we have seen before. In any case it is clear there will not be a considered critique of the role genetically modified seeds have played in increased farmer debt, and by extension, farmer suicides worldwide; the increase dependence on international food aid due to a reliance on monocropping (growing one single, usually inedible-before-processed crop -- or worse, growing something like BT Cotton, which is totally inedible); and not to mention, a stripping of the fertility of the land, contributing to desertification and climate change; and waning GM crop yields that have resulted in the face of proven increased productivity of organics over time. Tom Philpott pointed out the lopsided nature of the panel on Comfood:
	If Oxfam wants a real debate or even a robust discussion, where are the agro-ecologists, the organic ag folks on this panel? Has Oxfam never heard of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which -- under the aegis of the World Bank, of all institutions -- took an extremely skeptical position viz. patented transgenics as a solution to climate change-related ag problems in the global south? Or the recent UN report finding vast potential for low-tech organic ag in Africa?
The debate is on for whether we actually need a new Green Revolution, and if so, what that should look like. I spoke with Raj Patel a few months back for a piece about our perceptions of GM seed. He spoke then about his discussion with panelist Rajiv Shah that was quoted in the New York Times Magazine, and he had this to say:
	I absolutely think we need a sustainable Green Revolution. But it has to be with the kind of technology that Vandana [Shiva]'s working with, or Via Campesina is working with. An agroecological revolution is one that isn't just about what chemicals and what genes to use in the fields, but changing our relationship with the earth. That's not something that the Gates folk are ready to hear (we've tried). Moreover, though, there's something very wrong about a private foundation doing something that should be government policy - and the only reason it isn't government policy is because governments have been prevented in the past 30 years from doing this sort of agricultural work and research. I'd say if something is to be sustainable in Africa, shouldn't Africans be involved, rather than the passive recipients for US largesse (which hasn't worked out very well)."
Apparently, we are not the only ones scratching our heads about plans for the new Green Revolution. Seemingly preemptive to the meeting at the Asia Society tomorrow, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a study on Tuesday called the "Environmental Food Crisis: Environment's Role in Averting Future Food Crises," which suggests that we begin to think more ecologically about food waste and infrastructure. UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner: "We need to deal with not only the way the world produces food but the way it is distributed, sold and consumed, and we need a revolution that can boost yields by working with rather than against nature." They suggest "managing and better harvesting extreme rainfall on continents such as Africa, alongside [giving] support to farmers for adopting more diversified and ecologically-friendly farming systems - ones that enhance the 'nature-based' inputs from pollinators such as bees as well as water supplies and genetic diversity." The report also speaks rationally about water scarcity, organic production capacity, re-organizing the food market structure and removing crop subsidies. Check out this great article from Inter Press Service about the report for more perspective. Needless to say, I will be present at the discussion in the morning, looking forward to (and a bit freaked out about) standing up for all of those voices who have no say in how their land is developed under the auspices of philanthropy, by those whose pockets have the potential to be lined by this little experiment. Please join me at the Asia Society, I will be outside at 8:00am, somehow making myself known (late twenties with an iPhone addiction, and I won't be bothered if you approach me -- unless you are a Monsanto exec), and will be livetweeting the event on my twitter feed, featured in the right-hand side panel on Civil Eats. Originally published on Civil Eats. _______________________ Public Meeting of IDEA Cork Independent (Ireland), 19 February 2009. The Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA) in association with the Department of Geography at Univesity College Cork will host a public meeting and AGM at the O'Rahilly building in UCC this Saturday at 2pm. The meeting will be addressed by Dr. Gerd Oberfield from Austria, Dr. Juliet Duff and Fr. Sean McDonagh among others. Topics to be discussed will include Electromagnetic Radiation and Health and GM foods. The meeting takes place in room 123. _______________________ Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research New York Times, February 19 2009. By Andrew Pollack. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=3 Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry's genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions," the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops. The statement will probably give support to critics of biotech crops, like environmental groups, who have long complained that the crops have not been studied thoroughly enough and could have unintended health and environmental consequences. The researchers, 26 corn-insect specialists, withheld their names because they feared being cut off from research by the companies. But several of them agreed in interviews to have their names used. The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honor company patent rights and environmental regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes. So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say. Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because frustration has been building. "If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research," said Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who was one of the scientists who had signed the statement. What is striking is that the scientists issuing the protest, who are mainly from land-grant universities with big agricultural programs, say they are not opposed to the technology. Rather, they say, the industry's chokehold on research means that they cannot supply some information to farmers about how best to grow the crops. And, they say, the data being provided to government regulators is being "unduly limited." The companies "have the potential to launder the data, the information that is submitted to E.P.A.," said Elson J. Shields, a professor of entomology at Cornell. William S. Niebur, the vice president in charge of crop research for DuPont, which owns the big seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred, defended his company's policies. He said that because genetically engineered crops were regulated by the government, companies must carefully police how they are grown. "We have to protect our relationship with governmental agencies by having very strict control measures on that technology," he said. But he added that he would welcome a chance to talk to the scientists about their concerns. Monsanto and Syngenta, two other biotech seed companies, said Thursday that they supported university research. But as did Pioneer, they said their contracts with seed buyers were meant to protect their intellectual property and meet their regulatory obligations. But an E.P.A. spokesman, Dale Kemery, said Thursday that the government required only management of the crops' insect resistance and that any other contractual restrictions were put in place by the companies. The growers' agreement from Syngenta not only prohibits research in general but specifically says a seed buyer cannot compare Syngenta's product with any rival crop. Dr. Ostlie, at the University of Minnesota, said he had permission from three companies in 2007 to compare how well their insect-resistant corn varieties fared against the rootworms found in his state. But in 2008, Syngenta, one of the three companies, withdrew its permission and the study had to stop. "The company just decided it was not in its best interest to let it continue," Dr. Ostlie said. Mark A. Boetel, associate professor of entomology at North Dakota State University, said that before genetically engineered sugar beet seeds were sold to farmers for the first time last year, he wanted to test how the crop would react to an insecticide treatment. But the university could not come to an agreement with the companies responsible, Monsanto and Syngenta, over publishing and intellectual property rights. Chris DiFonzo, an entomologist at Michigan State University, said that when she conducted surveys of insects, she avoided fields with transgenic crops because her presence would put the farmer in violation of the grower's agreement. An E.P.A. scientific advisory panel plans to hold two meetings next week. One will consider a request from Pioneer Hi-Bred for a new method that would reduce how much of a farmer's field must be set aside as a refuge aimed at preventing insects from becoming resistant to its insect-resistant corn. The other meeting will look more broadly at insect-resistant biotech crops. Christian Krupke, an assistant professor at Purdue, said that because outside scientists could not study Pioneer's strategy, "I don't think the potential drawbacks have been critically evaluated by as many people as they should have been." Dr. Krupke is chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, but he would not say whether he had signed it. Dr. Niebur of Pioneer said the company had collaborated in preparing its data with universities in Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska, the states most affected by the particular pest. Dr. Shields of Cornell said financing for agricultural research had gradually shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists at universities dependent on financing or technical cooperation from the big seed companies. "People are afraid of being blacklisted," he said. "If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can't do your job." _______________________ President lobbies for Hungary's right to uphold GMO ban MTI, 19 February 2009. http://english.mti.hu/default.asp?menu=1&theme=2&cat=25&newsid=259499 Budapest [Hungary] -- President Laszlo Solyom has turned to European heads of state to lobby for Hungary to be allowed to uphold a ban on genetically modified products (GMO), the president's office said on Thursday. In January, Hungary extended a ban on GMOs, including insect-resistant maize called Mon810, despite a European Commission decision passed on January 21 to lift a European ban on Mon810 and another maize type. The issue is likely to be on the agenda of a March 2 meeting of EU environment ministers. Solyom said the GMO ban enjoyed the support of all parliamentary parties and civil groups in Hungary. As the initiator of a network of "green presidents", he said he was obliged to present the environmental case against GMOs, which, he added, are not like any other trade product, as they can "infect" their environment once they get into the ground. Solyom said the idea of introducing such organisms to the EU's ecosystem was a question which required a broader consensus, as a decision affects not only domestic markets but also has an impact on public health, nature protection, agriculture and rural development. _______________________ Tymoshenko prevents Ukrainians against GMO MIG News (Ukraine), 19 February 2009. http://mignews.com.ua/en/categ186/articles/340654.html The Cabinet of Ministers approved state registration of production containing genetically modified organisms (GMO). If food products have GMP exceeding 0,9 percent, import will be prohibited to Ukraine. According to the governmental decree, all products imported to our country will be examined in the form of state ecological examination on the border. It concerns both food products and cosmetics and medicines, Delo reports. The decree on compulsory labeling of food products will be approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in March. According to the head of DNA laboratory at Ukrmetrteststandard Ruslan Holubetz, about 30 percent of food products in Ukraine contain GMO. Most often genetically modified soya occurs (80 percent of cases). Also genetically modified tomatoes, corn, rice, beet occur often. Also genetically modified organisms are included into sausages, tinned food, bread and flour products, chocolate, and confectionery. Currently only import of infant food containing genetically modified organisms is prohibited to Ukraine. At the same time, the government decided to create the State register of genetically modified organisms, the Cabinet's press service reports. The government made a decision about it at the meeting on February, 18, Ukrayinski novyny reports. _______________________ The Pontifical Academy of Sciences Continues Foolhardy Biotechnology Advocacy OpEdNews, 19 February 2009. By David Andrews, CSC. http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Pontifical-Academy-of-by-David-Andrews-CSC-090219-397.html Date composed: January 29, 2009, edited February 2, 2009 On January 2, 2009, Carol Glatz of the Catholic News Service, reported from Vatican City that Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said the scandal of hunger in the world continues to be of concern. Famine and lack of nutrition are to be blamed on the poor distribution of plentiful foodstuffs. The responsibility for the food crisis "is in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people," said Cardinal Martino. A more just system of distribution and not the manufacturing of genetically modified foods is the key to addressing the problem, he said. "If one wants to pursue GMOs (genetically modified organisms) one can freely do so, but without hiding that it's a way to make more profits," he said. Utilizing genetically modified foods calls for "prudence" because genetically modifying organisms can increase yields in some instances, he said, but people must not abuse their power to be able to manipulate nature. This certainly is a move to a more cautious view of gmos on the part of the Vatican. In earlier statements gmos were given a "yellow light", meaning to go with caution. It is clearly a restatement of long term Vatican policy that distribution and social justice are major concerns of the Holy See's food and farm policies rather than the endorsing the encouragement of more production, or the use of biotechnology to increase production. The official policy of the Vatican is at odds with the continuing advocacy by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for biotechnology as a solution to development issues and for world hunger. In September of 2004 the Pontifical Academy of Sciences co-sponsored a conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University with the United States Embassy to the Holy See entitled: "Feeding a Hungry World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology." That meeting and its focus shocked a number of Catholic commentators, including me, then the Executive Director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference and the Peace and Justice Coordinator for the Congregation of Holy Cross. The Columban theologian, Sean McDonogh criticized it at the time as did Jesuits working in Zambia, Ronald Lessup, SJ and Peter Henriot, SJ who operate a social justice and agricultural development program. The policy promoted by the Pontifical Academy is contrary to the strong statements from the South African Bishops, Bishops of the Philippines, Bishops from Brazil, and a number of other places about the moral concerns associated with agricultural biotechnology. Grassroots networks of Catholic farmers in the International Federation of Adult Catholic Rural Movements (FIMARC), based in Belgium and the International Catholic Rural Association (ICRA) based at the Vatican have both published critiques of biotechnology in agriculture. Monsignor Biagio Notarangelo, ecclesiastical advisor to ICRA, well known in Vatican Offices, commented that biotechnology encourages a "new colonialism" in an ethical evaluation he presented to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The Catholic bishops of the United States in their "For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food" on food and agricultural policy have a rather nuanced approach to genetic modification of seeds for food. They certainly never touted it as a "silver bullet" or a moral imperative. And when I served as an agricultural policy adviser to them, it was clear to me that there was not a lot of sympathy for Colin Powell when he asked the Vatican to silence the Jesuits Lessup and Henriot when the United States wanted to give gmo grain for food relief in Zambia. Now we learn that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is organizing another pro-GMO conference, this time in a Study Week, in Rome from May 15-19, 2009. The title of the 2009 Study Week is "Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development." It is important to recognize that this program is about food security and development. Even the Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA), led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, are not talking about the necessity of gmos, they are talking mostly about high quality local seeds from African sources. As AGRA's literature says, their seeds will be "home grown." The linking of food security and development is an effort by companies like Monsanto to further their own goals, to make a profit, as Cardinal Martino states. Monsanto has been very keen to secure the support of the Holy See by adopting a moral perspective. Even where it has not secured the Holy See's official support, the veneer or semblance of such will be touted as a factual demonstration of support. The Pontifical Academy seems to be a willing mouthpiece and launching pad. When I complained in 2004 about the conference in Rome, to the head of the Pontifical Academy, I was told then to remember that the Pontifical Academy was a place of debate; nothing official was being stated there. This time around, having a weeklong study week with totally one-sided presentations is far from a debate. The general public doesn't know what is official and what is non-official, when Rome speaks, they listen. Companies like Monsanto don't make those distinctions between official and non-official for the public. In 2004 people who were not invited to the event managed to provide the public an alternative perspective by going to the press. Since I was one of the critics at the time, the Catholic press and various websites did manage to get out a different perspective and even spokespersons for the Peace and Justice Office, including Monsignor Frank Dewane, (now bishop of Venice, Florida) told me that when he advised