NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • June 2009

2009: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May
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

For international daily news on GM issues, we recommend you subscribe to the excellent GM Watch mailing list by sending a request to editorATgmwatchDOTeu. You may also wish to check out our news feed for more related coverage.

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

"The Welsh Assembly Government's long-standing position is to adopt the most restrictive policy on GM crops that is compatible with European Union and UK legislation. It is not legally possible to declare Wales GM-free, but we will continue our restrictive approach.

"I am committed to maintaining consumers right to choose food without GM presence and the ability of farmers in Wales to grow organic and conventional crops free from GM contamination.

"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."

The proposed measures include options for imposing strict liability on GM crop growers and introducing a voluntary industry funded compensation scheme. Consideration is also given to an option for a statutory redress mechanism.

Views are also being sought on GM-Free Zones, 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.

On a GM Crop Register, we propose a statutory national register with public access. GM crops will require registration with the Welsh Assembly Government 3 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.

In addition, it is proposed within the consultation document that record keeping should be a statutory requirement for GM producers, as will training for all on-farm handlers of GM crops.

The Field Measures being proposed are based on the average arable field size in Wales of fewer than 3 hectares. Significant isolation distances between GM and non-GM crops and buffer zones incorporating pollen barriers or traps are also proposed.

On Seed Thresholds, views are sought on whether the present 0.1% default seed threshold should be retained, as many Member States' separation distances have been established on that basis.

These proposals are also complemented by the recent Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (Wales) Regulations 2009 that came into force in April this year. These regulations will make growers and consent holders liable for any environmental damage they might cause and is in line with the polluter pays principle. These regulations together with our coexistence proposals will help protect the wider countryside from any unintended environmental damage from GM crops.

EFSA back in bed with GMO industry
• MON810 opinion shown to Monsanto but not to public

Friends of the Earth Europe, 30 June 2009:
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2009/Jun30_EFSA_back_in_bed_with_GMO.html

Brussels - The supposedly independent European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has shared a key scientific paper, which gives its opinion on the future of a controversial GM crop in Europe, with producer corporation Monsanto before making it accessible to the public, Friends of the Earth Europe has learned today.

The European Food Safety Authority today refused to issue the Opinion to Friends of the Earth Europe saying it would be published in the next few days [1], but Monsanto had already issued a statement 'welcoming' the positive EFSA opinion on its genetically modified maize (GM) yesterday afternoon [2].

The scientific opinion concerns Monsanto's controversial genetically modified maize (MON810) which is undergoing a re-approval request as required under EU law [3]. The authority is believed to have stated that the GM crop is safe to be grown - the same recommendation it has made for all previous GMO approvals since it was established.

"EFSA just has no credibility left. This genetically modified maize is the most controversial authorisation issue in Europe at the moment, and to give privileged access to Monsanto over the public, environmental, consumer and health organisations shows just how pro-GMO and pro-industry the Authority is," Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe said.

"Its time to sack the EFSA scientists, disband its GMO panel and move GMO risk assessment to a truly independent and effective body.

"Six EU countries have already banned Monsanto's GM maize, and Environment Ministers recently stated that GMO laws on risk assessment are not being followed properly. The green light should not be given for this crop to continue to be grown in Europe."

At the end of last year, EU Environment Ministers unanimously concluded that GMO laws are not being implemented properly, in particular long term impact assessments for which the EFSA is responsible [4].

Facts on MON810:

•

MON810 is a 'Bt' or 'pesticide producing' GM crop which secretes a toxin to kill an insect called the corn borer

•

The environmental and health impacts of this type of GM crops are uncertain, in particular on insects that it is not designed to harm

•

MON810 is currently banned for health and environmental reasons in six EU Member States as allowed under EU law. The countries that have banned MON 810 are France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Austria and Hungary

•

The GM maize is the only GM crop to have been authorised for commercial growing in the EU

•

This maize is grown in a tiny area in the EU representing 0.06% of agricultural land.

•

The area under GM maize cultivation in the EU fell by 2% in 2009 compared to 2008 and will further fall this year after the recent ban of MON810 in Germany.

For more information, please contact:

Helen Holder, Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth Europe GMOs
campaign:
Tel: +32 2 893 1029 or +32 474 857638 (Belgian mobile),
helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Notes:

[1] FoEE telephone conversation with stakeholder contact person at EFSA. Latest information is that EFSA may have been embarrassed into publishing the opinion today, June 30th

[2] http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=724

[3] Under EU law, every genetically modified crop approved in the EU has to undergo a reapproval procedure every 10 years. It is for this reason that EFSA has issued an Opinion on Monsanto's MON810 maize. The Monsanto press release on the unpublished EFSA opinion states that the Authority has stated that MON810 is safe for the environment and for health. This would not be surprising as EFSA has given the thumbs up to all GMOs since the authority was established

[4] December 4th 2008 EU Environment Council Conclusions on GMO authorisations in the EU

EFSA green light on Monsanto GM maize sets up new clash between Commission and member states

Greenpeace European Unit, 30 June 2009:
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/

Brussels, 30th June, 2009 - The European Commission and EU member states are set to clash as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is today expected to publish an opinion on the re-authorisation of Monsanto's MON810 genetically modified (GM) maize, Greenpeace said today. Twelve EU countries have recently expressed their concerns on the safety of the GM maize and six member states have banned the cultivation of the GM crop on their soil. [1]

"Once again EFSA has buried its head in the sand and ignored scientific evidence on the negative effects of Monsanto's pesticide-producing GM maize on the environment. The Commission's blind reliance on EFSA's flawed opinions is likely to anger member states who feel scientific concerns on GM maize are not being addressed seriously," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director.

Independent scientists have complained of serious flaws in the application dossier