a theologian from the Legionnaires of Christ who was speaking on the program that gmos were not a silver bullet to solve world hunger, the theologian got very upset. At the time of the conference I spoke with Archbishop Raymond Burke, then the Archbishop of Saint Louis and a strong critic of biotechnology and corporate control in agriculture. He had been the President of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. He told me that shortly after he arrived in Saint Louis he met Peter Raven at a social event. Raven approached him and said: "Archbishop, I understand that you are opposed to gmos." The Archbishop told him, that, yes, he was. And, Raven answered: "I'm going to convert you." Archbishop Burke wrote to the Secretary of State of the Vatican to object to Raven's membership in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Secretary of State at the time wrote back to say that Burke's predecessor, the late Archbishop John May, had been the one who suggested him. Peter Raven is the director of the Botanical Garden of Saint Louis. He has been the recipient of significant amounts of funds from the Monsanto Corporation, also headquartered in Saint Louis. Peter Raven, when speaking at a conference of the National Religious Partnership on the Environment that I attended, introduced himself as having a "Catholic background." At that time he was accompanied by his fourth wife, just having divorced his third wife, who had a position as a public relations director for Monsanto. The Catholic "background" doesn't include the "family values" of the Holy See. But, Peter Raven has been finding it easy to give voice to his ideas within selected walls of the Vatican. At the conference in the Gregorian University in 2004, Dr. Peter Raven tried to persuade his audience that raising questions about the terminator gene technology was both "emotional and irrational." The terminator seed would have a profoundly negative impact on subsistence farmers. Most of the world's work is agriculture; most of those workers are women. These farmers and their families comprise most of the world's hungry now. The terminator technology exposes the spurious claims of the pro-gmo lobby, including the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that "feeding the world", rather than making astronomical profits is the primary goal of biotech corporations. Terminator seeds would strike a blow to the world's subsistence farmers whose number including their families is in the billions. That focus on profit was the focus of Cardinal Martino's comments in early January. They simply repeat the words of the Holy See in its 1999 World Food Summit in Rome where it said the following: "There are also many large-scale "structures of sin" which steer the goods of the earth away from their true purpose, that of serving the good of all, toward private and sterile ends in a process which spreads contagiously." That analysis was presented in a document on world hunger entitled "World Hunger: A Challenge for All: Development in Solidarity." Surely the focus of proponents of biotechnology such as are represented in this study week are not really concerned about moral issues. They are concerned, as Martino says, about profit. In the statement of John Paul II for the Jubilee of the agricultural world in November, 2000 we find a very clear observation on biotechnology in agriculture: "This is a principle to be remembered in agricultural production itself, whenever there is a question of its advance through the application of biotechnologies, which cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of immediate economic interests. They must be submitted beforehand to rigorous scientific and ethical examination, to prevent them from becoming disastrous for human health and the future of the earth." This is far from thinking of biotechnology as the solution to world hunger and central to development. The role of biotechnology giant, Monsanto, in all of this cannot be underestimated. Monsanto has something like monopoly in gmo seeds. It has bought out rivals. It has a long history of litigation to reach its goal of dominance. It goes after farmers that it thinks have replanted its seeds. Currently it is investigating many farmers in the Midwestern section of the United States. Monsanto has opposed legislation in the United States aimed at limiting its monopoly position such as the competition policy proposed in federal legislation. Where Monsanto fights through legal means, it also fights through claiming the terms utilized by its organic and sustainable agriculture opponents. It is now claiming that it deserves the term sustainability. It has run full-page ads in major newspapers claiming that biotechnology is sustainable agriculture. This is the very point of Peter Raven's speech at the study week, as it was in 2004, biodiversity is enhanced, not diminished, by biotechnology. Where Monsanto cannot fight you, it claims to join you. These are the machinations of Monsanto, willingly put on the world stage as a claim for feeding hungry people and in the name of development. Such claims need to be challenged. Certainly it should not be provided the veneer of responsible policy at the Holy See. It is as unseemly as giving welcome to the deniers of the Holocaust. If fully implemented, these views would create a new holocaust among the billions of the world's poor farmers and their communities, not to speak of the havoc to be reaped on earth itself. It is surprising to me that the Pontifical Academy of Science seems mindlessly unaware of the recent scientific studies on the capacity of agro-ecology and organic agriculture to address the issues of hunger and poverty. The International Agreement on Science and Technology in Agriculture (IAASTD) was a four-year study with 400 experts funded for twelve million dollars by the World Bank that released its report in April of 2008. It has a central report and five regional reports. It was a project that Monsanto requested of the World Bank. The results though ran counter to what Monsanto hoped for. Monsanto was hoping to have these 400 scientists, economists, sociologists, indigenous people, farmers to come to the conclusion that biotechnology was the silver bullet to solve hunger and poverty. Instead the group found that agro-ecology was more of the solution. So, Monsanto walked out. Now they are turning to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to do for them what IAASTD did not do. I suspect that its sponsorship will not redound to the credit of this facility within the Holy See. I think the word of Cardinal Martino about the unscrupulous has relevance here. That is a tragedy. It would be better for the Pontifical Academy to cancel the study week, or at minimum, to host a dialogue between some of the members of the IAASTD study and their biotechnology proponents. That at least would provide a meaningful debate. Instead it has moved into the position of advocacy and enabling virulent efforts to convert countries to adopt gmos. The conference participants will be marshaled to carry forth in every part of the world efforts to grow gmos. It is strange that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is allowing itself to be used in this way, contrary to the official policies of the Holy See on agriculture, poverty and hunger in light of a development agenda. It is indeed, a sad state of affairs. _______________________ Anti-GM victory in European court 'draws line in sand' The Scotsman (UK), 19 February 2009. By Dan Burglass, rural affairs editor. http://business.scotsman.com/6983/AntiGM-victory--in-European.4995009.jp THE cultivation of genetically modified crops is not illegal in the EU, but their proponents have found little support over the years. A pronouncement yesterday by the European Court of Justice will have done nothing to advance the GM argument. The case revolved around a small French community close to Strasbourg who argued they were entitled to have knowledge of any GM crops in their vicinity. The judges supported that contention, and the ruling has been warmly welcomed by Alyn Smith MEP, the only Scottish member of the influential EU agricultural committee. Smith said: "This is a significant judgment, and puts a very clear line in the sand for those who seek to undermine by stealth the EU's opposition to GM crops. This issue is regularly raised with me as I travel across Scotland, and I am quite clear in my mind that anything that risks our reputation in the eyes of the public for healthy, wholesome local food production must be viewed with extreme caution. "The SNP government's policy on GM is spot-on, and a calm, measured rational stance compared to the hysteria we see from some quarters. "Right or wrong, the public hysteria which could be whipped up over GM cultivation could see a food scare to dwarf all previous scares. It is right that we jealously guard Scotland's healthy, wholesome reputation." Smith's views and those of his SNP colleagues at Holyrood are well known, but farmers and leaders of the scientific community fail to understand why politicians will not at least consider the options and allow trials of GM crops in Scotland. That argument was put to First Minister Alex Salmond at last year's Royal Highland Show. Salmond was dismissive, despite arguments that Scotland has been responsible for many major scientific and agricultural advances in the past 200 years. However, there is a consensus that the topic has not been well handled by international companies pushing GM technology. Smith said: "The actions of some companies have not been helpful and in many instances we have seen questionable behaviour from them, not least in the developing world. "I also do not accept the argument put forward by some that the European anti-GM stance hinders research globally. South America, North America, Africa and China and plenty of other places are open for GM experiments, yet we have not seen the oft-promised super-crop. Likewise, I see no cost advantages to European farmers from the adoption of GM." Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet secretary for rural affairs and the environment, is certain to come under pressure on the subject of GM crops during the next two days when he attends the annual general meeting of NFU Scotland in Aviemore. _______________________ Charity guide criticised for not declaring GM interests • Sense About Science pamphlet failed to list contributors' links with industry. Zoë Corbyn reports The Times (UK) Higher Education, 19 February 2009. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405427&c=2 A charity has come under fire for failing to declare all industry affiliations of the experts it enlisted to compile a booklet explaining genetic modification to the public. The pamphlet was produced by Sense About Science (SAS), a charity that claims to promote scientific reasoning in public discussions. According to anti-genetic modification campaigners and academics, it failed to mention links between some of the experts who wrote the booklet and GM firms. For example, the guide's biography of Vivian Moses, emeritus professor of microbiology at Queen Mary, University of London, and visiting professor of biotechnology at King's College London, does not mention that he is also chairman of CropGen, a GM lobby group that receives funding from the biotechnology industry. It says only that he has been "a full-time researcher in biochemistry and microbiology" and is now "primarily concerned with communicating science to the public". Critics also argued that the guide should have noted that the John Innes Centre, where eight of its 28 contributors are based, received funding from biotechnology companies. Michael Antoniou, a geneticist at King's College London, described the omissions as "outrageous". He said: "GM is a sensitive issue. People have been extremely suspicious because of its industrial connections. So it is imperative that they declare these in this context, as in a journal publication." Dr Antoniou, who himself provides technical advice to anti-GM campaign group GM Watch, speculated that SAS had not disclosed Professor Moses' directorship because it was afraid of arousing public suspicion. Guy Cook, a professor at The Open University who conducted two research council-funded studies into the language and arguments of the GM debate, agreed that the contributors' interests should have been declared. "If not, they deal a severe blow to their own cause, the authority of science, which rests upon rationality, objectivity, evidence and disinterest," he said. "The problem with GM advocacy is that it has compromised these principles, and in so doing has dangerously undermined public trust in scientists." David Miller, professor of sociology at the University of Strathclyde, who is involved in running the website Spinwatch.org.uk, likened the pamphlet to "a PR exercise". In a statement to Times Higher Education, Professor Moses said his CropGen role was not a secret but should have been spelt out. "Had I been asked by SAS how I should be described (I wasn't asked and presumed it knew as I have been one of its advisers for years), I would have suggested: visiting professor of biotechnology, King's College London, and chairman of CropGen." A spokesperson for the John Innes Centre stressed that most of its funding was public. "We do not regard our affiliations to industry as a contentious issue. Our interests are not 'vested' and our scientists are extremely careful to avoid conflicts of interest." Tracey Brown, managing director of SAS, said the booklet's emphasis was on contributors' scientific background. "They were not seeking to advance any commercial application of GM technology, but to set research in the context of other plant-breeding research and history," she said. _______________________ GM in food chain overlooked - study Rural News (New Zealand), 19 February 2009. http://www.ruralnews.co.nz/Default.asp?task=article&subtask=show&item=17084&pageno=1 Farmers who use GM stockfeed are 'unlikely' to have their goods rejected by consumers because most shoppers are generally unaware that it is being used in food production. That's the conclusion reached by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) in a recently released report, GM stockfeed in Australia: economic issues for producers and consumers. The report explores the key economic issues for supply chain participants associated with the use of stockfeed containing GM ingredients, and provides an indication of market acceptance of edible products from animals fed GM stockfeed - such as chicken meat, eggs, beef, sheep meat, pig meat, dairy products and live exports. 'The increasing adoption of GM crops has led to a greater presence in stockfeed mixes both here and overseas,' says ABARE executive director Phillip Glyde. 'The report found there is little evidence of consumers in Australia and Australia's major export markets rejecting meat, egg and dairy products from animals fed stockfeed containing GM ingredients.' However, the report says consumer awareness of the use of GM ingredients in stockfeed appears to be low in both cases. While the few studies conducted on consumer acceptance in Australia and the US indicate some consumer aversion to consuming products from animals fed GM feed, there is no evidence to suggest this is lowering their demand. 'There are no mandatory labelling requirements or market access restrictions for meat, egg and dairy products from animals fed stockfeed containing GM ingredients either here or in our major export markets,' Glyde says. This is also the case in the European Union, which is regarded as having some of the strictest regulations on genetically modified organisms. It is estimated that the chicken, meat and egg industries are the most likely to include GM ingredients in their feed because of their high reliance on protein meals, such as imported soybean and Canola. Given current GM regulations, and degrees of consumer acceptance and awareness in Australia and its major livestock product export markets, it seems unlikely Australian livestock producers who choose to use GM feed will be disadvantaged, says Glyde. 'Other livestock industries may increase their intake of GM stockfeed in the future, as more varieties of GM crops are developed and commercialised.' _______________________ 18 February 2009 Organic food contaminated by trace amounts of GMOs in Belgium Le Monde, 18 February 2009. By Jean-Pierre Stroobants. http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/02/17/en-belgique-des-traces-d-ogm-dans-des-assiettes-bio_1156497_3244.html [Translated from the French original by GM-free Ireland] The Belgian consumer organisation Test-Achats has discovered traces of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in 22 of 113 food products which it tested recently as part of a big investigation of food quality. Some of these products actually carried the organic label. A similar investigation found no GMOs in 2003. Test-Achats found that 12 tested products which contain maize and soya showed traces of GMOs, but these were lower than the allowed European limit of 0.9% which may result from "accidental" contamination. Below this threshold, the presence of GMOs does not doesn't have to indicated, although it can be done voluntarily. Seven other products contained traces of GMOs that are not approved by the European Union. The organisation emphasised that although their minimal quantity doesn't pose a problem, their quality does, since they are in breach of community law. Other findings of Test-Achats: two organic products containing approved GMOs, and one non-organic product containing more than 0.9% without the GM label. In general, the organisation insists that products presented as "GM-free" actually fail to provide any fundamental guarantee against involuntary contamination. Favouring a hard-line approach, Test-Achats deplores the changes in European Law which came into effect on 1 February 2009. These establish that organic food labels no longer require any mention of "adventious or technically unavoidable" presence of GMOs, provided the threshold has not been reached. Test-Achats points out that this applies in spite of the fact that European specifications prohibit all presence of GMOs in this sector of the agricultural market. By the way, the organisation points out at that it found pesticide residues in 4 of the 17 bottles of "organic" wine which it tested. Which raises the question of the reliability of the certification bodies, according to Test-Achats. "Intransigent" Overall, the investigation's authors believe "GMO products will not be a rarity for much longer" in the Belgian market, even though [the region of] Wallonia has adopted very strict legislation. In June 2008, this region favoured "quality, organic and traditional" agriculture, regardless of national or European regulations. The regional government denounced the Brussels Commission's "ultra-liberalism" and its "intransigent" attitude towards the countries which have declared their opposition to GMOs. To prevent any contamination, Wallonia has equipped itself with an arsenal of deterrence including heavy fines, possible uprooting of crops, and the creation of GM-free zones. And a compensation fund financed exclusively by would-be GMO producers to cover the losses arising from accidental mixing of crops. _______________________ MEPs fail to agree on improved GM risk assessments ENDSEurope, 18 February 2009. http://www.endseurope.com/20696 The parliament's environment committee has narrowly rejected a non-legislative resolution calling for greater harmonisation, speed and respect for the EU's risk assessment procedure for GMOs. Some MEPs wanted greater subsidiarity, not harmonisation, and a more restrictive approach to GM authorisations. The resolution was rejected in a vote on Tuesday by 29 against versus 25 in favour. Meanwhile, the European court of justice has ruled that the right of public access to information applies to releases of GMOs. Member states cannot refuse to disclose where GMOs have been released, to test them in the open-air for example, the court said on Tuesday (EE 05/01/09). On Monday, a committee of member state experts failed to reach a qualified majority in favour or against European commission proposals to force France and Greece to lift bans on the cultivation and imports of genetically modified (GM) maize MON 810 (EE 22/01/09). The proposals will now pass to EU ministers. Member state experts are also due to vote on commission proposals to authorise the cultivation of two new GM maizes, Bt11 and 1507, next Wednesday. Follow-up: European parliament environment committee (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/envi/default_en.htm) and judgement in case C-552/07 (http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&docrequire=alldocs&numaff=C-552/07) . See also commission press release (http://www.endseurope.com/docs/90218b.doc) and Greenpeace reaction (http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/reaction-GM-standing-committee090216) . --- Comment by GM-free Ireland: The EU Parliament's Draft report on Biotechnology: Prospects and Challenges for Agriculture in Europe (2006/2059(INI)), which MEPs rejected yesterday, can be downloaded here: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/MEP/763768EN.doc This was the second attempt by the pro-GM Finnish MEP Kyösti Virrankoski to weaken the EU's policies on GM food and farming. Far from "improving GM risk assessents" - as misleadingly described in the title of the above ENDS article - adoption of the report would have made them far worse. In 2008, the Parliament also rejected Virrankoski's first attempt, which was backed by the Irish MEP Mairead McGuinness who inserted text promoting the release of GM pharmaceutical crops! _______________________ Germany next to nix Monsanto's GM corn? St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 18 February 2009. By Jeffrey Tomich. http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/business-news/biz-buzz/2009/02/germany-next-to-nix-monsantos-gm-corn/ Bloomberg News reports that Germany's Agriculture Minister was quoted in today's Berliner Zietung saying the government may revoke a license for the cultivation of Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified corn because of lack of demand. According to the country's farmers' association, about 6,600 acres of MON 810 corn have been planted in Germany, Europe's largest market. The corn is used for animal feed. Germany passed legislation a year ago to overturn a 10-year freeze on sale of the seeds that had been put in place by the Social Democrat-Green Party coalition government. Under the agreement, Monsanto must monitor fields where the corn is grown for environmental impacts and the spread beyond approved areas, the story says. A report based on that monitoring is to be published March 31 with a decision to follow by the Agriculture Ministry. Creve Coeur-based Monsanto is quoted in the story as saying it hopes the decision is based on "scientific facts," not politics. It was just Monday that the EU experts failed to reach a consensus on whether to force Greece and France to lift bans on Monsanto's insect-resistant corn. The two countries are the only members of the 27-country EU that don't allow the crop. _______________________ Monsanto Asks That Science Guide Decision on German GM Crops Bloomberg.com, 18 February 2009. By Jeremy van Loon. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=MON%3AUS&sid=a5HnvbyYSjx4 Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed producer, is asking that Germany's agriculture ministry consider "scientific facts" rather than politics regarding possible restrictions of genetically altered corn. "We hope that politics stays out of this decision," Andreas Thierfelder, a spokesman for the St. Louis-based seed developer, said today in an interview. "There are no scientific reasons for a ban." Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner was quoted in this morning's Berliner Zeitung as saying the government may revoke a license for the cultivation of Monsanto's genetically modified corn because neither consumers nor farmers want it. About 2,700 hectares (6,670 acres) of MON810 corn have been planted in Europe's largest market, the country's farmers' association says. A year ago, Germany passed legislation to overturn a decade- long freeze on the sale of MON180 seeds made by the previous Social Democrat-Green Party coalition government. The genetically modified corn, widely grown in the U.S., is used in animal feed. As part of the agreement, Monsanto is obliged to monitor fields where the corn is grown for environmental impacts and the spread of it beyond approved cultivated areas, Thierfelder said. A report on the monitoring will be published on March 31, after which a decision can be made by the Agriculture Ministry to change the agreement or ban further cultivation, he added. So far, there has been no change to rules governing genetically modified maize, said Judith Kons, a spokeswoman for the ministry. Officials from the ministry are waiting for results from the monitoring program, she said. Spain and Portugal are Monsanto's biggest customers in the 27-state European Union with about 100,000 hectares of MON180, while France has banned the crop completely. The U.S. had 55 million hectares of GM corn in 2006. To contact the reporter on this story: Jeremy van Loon in Berlin at jvanloon@bloomberg.net _______________________ Genetically Engineered Crops Creating More Pesticide Addiction in U.S. OpEdNews.com, 18 February 2009. http://www.opednews.com/populum/link.php?id=83154 A Dec. 08 global summary from the Worldwatch Institute reports widespread planting in the US of crops genetically engineered to resist specific pesticides (allowing farmers to apply more pesticides to their crops) that has created 15 new species of plants known as 'superweeds' and this production has already led to a $60 million annual increase in pesticide use in the U.S. Most $ goes to the same companies that developed the GM crops. View article: http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=83154 _______________________ Toxicology Program Covers Wide Range of Human Health News Blaze (USA), 18 February 2009. http://newsblaze.com/story/20090218164718zzzz.nb/topstory.html [Excerpt only: full article at link above] Nearly 6,500 toxicologists from around the world will be gathering in Baltimore, Maryland March 15-19, to create an unparalleled venue for discussion of a number of health and environmental topics of concern to the public. The Society of Toxicology's 2009 Annual Meeting and ToxExpo brings together thousands of scientists from universities, government, and industry to showcase a year's worth of achievements in research and education. Some of the topics that will be covered include the following: [...] Food Allergy: Basic Mechanisms and Applications to Identifying Risks Associated with Plant Incorporated Pesticides and Other Genetically Modified Crops Food allergy is a relatively new concern for toxicologists as a result of the incorporation of novel proteins into food crops as a way of promoting resistance to pest and other stresses, improve nutrition or otherwise modify the crop. There is growing concern that the introduction of a novel protein into the food supply could result in the unintentional introduction of a new food allergen and could pose a risk to susceptible individuals. Toxicologists will explore this issue and talk about a number of strategies that have been used to help scientists develop improved hazard identification methods. _______________________ Transgenes are escaping into the wild New Scientist, 18 February 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126964.200-transgenes-are-escaping-into-the-wild.html New Scientists magazine issue 2696: NOW it's official: genes from genetically modified corn have escaped into wild varieties in rural Mexico. A new study resolves a long-running controversy over the spread of GM genes and suggests that detecting such escapes may be tougher than previously thought. In 2001, when biologists David Quist and Ignacio Chapela reported finding transgenes from GM corn in traditional varieties [1] in Oaxaca, Mexico, they faced a barrage of criticism over their techniques. Nature, which had published the research, eventually disowned their paper [2], while a second study by different researchers failed to back up their findings. But now, Elena Alvarez-Buylla [3] of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City and her team have backed Quist and Chapela's claim. They found transgenes in about 1 per cent of nearly 2000 samples they took from the region (Molecular Ecology, vol 18, p 750). "They are out there, but it's hit-and-miss," says Paul Gepts of the University of California, Davis, a co-author of the new study. The escaped transgenes are common in a few fields and absent in others, he says, so gene-monitoring efforts must sample as broadly as possible. What's more, not every detection method - or laboratory - identified every sample containing transgenes. Monitors should use many methods to avoid false negatives, says Gepts. Links: 1. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2129-row-over-contamination-of-mexican-wild-maize.html 2. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17423471.800-the-great-mexican-maize-scandal.html 3. http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/ie/academicos/alvarez/alvarez_contacto.htm _______________________ Genetically Engineered Corn for Ethanol Risks Human Health - UCS SustainableBusiness.com, 18 February 2009. http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17694 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may soon clear the way for widespread adoption of a genetically engineered corn that could potentially threaten human health, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). USDA recently closed the public comment period for its proposal to permit-for the first time-widespread cultivation of a corn variant engineered for biofuel production. If authorized, the genetically engineered ethanol corn is likely to be planted on millions of acres annually. Grown at such an enormous scale, the ethanol corn would inevitably contaminate corn intended for the food and feed supply. As a result, people would be exposd to new, engineered proteins that may pose an allergy risk, the UCS said in a release. Last November, the USDA announced its preliminary decision to grant nonregulated status to Syngenta Company's (NYSE: SYT) genetically engineered ethanol corn and invited public comment on both the decision and the draft environmental assessment that details the agency's reasons for its decision. After reviewing those comments, the USDA will decide whether to deregulate the new industrial crop. Deregulation would mean that the product would no longer be subject to USDA oversight and could be grown without any restrictions at any scale in the United States. Syngenta, a giant, multi-national pesticide company, developed the ethanol corn to reduce the costs of producing ethanol from corn kernels. By engineering the crop to contain a new protein--discovered in deep ocean vents--that breaks down corn starch under the high temperature phase of ethanol production, the company expects its new product to supplant the current method of using proteins derived from microbes. The genetic engineering process ensures that most of the novel protein is produced at relatively high levels in the corn kernel. If grown at the scale Syngenta intends, the new corn would certainly contaminate the food supply, according to UCS scientists. As a result, people would wind up consuming these new proteins, which have never been in food. In fact, except for a small cadre of scientists, human beings have never encountered them. Absent this history of human exposure, scientists are uncertain if these new proteins will produce allergic reactions. In comments submitted to the USDA, the UCS called on the agency to ban the outdoor production of ethanol corn and all other food crops engineered for industrial or drug purposes to protect the food supply. Additionally, UCS supports moving beyond corn-engineered or not-as a biofuel source because it may contribute to, rather than reduce, global warming pollution and because alternative sources can be obtained in a more responsible and sustainable manner, the group said. Absent a ban, UCS urged the agency not to move ahead with a decision regarding Syngenta's product until newly appointed officials are in place and have had an opportunity to review the ethanol corn request and broader biotechnology regulations. Trade groups and companies involved in milling, refining, and exporting corn, including the Corn Refiners Association, National Grain and Feed Association, North American Export Grain Association, and North American Millers' Association, also opposed USDA approval of this engineered corn, citing concerns that its engineered protein could damage food products such as breakfast cereals and snack foods and disrupt exports of such products. In a related matter, just before inauguration day, the USDA-at the request of UCS and others-extended the comment period for a controversial rule that would substantially weaken oversight of all engineered crops, including pharmaceutical and industrial crops. In Related News... Up to a quarter of global food production could be lost by 2050 due to the combined impact of climate change, land degradation and loss, water scarcity and species infestation, the United Nations said on Tuesday. Read the full Reuters report at the link below. Website: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51G46W20090217?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews _______________________ Percy Schmeiser: "GMOs affects our freedom and our foods' biodiversity" GreenPlanet.net, 18 February 2009. By Eliana Rapisarda GreenPlanet editorial staff http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/234-percy-schmeiser-gmos-affects-our-freedom-and-our-foods-biodiversity.html In an exclusive interview for GreenPlanet, Percy Schmeiser - the Canadian farmer who was contaminated by Monsanto's GMO seeds and accused of illegally planting that without paying for the privilege - stresses the fact that the introduction of GMOs means the loss of freedom for farmers, as well as the downfall of foods' variety and biodiversity developed in thousands of years and that make the richness of a Country. On the eve of the tour to Italy with his wife Louise, GreenPlanet has talked to Mr. Schmeiser to understand what he has learnt from his experience against Monsanto multinational, and what urges him to travel all around the world testifying what happened to him. Before his field was contaminated, Percy Schmeiser had no clear idea about what GMOs were and what would be the consequences of their use: "People didn't even know that the government had given approval to that - he told us -. That's why it was such a surprise discovering our contamination and the accusation from Monsanto. My wife and I were seed developers in canola (or rapeseed as it's called in Europe) and all of a sudden all our research and development for 50 years in new varieties of canola was contaminated and basically destroyed", he recalled. Today Mr. Schmeiser has no doubt about the damage that GMOs cause to agriculture, foods' health and the agricultural methods: "Once you introduce GMOs - he said - you no longer have coexistence and biodiversity, which is a great concern for the environment too. It all becomes GMOs and you no longer have a choice, there's no use complaining about seeds blowing in the wind". Another important issue Percy Schmeiser highlighted during our conversation is the control that multinationals have over farmers and foods supplies through GMOs. According to him, "GMOs were never meant for bigger yields, as these companies have always stated to defend their position: indeed GMOs use a lot more chemicals and also oblige farmers to buy the seeds from the corporations every year, so that they have to depend on the companies' supplies and spend more money with them", Mr. Schmeiser complained. The health issue too was claimed by Percy Schmeiser as a very relevant one to be considered against GMOs: "A lot of studies have been done about the bio-resistance and the new bacteria that are in the GMO food, and that make it a lot more unhealthy to eat. Also, the fact that they use a lot more chemical, and more powerful ones, make GMO foods even more dangerous to human health". Since about the year 2000 Percy and Lousie Schmeiser are been visiting many Countries worldwide - mostly all Countries in Europe and also a lot of third world Countries in Africa, South America, Central America and Asia - getting invitations by governments, universities and associations. "I visited probably 50-60 Countries around the world in the last years. My goal is to bring awareness about what happens with the introduction of GMOs. Now that my case is over I could have stop, but my wife and I are spending our time fighting for the rest of farmers, not only in Canada but all over the world". "The conclusion of my lawsuit with Monsanto - in an out of court settlement it was established that the multinational had to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields - was a great victory not only for ourselves but basically it was a start for a victory for farmers all over the world, because now a precedent has been set to prove that these companies are chargeable, and they should be responsible for the damages of the contamination. They have to admit they cannot contain GMOs' consequences". A fight against multinational corporations is possible, Mr Schmeiser claims: "Just to give an example, when Monsanto wanted to bring four new GMO crops into Canada there was such a mobilization that the government didn't allow that. So for thirteen years we haven't had any new GMOs in the Country, which I think was a big success considering the damage we saw these crops did since they were introduced in 1996. Therefore, if we in Canada have stopped GMOs there's no reason they would have to be introduced in Countries like Italy where they are not present". Talking of his imminent visit to Italy, Percy Schmeiser commented: "I've been in Italy before and I've seen the great diversity and varieties of food and fruit and agricultural products that there is in the Country and I hate to see that all these may be destroyed by contamination. GMOs would even destroy the organic farming. If you introduce GMO crops it would no longer be possible to have organic farmers, and this I think is a big concern the agricultural sector must consider". "We will not come to tell Italians what to do - he concluded -, we just come to tell what happened to us, Canadian farmers, and how you could lose the great diversity that you have and how all this could simply be destroyed in one night just by a corporation trying to make more money". _______________________ Argentina: Environmental and human rights groups spreads message with anti-soy video for kids Inter Press Service (IPS), 18 February 2009. http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1727/68/ With a 13-minute video starring puppets and aimed at children, the environmental group Bios Argentina sets out its views on the monoculture of soybeans and the crop's environmental impact. "El Cuento de la buena soja" [The Story of the Good Soybean] is the title of the video short that can be downloaded free from the organization's web site: http://www.bios.org.ar/la_buena_soja.html "We are trying to show kids, in a clear and simple way, the rural production model of raw materials in our region, with its associated effects: fumigation, deforestation and the loss of food sovereignty," Bios activist Silvana Buján told Tierramérica. In the video, a child can't find the vegetables that his mother asked him to buy, so he heads to the country. There he finds that the only crop is genetically modified soybeans for export, resistant to the herbicide made by the fictitious laboratory "Non-Sancto" -- a reference to the agroindustry giant Monsanto. _______________________ Modified Food's Moment? US Council on Foreign Relations, 18 February 2009. By Toni Johnson. http://www.cfr.org/publication/18555/modified_foods_moment.html?breadcrumb=%2F More than 40 million people joined the ranks of the undernourished in 2008, increasing the number of very hungry to nearly one billion. Feeding them has become harder in the midst of a global financial crisis, with economic bailouts dominating the agenda of the rich donor nations. Easing commodity prices have provided some relief, but the financial slump is making it harder for farmers to get loans. A $30 billion per year investment in agriculture "could eradicate the root causes of global hunger by 2025," suggests a Christian Science Monitor editorial. Advocates and producers of genetically modified (GM) food contend they have part of the answer to the crisis. They say their products can improve crop yields in adverse conditions such as droughts, reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and offer extra nutrition. British bioethicist Albert Weale argues in Cosmos Magazine that despite potential concerns over modified foods, there is "an ethical obligation to explore whether GM crops could reduce poverty, and improve food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries." But some critics see no place for modified foods at the table. "The food crisis should not be an opportunity to make more money through the sale of fertilizers, agrochemicals and genetically modified seeds," says one sustainable agriculture advocacy group based in Spain. According to the World Watch Institute, a U.S.-based environmental think-tank, modified agriculture represented about 9 percent of global crop production in 2007 in twenty-three countries, and that number could double in the next decade. To date there is no international consensus on the merits or drawbacks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has acknowledged the potential benefits of genetically modified agriculture for the world's neediest people but has joined the World Health Organization in studying potential safety issues. In many countries, GM foods remain either banned or strictly controlled over safety and biodiversity concerns. Such regulation has in some cases caused trade friction with the largest producer of GM foods--the United States. Engineered seeds can be two to four times as expensive as normal seeds. GMO makers argue that they price seeds higher because they will provide farmers more profits through bigger yields. But critics say engineered seeds may not offer all the benefits advertised (Grist). An intergovernmental assessment of agriculture knowledge notes in a 2008 report that GMO licensing practices, such as prohibiting seed saving (PDF), could damage "local practices that enhance food security" in developing countries. Some humanitarian groups point to the suicides of thousands of indebted Indian farmers after their modified cotton crops failed (The National) as evidence of the risk of using GM seeds. Yet modified seeds have raised the net income of many Indian farmers, according to an October 2008 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute. Though purchasing modified seeds contributed to Indian farmer indebtedness (PDF), other factors "played an indispensable role," the study asserts. Advocates of organic farming say their methods offer a better solution for developing-nation farmers because they require less energy and fertilizer use. Meanwhile, many humanitarian activists attribute the food security problem in developing countries to poorly crafted food aid policies that benefit developed-country agriculture. In a recent paper on development aid, CFR Senior Fellow Laurie Garrett says "Buy American" mandates for U.S. food aid undermine "regional markets for agricultural products, driving local farmers into deeper poverty" (PDF). Funding agriculture instead of donating food, however, could expand the markets of GM producers in developing countries. In June 2008, biotech-giant Monsanto offered to provide modified seeds to African nations (BusinessWeek) royalty-free. Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant said rather than it being a feel-good gesture, "[satisfying] the demand curve is a great business opportunity." _______________________ EU court attacks GM crop secrecy BBC News, 18 February 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7896813.stm Europe's top court has ruled that EU governments have no right to conceal the location of field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops. The European Court of Justice was responding to a case brought by Pierre Azelvandre in Alsace, eastern France. He wanted to know where GM field trials had taken place in his local area. The only EU-approved GM crop is a strain of corn developed by the US firm Monsanto. But GM trials for research are legal, under strict controls. The court in Luxembourg ruled on Tuesday that "information relating to the location of the release can in no case be kept confidential". It said "considerations relating to the protection of public order and other secrets protected by law... cannot constitute reasons capable of restricting access to the information listed by the [EU] directive, including in particular those relating to the location of release". On Monday, the European Commission failed in a bid to force the governments of France and Greece to allow Monsanto's GM corn to be grown in their countries. 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. _______________________ Neb. university wins grant to improve food testing KITV / Associated Press, 18 February 2009. http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9862962 LINCOLN, Neb. (USA) - The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been given a federal grant of nearly $373,000 to improve a testing process for genetically engineered foods. The grant was awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency. The researchers hope to improve toxicity testing for pesticide proteins that genetic engineering introduces into foods. The results could help scientists better understand food allergies and improve food safety. On the Net: EPA: http://www.epa.gov UNL: http://www.unl.edu _______________________ Germany May Ban Monsanto Corn, Minister Tells Berliner Zeitung Bloomberg, 18 February 2009. By Rainer Buergin in Berlin. http://tiny.cc/fTsb9 Chancellor Angela Merkel's government may revoke a license for the cultivation of Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified corn because neither consumers nor farmers want it, Agriculture Minister Ilse Aignertold the Berliner Zeitung. Genetic engineering "has so far not yielded tangible benefits for the people," the newspaper quoted Aigner as saying. Germany has granted a license for the cultivation of MON810 while France and Italy haven't yet, due to environmental concerns, the newspaper said. Aigner wants to allow Germany's 16 states and regions within the states to ban cultivation of genetically modified crops, a view that may clash with European Union law, the newspaper said. _______________________ ECJ Ruling Scuppers Plans for Secret GM Test Sites GM Freeze press release, 18 February 2009 Calls for secrecy on GM crop test sites in the UK [1] have been scuppered by a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published yesterday. In the ruling [2] the ECJ said that under EU Directive 2001/18: "In no case may the following information when submitted according to Articles 6, 7, 8, 13, 17, 20 or 23 be kept confidential:
•	general description of the GMO or GMOs, name and address of the notifier, purpose of the release, location of release and intended uses;
•	environmental risk assessment."
The ECJ also ruled out public order being used as a justification for keeping GM test site locations secret. GM Freeze advocates an open and transparent process for the approval of GM test sites and commercial growing sites because of the ability of GM traits to spread to other crops and wild plants through cross-pollination or physical movement of seeds by humans, animals or wind/water. The group believes openness is essential to protect the environment, the interests of farmers, gardeners and beekeepers and to maintain public trust in the regulatory processes. Prevention of GM contamination from growing crops is a key issue that the governments of the UK have still to legislate on. Recently incidents of GM contamination of non-GM oilseed rape crops and trials have been recorded in Somerset and Scotland. Recent contamination incidents in the US, involving experimental GM strains of maize and rice, have caused major disruption to supply chains and resulted in protracted legal action. [3] Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "There are sound legal, democratic, scientific, economic and social reasons why GM sites need to be made public in advance of planting. Cases of GM contamination around the world are growing every year, and in many cases the cause of the contamination remains a mystery because record keeping about locations and separation distance has been so poor. "Making GM test sites secret or forcing them onto local communities will only increase suspicion and resentment. Rural communities need to work together to produce food and enhance the environment in a sustainable way - the last thing that's needed is disruption caused by secret GM test sites." ENDS Calls to Pete Riley + 44 845 217 8992 or + 44 7903 341065. Notes 1. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7529590.stm 2. See http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-in/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-552/07 3. For a history of GM contamination incidents around the world see http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org _______________________ GM crops feed biotech giants only Choike.org (a portal on Southern civil societies), 18 February 2009. http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/693.html Source: Friends of the Earth The report explains how the rising grain prices behind the world food crisis have allowed biotech giants like Monsanto to dramatically increase the price of GM seeds and chemicals they sell to farmers.February 2009 Download the report (PDF): http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/gmcrops2009full.pdf --- When in August 2002, the government of Zambia rejected a shipment of humanitarian aid because it contained genetically modified corn, it unleashed a new debate: Is the use of genetically modified foods justified in the alleviation of hunger in the world's poorest countries? Genetic engineering of foods –a process whereby specific information is artificially transferred from one type of organism to another, regardless of the species– is one of the most disturbing and criticized aspects of biotechnological development. The industry that practices this technology claims that it is a way of contributing to feed the world, as if the hunger problem were the result of a lack of, instead of a maldistribution of, food. The aim is to alter an organism's natural properties. For example, human genes have been spliced into pigs and fish to make them grow more rapidly. Genes are often transferred from one species to another; for instance, scorpion toxin genes have been inserted into corn in order for the plant to develop its own insecticide. Pesticide-producing transgenic crops (e.g. corn) force pest populations to develop pesticide-resistance, which will lead to an increase in the use of toxic chemicals, whose residues will in turn accumulate in foods. Companies, for their part, are already preparing for such an outcome and demand that the authorized levels of residues be raised. All of this could bring about an uncontrollable situation. Humans are already consuming GM foods, such as soy and corn. Both products are used in over 60% of the foods processed. Transgenic soy and corn can also be used unprocessed as feed for animals intended for human consumption. This transgenic onslaught is headed by the transnational corporation Monsanto, the very same company that created and produced the Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war. Monsanto has developed, for example, the Roundup-Ready soy, designed to be resistant to the herbicide "Roundup", also manufactured by Monsanto. Some of this company's fields have been destroyed by activists opposed to genetic manipulation of foods. Civil society is promoting a strong campaign against GM foods and in favor of protecting genetic resources, advocating food security and sovereignty. The campaign denounces the motives behind genetic modification as primarily commercial and political, and warns that it is not yet clear how GM food consumption will affect human health. The campaign calls for a moratorium on the marketing of GM products until the consequences of genetic manipulation are known. Critics of genetic engineering say that the new patent laws are giving inventors of genetically modified crops a dangerous degree of control over food sources. In addition, several scientists have expressed their concern because they believe that genetic engineering is inherently hazardous and could produce new toxins in food crops or even generate new allergies among consumers. At the same time, the campaign demands that all GM products that are already marketed be properly identified so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. Right now in many countries where GM products are sold –particularly in the South– it is not mandatory to label these products as such. _______________________ Modified opinion The Guardian (Eco Soundings) UK, 18 Feb 2009. By John Vidal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/18/environment-eco-soundings Chatham House, aka the Royal Institute of International Affairs, today publishes two papers on UK food security and global hunger. The choices seem pretty stark: one, from the Center on International Cooperation, Oxfam and Young's Seafood, proposes major investment in small farmers and organic farming. The other proposes a huge expansion of GM crops. And who might that one be sponsored by? Monsanto and the National Farmers' Union. And guess what Chatham House is advocating? Yes, a reopening of the public debate on GM. _______________________ UN urges Kenya new food production strategies Xinhua News Agency (China), 18 February 2009. http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90855/6595211.html The United Nations environmental agency has called on the Kenyan government to device new strategies to boost agricultural production system. UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said on Tuesday it was urgent for the country to feed its population even in future when there would be a huge population. Speaking during the launch of the report, "The Environmental Food Crisis", Steiner said the size of land available per person in the country had significantly reduced hence the need to rethink how agricultural production systems could be developed. "I think the longer term challenge Kenya faces is in a country where the population is now at 38 million and projected to be 51 million by 2025, how do you continue to increase agricultural and food production when the per capita ratio of land available to each Kenyan citizen has gone down from 9.6 ha in 1950 to 1.7 ha in 2005?" he posed. The UNEP chief said the report had seven significant recommendations that include real opportunities for boosting aquaculture and fish farming without intensifying damage to the marine environment as well as those highlighting the opportunities for minimizing and utilizing food wastes along the supply chain right up to consumers. "This report will make an important contribution to the debate but equally it needs to trigger more rational, creative, innovative and courageous action and investment to steer 21st century agriculture onto sustainable Green economy path," Steiner said. Among the key suggestions in the report is removal of agricultural subsidies and promotion of biofuels based on wastes rather than on primary crops to reduce pressure on fertile lands and important ecosystems like forests. "It is imperative that countries like Kenya do not take the shortest route to continue increasing production simply from a tonnage point of view. That means not only rethinking the investment in their agricultural production system but also the ecosystems that sustain them," Steiner added. He said although there were a number of suggestions in increasing food production that included use of hybrid seeds, fertilizer, irrigation or Genetically Modified Organisms, the food situation remained a complex issue. "The first message is that there is no silver bullet to this," he said. The report adds that without policy interventions, the combined effects of a shortfall in production, greater price volatility and high vulnerability to climate change, particularly in Africa, it could result in a substantial increase in the number of people suffering from under-nutrition from the current 963 million. "However, rather than focusing solely on increasing food production, food security can be increased by enhancing supply through optimizing food energy efficiency. Food energy efficiency is our ability to minimize the loss of energy in food from harvest potential through processing to actual consumption and recycling." "If we are going to feed close to nine billion people in this planet at a time when our agricultural systems are already depleting our very ecosystems that actually sustain us and when environment degradation including climate change becomes an additional part to the system that could take 25 percent of today's production we have a serious problem in our planet," said Steiner. The report also stated that unless more intelligent and creative management was brought to the world's agricultural systems, the 2008 food crisis which plunged millions into hunger could overshadow an even bigger crisis in future. The report indicated that up to 25 percent of the worlds food production could be lost due to environmental breakdowns by 2050 unless action was taken. "Already cereals yields have stagnated worldwide and fish landings are declining," the report states in part. "Over one third of the worlds cereals are today being used as animal feed and continuing to feed cereals to growing numbers of livestock will aggravate poverty and environmental degradation," it further said. The Rapid Response Team Leader at UNEP, Christian Nelle suggested that recycling food wastes and deploying new technologies aimed at producing biofuels to produce sugar from discards such as straw and nutshells could be a key alternative to increased use of cereals for livestock. Kenya is currently grappling with a severe food shortage following three failed rain seasons and more than 10 million people are in dire need of food aid. The researchers report indicates that the ongoing crisis has resulted in a 50 to 200 percent increase in selected commodity prices and hasten to add that taking into account the emerging causes, world food prices 'is estimated to become 30 to 50 percent higher in coming decades and have greater volatility.' The study enumerates the key causes of the current food crises as; combined effects of speculation in food stocks, extreme weather events, low cereal stocks, growth in biofuels competing for crop land and high oil prices. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland: See Michael O'Callaghan's Global Vision interview with UNEP's Achim Steiner whilst he was Executive Director of IUCN - the World Conservation Union, at the UN Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002: http://www.global-vision.org/interviews/steiner.php _______________________ Biosafety Act now paves the way for GMOs Business Daily (Kenya), 18 February 2009. http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12952&Itemid=5813 [Photo caption: The Biosafety Act will enhance the development of genetically modified animal vaccines and crops such as cotton, maize, sweet potatoes and bananas.] President Kibaki has finally assented to the Biosafety Act 2008, paving the way for the commercialization of modern biotechnology products or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Kenya. Although the anti-GMO campaigners, mainly civil society organizations, will be disappointed with the President's decision, scientists and other pro-GMO proponents have commended the President, noting that the move was long overdue. However, the next hurdle for proponents of modern biotechnology products or GMOs will be the establishment of a National Biosafety Authority, to regulate modern biotechnology as provided for under the Act. The Act, which was enacted in accordance with the precautionary principle, aims at ensuring an adequate level of protection in safe transfer, handling and use of GMOs resulting from modern biotechnology that may have an adverse effect on the environment. It also aims to establish a transparent and predictable process to review and make decisions on GMO related issues, for instance, accepting or rejecting applications for introduction, importation, growing or trading in genetically engineered products. However, the Act does not cover GM products in the pharmaceutical industry. _______________________ Business Day (Johannesburg) South Africa: NGO Acted for Public Good, Costs Case Told Business Day (South Africa), 18 February 2009. By Ernest Mabuza. http://allafrica.com/stories/200902180070.html Johannesburg - The Pretoria High Court had failed to take into account that Biowatch was litigating in the public interest when the court ordered it to pay the legal costs of a private company in the business of genetically modified organisms, the Constitutional Court heard yesterday. Biowatch, a nongovernmental organisation (NGO) working in the field of biodiversity, was appealing against the 2005 order by acting Judge Eric Dunn, who ruled in favour of Biowatch in its request for information on genetically modified organisms but ordered that the group should not receive its costs from state respondents. Biowatch had applied to the high court for the agriculture minister, the registrar for genetic resources and the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms to provide information that would shed light on the basis for decisions about permitting genetically modified crops in SA. Monsanto SA, a producer of genetically modified food, joined the court proceedings to oppose the application by Biowatch in 2003. Dunn ruled that although the general rule was that the costs should follow the result, he felt that the manner in which some of Biowatch's requests for information were formulated had convinced him that it should not be granted a costs order in its favour. Dunn ordered that Biowatch should not receive its legal costs from the state bodies and ordered it to pay Monsanto's costs. The full bench of the high court dismissed Biowatch's appeal against the costs orders and the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed its application for leave to appeal. Biowatch counsel Gilbert Marcus SC said Dunn "had no regard for the fact that Biowatch was an NGO which was acting in the public interest. He failed to give any proper assessment to the conduct of Monsanto." _______________________ Poison on the Platter - A documentary film Mahesh Bhatt says: Promotion of Genetically Modified Food is an Act of Bio-terrorism!! WittySparks.com, 18 February 2009. http://www.wittysparks.com/2009/02/18/poison-on-the-platter-a-documentry-film/ Renowned filmmaker and social activist Mahesh Bhatt today launched a scathing attack on biotech multinational companies and their nexus with regulatory bodies for unleashing what he describes as 'bio-terrorism' in the country. Speaking at a function organized to launch his new film, 'Poison on the Platter', directed by Ajay Kanchan, Bhatt said, "in their mad rush to capture the multi-billion dollar Indian agricultural and food industry, the biotech MNCs are bulldozing warnings by scientists about the adverse impact of GM foods on health and environment, and hurtling the mankind toward a disaster, which will be far more destructive than anything the world has seen so far, simply because it will affect every single person living on this planet". Bhatt's film makes a mockery of Government of India's claim of not allowing import of any GM foods in the country as it conclusively demonstrates that supermarkets in India are flooded with harmful food stuff and biotech MNCs are cashing on the ignorance of unsuspecting consumers in India. "Indians are unfortunately kept in dark, and the corporations are hatching strategies to cash in on their ignorance. Poison on the Platter is, therefore, an attempt to generate awareness among consumers and kick start an informed debate on the issue", said Bhatt. Trials of GM foods on lab animals across the world have repeatedly shown that they cause bleeding stomachs, and adversely affect brain, lungs, liver, kidney, pancreas and intestine. They have been even linked to higher offspring mortality and causing infertility. "Are we ready to eat a food that has the potential to stunt our growth, impair our immune system and adversely affect all our vital organs", asks Ajay Kanchan, director of the documentary, adding that "It's shocking that instead of protecting the interests of farmers and consumers, regulatory bodies in India are pandering to the greed of biotech MNCs like Monsanto, whose track record is littered with lies, deceptions and notorious ability to corrupt the regulatory bodies all over the world". "I can say with absolute confidence that there is irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that genetically engineered foods are harmful and that they are not being evaluated properly by the governments of India, United States, the European Union, or anywhere in the world." Said Jeffrey M. Smith, Founder Director, Institute of Responsible Technology and author of two widely respected books on health impact of GM foods ‚ Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, adding that "this is one of the most dangerous technologies ever introduced on earth, and it's being deployed in our food supply. It's madness, what we need is a political willingness to say no more". Noted food policy analyst Devinder Sharma said, "India is fast becoming the world's biggest dustbin for this risky and unwanted technology. We are being told that these crops are essential for feeding the growing population, but there is not even one GM crop that produces higher yields. In fact, many of the GM crops produce less than the existing crops. And yet, as many as 56 foods crops are being genetically modified in India." In spite of a number of independent scientific studies pointing out the potentially damaging impacts of Bt crops, Government of India is about to approve the first food crop, Bt brinjal. "So far we were told that by proper washing the veggies you could get rid of the harmful pesticides residues. That may not hold true anymore, because with genetic modification, the toxins will be right inside the vegetables", Sharma added. In India, the only commercially cultivated GM crop Bt Cotton, has so far proved extremely harmful for human beings and animals. Hundreds of farmers working in Bt Cotton fields developed skin allergies that were not known before, while thousands of cattle, sheep and goats that went for grazing there died in no time. "What we need is a moratorium on release of any GM crop and sale of any GM seed for at least next 5 to 7 years, till their safety is not assured through stringent and impartial tests, because what's at stake here is not just our health but our very survival", said Dr Pushpa M. Bhargava, Founder Director, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology and Supreme Court's nominee in the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). Concluding a panel discussion following the screening of the film, Mahesh Bhatt said, "We cannot remain a mute spectator and let the biotech companies fill their coffers by using our bodies as their slaves in India. If the Government and regulatory bodies continue to ignore warnings by scientists and release any GM food crop, I won't mind spearheading a countrywide campaign on the scale that India has not seen since the days of Independent movement for one simple reason that we all feel hungry and we can't live without eating food". ---Related NDTV news clip, 5 February 2009: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/poison-on-the-platter-ndtv/4240993459 Watch the video trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fx1WKpbNwo&feature=related _______________________ 17 February 2009 EU Nations Set To Maintain GM Bans Farm Chemicals International, 17 February 2009. http://www.fc-international.com/viewitem.php?ItemID=1737 Yesterday's European Commission expert committee on genetically modified (GM) crops failed to reach agreement to lift French and Greek national bans on GM crop cultivation. The decision will now be left up to the EU Council of Ministers - which has up until now only once found a qualified majority on the issue, reports EurActiv.com. The Commission had asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to examine new scientific evidence and determine whether Greek and French national bans on GM maize MON810 were justified. EFSA found no scientific justification for the bans, so the Commission asked its committee on genetically-modified food, feed, and environmental risk to order the two countries to repeal their national bans. However, the committee failed to reach a qualified majority either for or against the bans at yesterday's meeting. The Council is expected to come to a similar deadlock, as its members are representatives of the EU member states. The Council has two months to react to the Commission's decision. If it fails to do so, the final decision is automatically referred back to the EU executive, according to Commission spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich, who says that the June Envrionment Council may be too far away, and ministers could vote on the Greek and French bans in one of the Agriculture Councils in the spring instead. The Council was only once (in 2007) able to find a qualified majority for or against previously enacted national bans by Hungary and Austria, which left the final decision to the EU executive, who ordered member states to lift the bans. The Environment Council will vote in March on plans to force Hungary and Austria to lift the bans. In 2007, the ministers reached a qualified majority against the EU executive's decision to force Hungary to repeal its ban, but the Commission is now asking them to vote again. A Council spokesperson could not say what the result would be this time. The Environment Council is scheduled to meet in early March and again at the end of June _______________________ WWF's Involvement in the RTRS due to its Connection to the GM Soy Industry WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature statement, 17 February 2009. http://www.panda.org/news_facts/top_5_environmental_questions/top_5_questions_about_forests/?156602/Involvement-in-the-RTRS-Connection-to-the-GM-Soy-Industry Established in 2005, the RTRS [Round Table on Resonsible Soy] http://www.responsiblesoy.org/ is a multi-stakeholder initiative which aims to, among other objectives, facilitate a global dialogue on soy production that is economically viable, socially equitable and environmentally sound. The RTRS provides stakeholders and interested parties - social organizations and business and industry - with the opportunity to jointly develop global solutions leading to responsible soy production. These include development of criteria for the responsible production and sourcing of soy. The RTRS is currently developing a set of principles and criteria (P&Cs) for responsible soy production that include requirements to halt conversion of areas with high conservation value, to promote best management practices, to ensure fair working conditions, and to respect land tenure claims. Likely to be ratified by the RTRS General Assembly in May 2009, the RTRS does not yet have a certification system in place to verify compliance with the P&Cs. WWF is a founding member of the RTRS, and a representative from WWF Brazil currently sits on the RTRS Executive Board. WWF offices in key soy producing and buying countries across the globe are actively working to ensure that the certification systems being developed by the RTRS will encompass strong environmental safeguards. WWF is currently the target of a letter writing campaign led by GM Watch http://www.gmwatch.eu/ for its participation in the RTRS. This campaign was precipitated by the RTRS Executive Board's decision to accept two global companies that promote GM technology, Monsanto and Syngenta, as full members of the RTRS. The campaign's letters accuse WWF of greenwashing the GMO soy industry and ask WWF to end its involvement with the RTRS. WWF's position on GM organisms includes:
•	A moratorium on use or release of GMOs into the general environment until ecological interactions are fully researched and safeguards put in place
•	Regulatory frameworks for environmental use and release of GMOs should support the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
•	Transparent, comprehensive environmental impact assessment of planned releases into the environment
•	Avoidance of additional impacts through genetic modifications
•	The control of gene technology
WWF Policy on GM http://assets.panda.org/downloads/gmospositionpaperwwfinternational1999.pdf (PDF) WWF believes that the RTRS cannot be effective in helping to prevent the environmental impacts of soy production, such as forest conversion, habitat loss, soil degradation, water use and pesticide use, unless it applies both to GM soy and GM-free soy. As stated clearly on its website http://www.responsiblesoy.org/faq.php, the RTRS process is inclusive of all soy production methods, including conventional, GMO, organic, etc. One recent study estimates that GMO soy represents 70% of the world's soy production. This includes:
•	95% of the Argentina production,
•	92% of the US and
•	62% of Brazil.
These are the world's leading soy producer countries and together they represent 81% of global production. * Eliminating GMO soy producers from the RTRS would greatly limit its potential to mitigate environmental impacts. The Roundtable format enables stakeholders to have an open dialogue on how best to mitigate these environmental impacts and improve production practices. WWF does not agree with all the viewpoints presented, nor do we endorse the positions of all the stakeholders. However, WWF believes that by developing standards with other stakeholders, we can have a far greater impact than by refusing to participate. WWF participation in the RTRS does not negate WWF's policy on GM organisms, nor should our participation in Roundtable discussions be construed as WWF endorsing GM production because other members of the multi-stakeholder body happen to be active in this field. WWF has a history of promoting GMO-free soy, as evidenced by its development and promotion of the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy... http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/knowledge_centres/forests/publications/?16872 ...(a scheme that preceded RTRS), and it will continue to do so within and outside the RTRS. WWF will:
•	Work with the RTRS to explore and promote options for identifying and labeling RTRS soy that is GM-free. The preferred approach is to include an optional protocol within RTRS for those who want to verify that soy is GM free. If this fails, other options include use of the Basel criteria or systems already operating in national markets to identify GM-free products should be pursued.
•	Encourage companies to pursue GMO-free production and commit to GMO-free soy in their procurement policies
Notes: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/pptslides/Brief39Slides.pdf http://faostat.fao.org/ http://www.portaldoagronegocio.com.br/conteudo.php?id=27527 _______________________ GM maize starts to flood Brazilian market Update from the GM-Free Brazil Campaign, 17 February 2009. Rio de Janeiro -- The mainstream Brazilian press has enthusiastically reported that transgenic maize, released by the CTNBio (National Technical Biosafety Committee / Ministry of Science and Technology) in 2008, is due to arrive big time in this year's crop. Specialized supplements in the major newspapers have been announcing repeatedly that more and more 'options' of GM maize varieties are starting to become available to farmers on the market. AS-PTA analyzed the list of varieties registered at the Ministry of Agriculture in 2008 and 2009 and observed that the stage is set for a flood of transgenic maize seeds into the country. Of the 261 new varieties registered since 2008, 146 are transgenic - in other words, already in the first year since the release of GM technology for maize, 56% of the seeds set to enter the market are transgenic! In fact, the cause of this phenomenon is that the commercial seed market in Brazil has undergone an incredible process of concentration and transnationalization over the last decade. Today a small group of multinational companies -- most of which also work in the agrochemical sector -- dominate the market. The analysis of the varieties indicated by the Climate Risk Agricultural Zoning gives an idea of the concentration of this market. The Zoning is a technological package for climate risk management, developed and published by the Ministry of Agriculture, which each year indicates the varieties adapted to the various regions of the country and that possess certified seeds. It provides guidelines for official agricultural loans and for private and public rural insurance policies. In the Agricultural Zoning for the 2007/08 harvest, the Ministry of Agriculture included the indication of 310 maize varieties. Of these, 181 came from just 5 multinational companies. In other words, in the Agricultural Zoning alone, 58% of maize seeds belonged to large multinationals. It should be emphasized, however, that the real market concentration must be significantly higher than that depicted by the Zoning. For example, although Monsanto owned 20% of the maize cultigens indicated in the Zoning for the 2007/08 harvest, company press releases in July 2008 indicated that its share of the market had risen to 40% following its purchase of the Brazilian company Agroeste. On the other hand, it is estimated that the maize cultigens developed by Embrapa and commercialized by a group of small national companies (Unimilho) amounts to no more than 5% of the national market, although the institution accounted for 14% of the maize cultigens in the 2007/08 Zoning. The consequences of this scenario are also fairly obvious. If the aggressive attempts by these companies to flood the market with transgenic varieties of maize seeds continue unabated, in a short time Brazilian farmers will have an extremely limited range of non-GM seeds from which to select. This has been the pattern in other countries. Indeed this is the way in which this disastrous technology has spread across the world. The companies boast that GM crops are a success with farmers and that their widespread adoption in the countries in which they have been authorized attests to their advantages. But this omits the fact that this adoption has been forced through and that farmers disappointed with the poor performance of the crops and the unfulfilled promises of the companies find it difficult to return to the conventional planting system due to the lack of alternative seeds on the market. Another expected result of this phenomenon is the rise in prices of seeds and other inputs associated with their cultivation. Since the release of GM soybeans in Brazil, the price of glyphosate (the main active component of the Roundup herbicide, used with the Roundup Ready transgenic crops) has increased by almost 100%. Farmers are doubly trapped: not only forced to buy GM seeds due to the lack of other options on the market, but also required to pay increasingly higher prices for inputs, lowering their profit margins. There is a solution, though. This depends on the resistance and organization of the people who live from agriculture. Concentrated and collective action is needed to preserve the traditional seeds of local farmers, which have been cultivated, improved and conserved over many generations, adapted to the systems of cultivation and soil and climate regions of the country's different regions. Collective action is needed to prevent the local varieties from becoming contaminated by the transgenes, including the promotion of exchange networks and the multiplication and diffusion of these seeds. Brazilian farmers will only be autonomous if they can produce their own quality seeds, and this autonomy depends on the food security and sovereignty of the country's people. --- GM-FREE BRAZIL - Published by AS-PTA Assessoria e ServiÁos a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa. The GM-Free Brazil Campaign is a collective of Brazilian NGOs, social movements and individuals. AS-PTA an independent, not-for-profit Brazilian organisation dedicated to promoting the sustainable rural development. Head office: Rua da Candel·ria, 9/6† andar/ CEP: 20.091-020, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Phone: 0055-21-2253-8317 Fax: 0055-21-2233-363 _______________________ Food companies pledge to avoid GM beet sugar Food Navigator USA, 17 February 2009. By Caroline Scott-Thomas. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Food-companies-pledge-to-avoid-GM-beet-sugar Over 70 companies have vowed not to use or sell genetically modified beet sugar by signing a registry set up by food safety, environmental and corporate watchdog organizations on Saturday. The first GM sugar beet crops - which were Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets - were harvested in the fall, but signatories of the Non-Genetically Modified (GM) Beet Sugar Registry have said they are worried about a lack of knowledge about the long-term health and environmental impacts of GM beet sugar. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) added that one of the reasons for creating the registry is to give consumers a choice about whether they eat foods containing GM sugar in the absence of mandatory labeling for GM foods. Jeffrey Smith, director of the Institute for Responsible Technology - one of a dozen sponsors of the registry - said: "We need to avoid the all-too-common situation of finding out a product is harmful after it has been approved and widely distributed. Requiring that GM foods be labeled is the only protection consumers have if they want to avoid eating GM foods." CFS asserted that the US Environmental Protection Agency increased allowable levels of herbicide residue on GM sugar beet roots "at the request of Monsanto." Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets are modified so that the crop is resistant to the company's Roundup-brand herbicide, allowing farmers to quickly kill weeds without killing the crop. No one from Monsanto was available to comment prior to publication. Contamination concerns CFS has also said that the recent mercury contamination of high fructose corn syrup has made companies particularly nervous about the introduction of unlabeled GM beet sugar to the US food supply. It said: "The registry shows the food industry's increasing apprehension about the government's ability to adequately regulate food production technologies." Tom Stearns, president of High Mowing Organic Seeds, which has also sponsored the registry, expressed concern that GM sugar beets would cross-pollinate with related crops such as chard and table beets, meaning that the issue could affect other foods and food ingredients. "Overseas markets have already rejected other GM products, so the economic future of many of our nation's farmers is being needlessly risked," he said. The registry has been signed by 73 grocery chains and food producers so far, documenting a pledge to "seek wherever possible to avoid using GM beet sugar in our products" and urging the sugar beet industry to avoid using GM beets. A full list of companies that have signed the registry is available here: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/includes/services/nongm_sugar_beet_registry_display.cfm. _______________________ Some concern over genetically modified sugar beets Brownfield Ag News for America, 17 February 2009. By Bob Meyer. http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=865AE18B-5056-B82A-D052A4E58273591E A group of more than 70 food cooperatives, natural and organic food suppliers have signed a registry saying they oppose the use of genetically modified beet sugar and will try to avoid using it whenever possible. The Center for Food Safety says those who signed the registry are concerned about the lack of knowledge and long-term impact of genetically modified sugar beets and they want to give consumers a choice. After some initial reluctance, major food companies like American Crystal and Kellogg's approved the use of Roundup-Ready beets in 2007 saying consumer resistance to GM products was softening. A post on the Monsanto website says, "Next year American Crystal expects about 90 percent of sugar beets to be the Roundup Ready variety." About half of the sugar used in the United States comes from beets. _______________________ Monsanto's Many Attempts to Destroy All Seeds but Their Own FoodConsumer.org, 17 February 2009. By Mercola.com. http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L_aws_amp_P_olitics_42/021704012009_Monsanto_s_Many_Attempts_to_Destroy_All_Seeds_but_Their_Own.shtml Some say that if farmers don't want problems from Monsanto, the simply shouldn't buy Monsanto's GMO seeds. But it isn't quite that simple. Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples, and then sues, saying they own the crop. Meanwhile, Monsanto is taking many other steps to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting, and saving of normal seeds:
1.	They've bought up the seed companies across the Midwest.
2.	They've written Monsanto seed laws and gotten legislators to put them through, that make cleaning, collecting and storing of seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork that having normal seed becomes almost impossible.
3.	Monsanto is pushing laws that ensure that farmers and citizens can't block the planting of GMO crops even if they can contaminate other crops.
4.	There are Monsanto regulations buried in the FDA rules that make a farmer's seed cleaning equipment illegal because it's now considered a "source of seed contamination."
Monsanto has sued more than 1500 farmers whose fields had simply been contaminated by GM crops. _______________________ EU states cannot cover up GMO sites, court rules The Earth Times (United Nations, New York), 17 February 2009. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/256120,eu-states-cannot-cover-up-gmo-sites-court-rules.html Luxembourg - European Union member states cannot cover up the location of sites where genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) have been released, even if they fear that the information could provoke public disorder, the EU's highest court ruled Tuesday. "The information relating to the location of the release can in no case be kept confidential," and public-order considerations "cannot constitute reasons capable of restricting access to the information," the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said. The ECJ's ruling refers to a case which began in 2004, when French citizen Pierre Azelvandre asked the local authorities in his home province of Alsace, eastern France, to tell him where GMOs had been released in his area. The authorities refused to say exactly where GMOs had been released or planted, arguing that the disclosure could put the farmers concerned at risk from opponents of GMOs. Azelvandre appealed to a French court, which asked the ECJ for a ruling. The ECJ decided that while the EU's rules do allow local authorities to keep secret some aspects of GMO releases, such as commercial details, this protection does not extend to the location of the release itself. GMOs are plants or animals whose genes have been artificially changed to give them an advantage such as better resistance to disease or higher yields of food. Opponents of the concept of GMOs argue that the creations are unstable and could cause irreparable harm to the environment. _______________________ Court puts GMO crop trials on map EuroNews, 17 February 2009. http://www.euronews.net/en/article/17/02/2009/court-puts-gmo-crop-trials-on-map/ European Union governments have no right to restrict public information about the location of genetically modified crops. The ruling by Europe's highest court comes in answer to a complaint by a farmer in Alsace, eastern France. Pierre Azelvandre wanted to know where GM field trials had taken place in his area, and where new ones would. That was in 2004. But his local authority refused to release the planting records or maps. It said doing so would place the trials at risk. Azelvandre challenged the refusal in a French court, which then turned to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for clarification. GM crop trials are prone to sabotage by anti-GM environmentalists. Yet the ECJ said the trial locations could "in no case" be kept confidential, and that consideration of public order did not justify restricting access to information. GM cultivation for research is legal, provided companies respect rules to stop pollen spreading to conventional fields. Many European consumers are afraid of the consequences of an uncontrolled spread of modified genes. _______________________ The right of public access to information applies to releases of genetically modified organisms Court of Justice of the European Communities Press release No. 16/09 17 February 2009 Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-552/07 Commune de Sausheim v. Pierre Azelvandre Member States cannot invoke a public order exception so as to prevent the disclosure of the location of release of genetically modified organisms. Mr Pierre Azelvandre wishes to know the location of open field tests of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which have taken place within his commune. On 21 April 2004, he requested the Mayor of Sausheim (Haute-Alsace) to disclose to him, concerning each release having taken place within that commune, the public notice, the planting record showing the parcel of land that has been planted, and the prefectoral covering letter relating to those documents. He also requested the information file on each new release which would take place in 2004. In the absence of an answer to his request, he applied to the Committee on Access to Administrative Documents (CAAD) for disclosure of those documents. On 24 June 2004, the committee issued a favourable opinion concerning the disclosure of the public notice and the first page of the prefectoral covering letter. By contrast, it decided against the disclosure of the planting record for the parcels of land and of the map showing where the releases had occurred, on the ground that such disclosure would prejudice the privacy and safety of the farmers concerned. Following that opinion, as the Mayor of Sausheim had not disclosed all of the documents of the file, Mr Azelvandre challenged that refusal before the French administrative court. The Conseil d'État, hearing the case at first and last instance, refers the question to the Court of Justice of the definition of 'location of release' which may not be kept confidential in accordance with the directive of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs [1] and of the interpretation of the relevant public information obligations, arising under Community law. In particular, the Court is asked whether the national authorities can prevent the disclosure of the planting record for the parcels of land and of the map showing where the releases had occurred on the ground that it prejudice public order and other interests protected by law. The location of release Because of the precautionary principle and the risks to the environment and human health, the directive created a transparent system for the authorisation procedure of measures relating to the preparation and implementation of releases. It established not only procedures for consultation of the public and, if appropriate, of groups on a proposed deliberate release of GMOs, but also a right of public access to information relating to that operation and the establishment of public registers which must include information on the location of every release of GMOs. Thus, persons wishing to release GMOs into the environment are, in accordance with the directive, to submit a notification to the competent national authorities, which must include a technical dossier containing the required information, namely: 1) the location and size of the release sites, the description of the release site ecosystem, including climate, flora and fauna and the proximity to officially recognised biotopes or protected areas which may be affected, for genetically modified higher plants; 2) the geographical location and grid reference of the release site(s) and the description of target and non-target ecosystems likely to be affected, for the other GMOs. It follows from the connection thereby established between the notification procedure and the access to information relating to the deliberate release of GMOs that, save in the case of exemptions under the directive, the relevant public may request the disclosure of all information submitted by the notifier in the context of the authorisation procedure relating to that release. Therefore, the 'location of release' is determined by all the information relating to the location of the release as submitted by the notifier to the competent authorities of the Member State on whose territory the release is to take place in accordance with the directive. The right of third party access to information relating to the release The directive precisely defines the confidentiality which can apply to the various information that is disclosed in the context of the notification procedure and exchange of information provided for by the directive. Therefore, confidential information notified to the Commission and to the competent authority or exchanged in accordance with the directive, and also information liable to harm a competitive position and protecting intellectual property rights, cannot be disclosed. Furthermore, the competent authority decides, after consulting the notifier, what information must be kept confidential in the light of the 'verifiable justification' given by the notifier. Therefore, the information relating to the location of the release can in no case be kept confidential. In those circumstances, considerations relating to the protection of public order and other secrets protected by law, such as specified by the referring court, cannot constitute reasons capable of restricting access to the information listed by the directive, including in particular those relating to the location of release. That interpretation is substantiated by the requirement, laid down in the directive, that information concerning the environmental risk assessment may not be kept confidential. Furthermore, a Member State cannot invoke an exemption provision provided for by the directives on freedom of access to environmental information in order to refuse access to information which should be in the public domain [2]. Notes: [1] Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) [2] Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 158, p. 56-58). ----- Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. Languages available: CS, DE, EN, ES, EL, HU, IT, PL, PT, SK The full text of the judgment may be found on the Court's internet site http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-552/07 It can usually be consulted after midday (CET) on the day judgment is delivered. For further information, please contact Christopher Fretwell Tel: (00352) 4303 3355 Fax: (00352) 4303 2731 _______________________ British scientists condemn using children in GM food trials as unacceptable Daily Mail (UK), 17 February 2009. By Sean Poulter. http://tiny.cc/YsvkZ Children have been used as 'lab rats' in GM rice trials that were carried out in breach of ethics rules drawn up in response to the medical crimes of Nazi Germany, it is claimed. Youngsters aged 6-10 were fed so-called Golden Rice, which has been modified to contain enhanced levels of beta carotene or vitamin A. The rice is being developed to combat Vitamin A deficiency, which is linked to damage to the sight, poor brain development and immune system failure. However high consumption can also have harmful toxic effects and cause birth defects. Critics are furious that the GM rice was not put through animal feeding trials to ensure it was safe before being given to children. The decision to use the children has been condemned as 'completely unacceptable' by a group of 22 scientists - all GM critics -Ý from Britain and around the world. They claim it is indicative of moves by the biotech lobby, led by the USA and biotech firms, to force GM food into the mouths of the world without proper assessment. The project was financed and run through the US National Institutes of Health and involved children in China and America. The scientists have written an open letter to the team behind the experiments, condemning the way they were conducted. It states: 'We are writing to express our shock and unequivocal denunciation of the experiments being conducted by your colleagues which involve the feeding of genetically modified Golden Rice to human subjects.' The letter says there has been 'woefully inadequate pre-clinical evaluation' of the rice. The scientists argue there is a large body of evidence showing GM food production can trigger gene mutations which 'can result in health damaging effects when GM food products are fed to animals'. The letter adds: 'Our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested in animals'. It says there is evidence that certain chemicals derived from beta carotene 'are both toxic and cause birth defects'. Critics of the GM experiments says the Nuremburg code states that children under 10 are not considered legally capable of giving consent to participation in such experiments. They say the code also requires that human guinea pigs should not be used if scientists have an alternative experimental method. Thirdly, experiments on humans should not be conducted until tests with animals have identified potential hazards. Among the leading bodies behind the GM Golden rice project are the biotech company Syngenta, the Rockefeller Foundation and the charitable foundation set up by Microsoft boss Bill Gates. The list of signatories to the protest letter includes Malcolm Hooper, emeritus professor of medicinal chemistry at Sunderland University,Ý who said: 'This type of experimentation is frightening - children as lab rats - it is not on.' Another is Prof David Schubert, of the Salk Institute of Biological Studies, San Diego, who said: 'It is completely immoral to feed this rice to children without proper safety testing... It's like putting a new drug on the market with no toxicology or safety trials.' Other signatories include Prof Carlo Leifert, director of the Tesco Centre for Organic Agriculture at Newcastle University; and Dr Stanley WB Ewen. Dr Ewen was involved in rat feeding trials in Scotland in 1999 which linked GM potatoes to harmful toxic effects. Dr Brian John, of GM Free Cymru said: 'These irresponsible and dangerous trials must be stopped immediately, and the Golden Rice Project team must put its much-vaunted product through a full and transparent testing process before it is allowed to pass the lips of any other human being.' Project manager at the Golden Rice Organisation, Dr Adrian Dubock, denied that the Nuremburg Code has been breached. He said the feeding trials had been approved by independent ethical review panels. 'Parents were not given financial rewards for their children's participation - to avoid undue pressure on poor families - but children were rewarded with school bags and pencils and paper as a thank you for participating,' he said. Dr Dubock said 6,000 people around the world die every day due to illnesses related to failing immune systems where Vitamin A deficiency is a factor. 'The Golden Rice contains the food colours found everywhere in coloured natural foods and the environment...Ý There is no possible way the trials could do any harm toÝ Ý the participants.' Dr Dubock said animal experiments would not have helped. 'As humans are the designed beneficiaries of Golden Rice, animal testing could not answer the questions posed,' he said. This appears odd as all GM foods, which are designed to be eaten by humans, are required to go through animal testing by food safety authorities in many countries. _______________________ NAIS, Monsanto, and the Genetic Altering and Patenting of Animal Breeds OpEdNews.com, 17 Febuary 2009. By Barbara Peterson. http://www.opednews.com/articles/NAIS-Monsanto-and-the-Ge-by-Barbara-Peterson-090217-758.html First the Svalgaard Seedbank, then the Nordic Gene Bank for Farm Animals. The Nordic region seems to be a popular place for storing natural seeds and untainted animal genetic resources. The reasons for the Svalgaard Seedbank are clear enough. When the world is overcome by GM technology, and we the little people are forced to eat whatever genetic trait and/or trigger mechanism Monsanto et al have implanted in our Cheerios, the world's ruling elite will need a clean seed bank for their own food. Now we are seeing the beginnings of the same type of manipulation with our meat. There are major changes influencing the animal production sector: 'livestock revolution' seen as increased global consumption of animal products, intensive and industrialized production systems, major environmental impacts, global warming, increased risks for pandemic diseases (even zoonoses), international trade of high-output breeds, narrow selection goals and loss of variation in breeding programmes, niche production with local breeds and growing interest in patenting. (NordGen Farm Animals, 2009) Note the last phrase: "growing interest in patenting." Ah, yes. Isn't that interesting. In February 2005, Monsanto published multiple patent applications at the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. These proposed patents encompass nearly the entire lifespan of a pig destined for slaughter, from conception to selection. (Natural News, 2005). When you patent something, you have control over it. Just ask the grain and veggie farmers who are being put out of business by Monsanto thugs if patenting our food supply is a good idea.Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples and if they find any GMO plants growing there (or say they have), they then sue, saying they own the crop. It's a way to make money since farmers can't fight back in court and they settle because they have no choice. (SMCC, 2009) Now the Federal government wants to inflict NAIS on us in an attempt to force people who own any type of ranch or farm animal to allow tracking of their animals from birth to death, with stiff penalties imposed for not filling out the appropriate paperwork when your chicken crosses the road. Now add it up. First Monsanto gets the okay by the Feds to inflict on the public, without their knowledge or consent, patented GMO seed technology. Our grocery shelves are loaded with genetically modified frankenfood, Monsanto is bankrupting farmers, and normal seeds are being put out of reach. Now Monsanto and company are attempting the same thing with our livestock. If NAIS goes through, our groceries will be filled with genetically modified meat, and of course, like the GMO grains and veggies, will require no labeling. The only ones who will be raising livestock are the big corporations, and any little guy who gets in their way will be effectively squashed by NAIS if his chicken happens to cross the road. _______________________ GM battles rage down on the farm BBC World Service, Business programmes, 17 February 2009. By Jean Snedegar. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7892328.stm Pressure is mounting from some scientists for Europe to end its resistance to genetically modified (GM) crops but fears remain about the impact of such technology on the rights of farmers. Many American farmers like the ease of operating a GM system which involves regular spraying of chemicals which kill weeds but don't hurt their crops. The problem is that GM pollen can blow across fields and anti-GM campaigners say the fear of being prosecuted for growing GM accidentally leads many farmers to give up traditional methods and take the GM route for a quiet life. David Runyan, who has 400 hectares in eastern Indiana where he grows maize, wheat and soybeans, says he feels intimidated by the tactics of the biggest GM seed firm, Monsanto. Although Mr Runyan plants some genetically-engineered corn, he grows only conventional soybeans - something he admits is now rare. "Approximately 90% are growing GMO soybeans," he says, "Although when the first-generation of glysophate-tolerant soybeans came out the yields were not there. "My neighbours like them because there's less management," he says. "They don't have to walk out to the fields. A lot of them don't even feel the dirt. "They plant it; they hire somebody to spray it; hire somebody to fertilise it and they just go and harvest it," he says. "They're not farmers like we used to be." 'Black listed' Mr Runyon says he is not allowed to buy any products from Monsanto. "I'm on what you call a Monsanto black list - a few years ago they came out and tried to investigate and search my farm and I prevented that," he says. "I've never signed a contract. I do not use their products and it will be a cold day before I ever buy Monsanto products." He believes that Monsanto's past history has not been good for the world or for the people. "They're only out for Number One. Most farmers in the United States do not care for Monsanto but they stand in line to buy their products," he laments. "I think it's just because it's easy for them - that's the only reason I can think of, there's less management." In 2005, investigators sent by Monsanto arrived at Mr Runyan's farm unannounced. "They came to my house and wanted all my production records," he says. They asked questions about his farming operation and wanted to know who he was selling his food-grade soybeans to. "They wanted to know who I'd bought all my herbicides from and they wanted records and phone numbers," Mr Runyan recalls. Three months after the investigators left empty handed, Mr Runyan received a letter stating that he had seven days to turn over all his production records to Monsanto. One reason why Mr Runyan refused was because the letter stated that Monsanto had an agreement with the Indiana Department of Agriculture, but the department didn't exist at that time. Mr Runyan hired a lawyer to deal with his case.
	"Seed-saving is a long tradition in agriculture dating back millennia and it's actually still practiced quite a bit even in the United States and other developed countries." – Bill Freese, Center for Food Safety
David vs Goliath David Runyan's story is not an isolated one. To protect their patents, biotechnology companies have fiercely pursued farmers they suspect of saving and replanting their seed and farmers who may have biotech crops growing in their fields accidentally. Either way, companies like Monsanto call it "seed piracy". Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety says Monsanto will force farmers to sign a technology use agreement which basically forbids the farmer from saving seeds from his harvest for planting the next season. "Seed-saving is a long tradition in agriculture dating back millennia and it's actually still practiced quite a bit even in the United States and other developed countries," he says. Thousands of farmers who have been pursued by Monsanto in the US have paid the company at least $85m (£59.4m) in damages for the so-called crime of saving seeds from their harvest. When asked about their tactics, Monsanto directs people to the "For the Record" section on their website.
	Statement on Monsanto's website: Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with about 120 lawsuits having been filed within the last decade. Less than a dozen cases required a full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.
Biotech scientist Michael Fromm believes these lawsuits are fair practice on Monsanto's part. "They do have patented technology," he says. "The farmers sign agreements not to save the seed as a way for Monsanto to make money on their crop. "They've gone after a few farmers pretty hard in terms of litigation. If somebody doesn't enforce their property rights - the market tends to abuse it more." The big fear of consumers in Europe has been safety. After 10 years of Americans eating GM crops, many in the industry say this proves they must be safe, but even in the US some critics are not convinced. "There really have been no long-term studies and especially in the US - our regulatory system is extremely lax," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC. "I certainly don't believe that all GM crops would be harmful to eat. "The question is: will the regulatory system detect them? And my answer in short is, 'maybe sometimes' and that's not really very comforting to me."
	"To my knowledge there's not a single instance of any health risk for any of the commercially sold genetically engineered crops" – Michael Fromm, University of Nebraska
What worries Mr Gurian-Sherman is that no scientific long-term studies have been conducted comparing groups of people who eat GM and those that do not, to see if the GM eaters get more allergies or other medical problems. Such concerns have not so far worried most Americans or Michael Fromm, at the University of Nebraska. In the 1990s he helped develop genetically-engineered crops for Monsanto, the world's leading producer of genetically engineered seed. "I absolutely believe that genetically engineered crops are safe and the industry record over the last 12-plus years has absolutely proven that. "To my knowledge there's not a single instance of any health risk for any of the commercially-sold genetically engineered crops." _______________________ Less GM crops growth in South Africa Reuters, 18 February 2009. By Muchena Zigomo. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8363900 PRETORIA -- South Africa saw slower growth in its genetically modified (GM) crop area in 2008 compared with the past two seasons due to poor planting conditions for the diet staple maize, farm union GrainSA said on Wednesday. The area under gene-altered produce in Africa's biggest and the world's eighth largest producer of GM crops rose to 1.81 million hectares in the 2008/09 season from 1.8 million previously, it said. The country's GM crop area has grown since it began production in 1998, though expansion of the area was slower last year compared with 2006 and 2007, when it increased by 180 percent and 30 percent respectively. "(The slower growth was due to) an overall reduction in the number of hectares under maize in general because of the adverse weather conditions and expected negative profitability," GrainSA Chief Executive Officer Kobus Laubscher told Reuters. South Africa's Crop Estimates Committee said last month farmers planted 2.6 million ha of maize for the 2008/09 season, less than the 2.8 million ha planted in 2007/08, owing to late rains in parts of the main maize belt. Laubscher said 1.617 million ha of the total GM crop area was under maize, while genetically modified soy was produced on 184,000 ha and cotton on 12,000 ha. "In 2008, genetically modified maize plantings increased by 10,000 hectares despite an almost 8 percent decline in commercial maize area planted; soyabeans increased by 40,000 hectares and cotton by 2,000 hectares," he said. Some African countries, including Zimbabwe and Zambia, have banned GMO imports, fearing they could be harmful to humans and animals. But many South African experts say gene-altered crops are safe and have several advantages. "Mainly, and importantly for Africa, the crop yields are better, meaning that we can feed more people. The higher yields also mean bigger crops and higher incomes to help small scale farmers," biotech crop consultant Dr Wynand van der Walt said. According to Laubscher, more than 40 million of South Africa's 48 million people consume GM food each year "without a single medically or scientifically substantiated adverse effect on humans, animals or the environment". He said once the challenge of negative perceptions over GM crops was overcome, this could pave the way for South Africa's achievements to be carried on elsewhere in the continent. "I think if we make it a point to lead the development of biotech crops in Africa, then our successes will be replicated in other (African) countries," Laubscher said. Egypt became the second African country to plant genetically modified maize commercially last year, planting a South African developed biotech maize hybrid on 800 hectares. Burkina Faso also grew 8,500 ha of GM cotton from seed multiplied in South Africa and Mali was due to follow suit," Laubscher said. (Reporting by Muchena Zigomo, editing by Anthony Barker) _______________________ 16 February 2009 Greenpeace reaction to the standing committee vote on French and Greek national bans on MON810 GM maize Greenpeace European Unit press release, 16 February 2009. http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/reaction-GM-standing-committee090216 Brussels, Belgium - Today, a committee of experts from member states has been unable to reach a decision on national bans for Monsanto's MON810 GM (genetically modified) maize. A majority of national experts opposed the Commission's proposal to lift the bans in France and Greece, but did not reach the necessary 'qualified majority'. "EU countries have already said no to the Commission three times, yet once again the Commission is trying to lift national bans and to force GMOs onto our fields and into our plates. The EU authorisation process will be flawed as long as the Commission can manipulate it to promote its pro-GMO agenda and ignore recommendations by environment ministers to improve this system," (1) said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director. "Peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that MON810 maize has negative environmental and socio-economic impacts, yet the Commission and its food safety authority continue to pick and choose the studies that back up their pro-GM political agenda," (2) said Contiero. Monsanto's MON810 GM maize is the only GM crop currently grown in Europe. The Commission is attempting to lift existing bans in France, Greece, Hungary and Austria, despite new scientific evidence showing risks associated with the GM maize. Notes to Editor (1) See also: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/EU-GMO-authorisation-system. The Parliament is expected to publish its own recommendations supporting the Council's conclusions in the coming days. (2) See: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/environmental-and-health-impac. Contact information Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU GMO policy director: +32 (0)2 274 1906, +32 (0)477 777 034 (mobile), marco.contiero@greenpeace.org Mark Breddy - Greenpeace EU communications manager: +32 (0)2 274 1903, +32 (0)496 156 229 (mobile), mark.breddy@greenpeace.org _______________________ New effort to win EU acceptance for genetically modified crops International Herald Tribune, 16 February 2009. By James Kanter. http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/16/business/biotecha.php BRUSSELS: The biotechnology industry, claiming the backing of European Union governments, signaled a new effort Monday to win greater leeway to grow genetically modified crops in Europe, a region where citizens have long been skeptical about the safety and value of the technology. EU experts deadlocked Monday on whether France and Greece should lift their bans on growing the sole bioengineered seed approved for planting: an insect-resistant corn engineered by Monsanto. Biotechnology industry executives say that a bigger vote expected next week could lead to two additional engineered corn seeds being given permission to be marketed in the EU by year-end. One is produced by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a unit of DuPont, with Dow AgroSciences. The other is from Syngenta. Even so, a variety of forces are pushing Europe into re-examining the potential of gene-altered seeds despite a view among many citizens across the trade bloc that the crops are unsafe, dangerous to the environment and represent an unwelcome incursion by corporations into agriculture. Since 1998, the commission has not approved any applications for farming gene-altered crops, and that makes Europe an important test site for whether the biotechnology industry and its supporters can burnish the industry's image and win the right to begin growing in significant quantities - something it has yet to accomplish despite successes in other parts of the world. Progress in Europe also is important because acceptance there increases the chances that more farmers in other regions that grow gene-altered crops, like the United States, will be willing to buy seed for crops destined for export. At the moment, traces of genetically modified grains in shipments sent to Europe can lead to shipments being sent back to the United States. Nathalie Moll, a spokeswoman for the European Association for Bioindustries, or EuropaBio, the main industry group in Europe, said the vote Monday showed new momentum behind moves in Europe to open up the market to gene-altered crops. "More and more member states are following the science as to the safety of these GM products and listening to the voice of their farmers, who are increasingly interested in using new technologies," she said, referring to genetically modified crops. Usually a maximum of five countries had sided with the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, in similar votes this decade. On Monday, nine had done so, Moll said. But environmental campaigners said that reasoning failed to take into account entrenched opposition to the technology in Europe, particularly in big member states like France and Poland. "With more than half of countries supporting the bans staying in place, we should expect these countries to continue supporting their colleagues' rights in France and Greece and other countries to have national bans," said Helen Holder, the European coordinator for genetically modified organisms at Friends of the Earth. The Czech Republic, which holds the rotating EU presidency, will have 90 days to choose when governments will examine the matter of the French and Greek bans, once the commission sends the Czechs a request to do so. If there is further deadlock among governments, the commission must make a decision in the place of the governments. The commission is then entitled to enforce the lifting of the bans through a series of warnings and then, if necessary, through the European Court of Justice. A spokesman for the Czech presidency said it was too early to say when a date would be set to discuss the bans. The Czechs are generally supportive of gene-altered crops as long as they are proved safe, but the only two countries consistently favorable to bioengineered crops have been Britain and Sweden. The struggle over the right to plant genetically modified crops in Europe is emblematic of other challenges, too. As new forms of biology create opportunities to manipulate the plants and the animals that people eat, associated battles are simmering over a range of new crops, cloning and hormone treatments. These disputes pit champions of new technologies against a strong precautionary strain in the approach of many Europeans to novel foods and medicines. The disputes also highlight concerns about corporate ethics that can be more entrenched in Europe than in other regions, including the United States. In particular, Europeans dislike the notion that big corporations are manipulating nature to create what some opponents of gene-altered crops call Frankenfoods. Spain is currently the largest user of gene-altered seeds in Europe, and accounts for 75 percent of such farming on the Continent in terms of hectares planted. But the overall amount of bioengineered seeds used in European farming remains tiny compared with conventional agriculture. Proponents of the technology say growing more bioengineered crops could lower food and feed costs after meteoric price rises last year, and that it would relieve legal pressure on Europe that is coming from important trading partners like the United States and from companies like Pioneer Hi-Bred, which sued the European Commission in 2007 for failing act swiftly enough in the approvals process. Mike Hall, a spokesman for Pioneer, said the company now was waiting to see whether its corn seed, called 1507 and developed with Dow AgroSciences, would be approved by the EU this year before evaluating whether to keep the case open against the commission and possibly seeking damages for delay. Hall said he was aiming to enable farmers to buy the seed for planting in the spring of 2010. Moreover, the continued efforts by the industry and the commission to allow the crops onto the market highlights how they are playing a long-term game to make the crops more common in Europe. Last year the commission succeeded in pushing Austria - one of the nations most staunchly opposed to gene-altering technologies in foods and feeds - to lift its ban on the imports of the crops. And last week, the commission took new steps to push Austria to make it possible to start growing gene-altered products there. The commission tried in 2007 to require Austria to lift its ban on farming bioengineered crops but governments deadlocked and derailed that effort. That led to a battle between Austria and the commission over the safety of Monsanto corn seed at the European Food Safety Authority, an advisory body to the European Commission. Austria said the corn could harm the local ecology, including butterflies, and that the product might lose its efficacy against the pests it was designed to eliminate. The authority, however, affirmed that the corn seed did not pose risks and said Austria had failed to provide enough evidence that the ecology of Austria was threatened. Similar opinions by the authority that Monsanto corn is safe led up to the vote on Monday by the so-called Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, a group of experts nominated by national governments. EU governments are to consider the Austrian case, and a ban by Hungary, on March 2. _______________________ Food Experts differ on France's GM maize ban Euronews, 16 February 2009. http://euronews.net/en/article/16/02/2009/experts-differ-on-franc-gm-maize-ban/ EU food safety experts have fallen short of the required majority to endorse a European Commission request asking France to drop its use of a safeguard clause to ban Monsanto 810 genetically modified maize. Nine states did back the request, but 16 voted against or blank, and Germany and Malta did not take part. The Commission can now call on the ministers to make a definitive decision. If they can not, the Commission will do so on its own. This comes after France's food watchdog concluded that the GMO maize is safe, contradicting an earlier report that led to the French ban. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said last week that putting any cultivation of Mon 810 on hold was a precaution due to the potential environmental risks associated with a contamination of non-GMO crops. MON810 was the only strain of GM maize under cultivation in France before the ban. The AFSSA watchdog report said there was no evidence to support the view that it posed a health risk. Austria, Greece and Hungary are also using safeguard measures against EU-approved GM crops. _______________________ Irish MEP questions EU Commission on GM maize Kathy Sinnott, MEP for Ireland South Proposal of approval of Bt11 and 1507 GM Maize Varieties The Commission has recently proposed the approval of two GM maize varieties- Bt11 and 1507- and is seeking the removal of MON810 bans imposed by the French, Greek and Hungarian national governments. The European Environment Ministers meeting on 4 December 2008 restated the need for the precautionary principle as the guiding principle in GMO statements, as well as a strengthening of the environmental impact assessments for GMOs and a strengthening of monitoring requirements. There was also a commitment that pesticide- bearing GM crops such as Bt11, 1507 and MON810 should be treated in the assessment and approval process in the same way as chemical pesticides. Furthermore, member states and competent authorities were given the assurance that they would from now on have the right to make specific assessments of the impact of GMOs in specific geographical areas and ecological niches, and the right to declare GM-free zones. Could the Commission explain how, despite these decisions in the Council of Ministers, they can seek the removal of the MON810 bans imposed by national governments? _______________________ GM votes: Commission fails to get EU countries' support Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 16 February 2009. Brussels - Experts from Europe's 27 member states today failed to agree whether France and Greece should be forced to drop national bans on the growing of genetically modified (GM) crops. [1] Both countries have banned the only GM crop authorised for cultivation in the European Union - Monsanto's GM maize, MON 810. Last month the European Commission issued a proposal for the bans to be overturned. Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Today's vote just confirms how inappropriate it is of the Commission to try and force these countries to drop their bans. In December 2008, all twenty seven EU Environment Ministers unanimously concluded that there are weaknesses in the GMO approval process, and that risk assessment requirements are not being met. [2] "The genetically modified maize being voted on today is currently being re-appraised at EU level. It is nonsensical for the European Commission to try and force countries to drop their bans whilst this assessment is still underway. This kind of GM crop is highly controversial - its impacts on health, the environment and farming are unclear." For more information, please contact: Helen Holder, Coordinator of tthe Friends of the Earth Europe GMOs campaign: Tel: +32 2542 6182 and +32 474 857638 (Belgian mobile), helen.holder@foeeurope.org Francesca Gater, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 2542 6105 and +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile), francesca.gater@foeeurope.org Notes: [1] Today's vote at the Regulatory Committee was a 'non qualified majority' vote. Under EU decision making rules, weighted voting means that a minimum number of votes is needed for a decision to be taken. The failure to reach the minimum level of agreement today means the Commission's proposals that the two national bans be dropped will be transferred to an upcoming EU Environment or Agriculture Council for Ministers to vote on. [2] Conclusions of the EU Environment Council, December 4th 2008. _______________________ European Union - Vote to take place on GM corn. Dow Jones, 16 February 2009. BRUSSELS -- European Union governments next week will begin to tackle the controversial issue of whether to force France and Greece to allow planting of a genetically modified corn developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto Co. (MON). The European Commission, the E.U.'s executive arm, has recommended the French and Greek bans on planting the Monsanto corn be overturned because the countries don't have scientific evidence indicating the crops are harmful. The Monsanto corn - known as MON 810 - is the only biotech plant that can be grown in Europe. A committee of experts from the governments will vote Monday on the commission's proposal. If the governments are divided, the commission's proposal must be voted on by environment ministers when they gather March 2. The ministers in the past have rejected commission efforts to overturn national bans enacted by Austria and Hungary. Most observers expect they will do so again, out of respect for the national autonomy of the E.U. governments - although they say the votes will be close and the ministers could remain deadlocked. In that case the decision would return to the commission, which would likely approve its own proposal. "There is a high-level clash between the two institutions, the European Council on the one side and the commission on the other," said Marco Contiero of Greenpeace, which opposes commission efforts to lift the bans. The French government this week defended its ban after a report by the French food safety agency, made public by French daily Le Figaro, found no risk to human health from the Monsanto genetically modified corn. French officials said the ban was still necessary to prevent the biotech corn from contaminating other fields. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland: The EU Standing Committee on Animal Health and the Food Chain will actually vote today on the French and Greek bans. Next week they will vote on an EC request to approve two new varieties of GM maize for cultivation, and on 2 March they will vote on the Hungarian ban. Irish Government sources said Ireland will support the French and Austrian bans in today's vote. _______________________ France's Genetically Modified Ban Science isn't a concern when greens try to block biotech crops and goods. Wall Street Journal Europe, 16 February 2009. French food-safety authorities have finally owned up to the fact that a form of genetically modified corn isn't dangerous. Now it's up to the rest of the EU to make sure Paris doesn't keep using junk science to ban the crop. Reversing an earlier decision, the food agency known by its French initials AFSSA concluded recently that Monsanto's MON 810 corn poses no health risks. The change of heart corrected not only an error of science but one of intellectual honesty: Twelve of the 15 scientists who wrote the original report protested that politicians had misused their work. Yet AFSSA didn't deign to make its latest findings public until Le Figaro published a story about them. Predictably, Prime Minister Francois Fillon promised to maintain the government ban on GM crops as a "precaution." The European Commission has criticized France's unscientific stance, and today an EU panel of experts will consider a proposal to force France and Greece to overturn their bans on MON 810. The issue could be punted to a March 2 meeting of environment ministers, who in the past have been loath to force national capitals to accept biotech seeds and products. Hiding behind the "precautionary principle" - which holds that we should avoid any activity that might, in the future, somewhere, have some sort of not-so-perfect effect on, well, something - is not only bad science. It's also contrary to what farmers want. Despite fear mongering about "frankenfoods," biotech planting in Europe rose by 21% last year from 2007, according to CropLife International, an industry lobbying group. Even so, the Old Continent is quickly being left behind when it comes to GM crops, which are gaining in popularity from Egypt to Uruguay to China. Many of the same groups that oppose genetically modified goods in spite of the science support CO2 restrictions because of the supposedly settled science of global warming. We guess science is king only when the greens say it is. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland The Wall Street Journal is mistaken. The AFSSA study excluded environmental dangers - including the fact that the same GM maize has widely contaminated conventional and organic farmers across the border in the regions of Catalonia and Aragon in Spain, the only EU member state where any GM crop is grown on a commercial scale. That is why France is standing up for its right to be GM-free. US France-bashing surged when France opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, but time has shown that French precaution was right on that issue as well. The simple truth is that Europe doesn't want the patented GM crops which America is pushing on us. _______________________ UK National Farmers Union boss calls for GM crop trials Statement attributed to NFU President Peter Kendall in "Wildlife fears prompt return of set-aside payments" UTV, 16 February 2009: "The EU should ban imports of farm products which do not meet the environmental and animal welfare standards set for its own farmers, said Kendall. He also wants more trials of genetically modified crops, and for ministers to lead a campaign to persuade the public that some GM crops are safe to grow." --- Comment from GM-free Ireland Peter Kendall obviously lives on Planet Monsanto, since the two varieties of GM crops on the market result in greater use of toxic weedkillers and/or produce pesticides themselves! _______________________ Poland grows most GMO foods in EU FreshPlaza.com, 16 February 2009. http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=38456 Poland is amongst the most prolific growers of genetically modified foods in the European Union, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. The year 2008 saw about three thousand hectares of land used to grow plants for GMO food production - nine times as much as in 2007. The Polish government, who stands vocally against the production of GMOs, has admitted that it does not control the situation, as there are no current regulations enabling the crops to be monitored. Proposed legislation concerning limits on GMO production will be put forward in the Sejm, the lower house of parliament, in March. "The government needs to impose crop regulation as soon as possible," says the former Polish Minister of Agriculture, Krzysztof Jurgiel, adding that the situation may not get so out of control as to be unmanageable. Although the Polish government, and Polish public opinion, condemns the genetically modified food, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk had to lift the ban on growing such crops introduced by his predecessors, as Poland did not make a thoroughly convincing argument to Brussels that GMOs can prove harmful. The matter is still being discussed in the European Court of Justice. Source: Polskieradio.pl --- Comment from GM-free Ireland: The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) is an industry-funded body that has been discredited for exaggerating GM crop statistics. For details see the briefing "Undoing the ISAAA myth on GM crops", by GM Freeze and Friends of the Earth Europe, 11 February 2009 (under this date below). We have heard that although Polish law bans the importation of GM seeds, it fails to ban their cultivation. It seems Monsanto took advantage of this loophole to encourage farmers to cultivate GM seeds smuggled in from the pro-GM Czech Republic. _______________________ 15 February 2009 Row over climate change ad will not cost minister his job, says colleague The Observer (UK), 15 February 2009. By Henry McDonald. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/15/wilson-climate-change-ad Sammy Wilson's position as environment minister remains safe, his DUP colleague and Northern Ireland finance minister Nigel Dodds said yesterday. Dodds said he did not think Wilson should resign over his decision to block a UK government television advertisement on climate change. The television adverts urge the public to reduce energy consumption and cut their carbon dioxide output. The ads, which would have been screened on Ulster Television, tell the public that changing light bulbs and turning TVs off standby could help prevent them "wrecking the world". Wilson said he would not allow this "insidious new Labour propaganda campaign" to be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland. "Sammy has provoked a debate," said Dodds. "There are many people who hold different views on it. The key issue is that the programme for government has been implemented with the targets that are in there and we will continue to do that." --- Comment from GM-free Ireland: Despite his anti-environmental fundamentalism, Sammy Wilson still occupies the post of Environment Minister in Northern Ireland. Wilson not only denies that climate change is caused by human activities, but also favours the introduction of patented GM crops, in opposition to the N.I. Agriculture Minister Michelle Gildernew, and their ministerial counterparts south of the border in the Republic, who all want to keep the whole island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone off-limits to GM crops. Call are now being made to remove Wilson from office. The Northern Ireland Green Party has set up an on-line petition calling for Wilson's removal because of his refusal to recognize climate change and for bringing the people and government of Northern Ireland into international disrepute and threatening to damage the region's ability to attract inward investment. Green Party European Election candidate for Northern Ireland Steven Agnew said: "This is an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to let the First and Deputy First Minister know that Sammy Wilson is no longer viewed as capable to run the Department of the Environment, because of his refusal to recognize man made climate change." Please sign the Fire Sammy Wilson petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/bt43xx/petition.html _______________________ Georgia bans GMOs RIA Novosti, 15 February 2009. Georgia will be declared to be a GM-free country, Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili has recently announced on local television. Mikhail Saakashvili has participated in the live broadcast "The Georgian president talks to the people", in which the people of Georgia were able to ask the President some questions, reports RIA Novosti. "Georgia does not have a major agricultural production. We hope that our production is ecologically pure and healthy. I will instruct the Government to ensure that genetically modified products are prohibited in Georgia as in some countries in Eastern Europe and within the CIS," Mr. Saakashvili has said. _______________________ 13 February 2009 Kansas Wheat: U.S. Wheat Associates Submit Trade Policy Priorities to U.S. Trade Representative GrainNet.com, 13 February 2009. [Extract only. See full article at http://www.grainnet.com/articles/Kansas_Wheat__U_S__Wheat_Associates_Submit_Trade_Policy_Priorities_to_U_S__Trade_Representative-70817.html With half the wheat grown in the United States destined for export and an Obama administration dedicated to preserving international trade, the U.S. Wheat Associates has submitted its trade policy priorities to the President's transition team at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Strong support for trade agreements that open market access, lifting the embargo on Cuba, and eliminating export state trading monopolies are among the priorities. U.S. Wheat Associates is the wheat industry's export market development organization, funded by producer checkoff dollars managed by 18 state wheat commissions and through cost-share funding provided by USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). "American wheat exports generated an estimated $11 billion in revenue to our industry last year," says Rebecca Bratter, USW Director of Policy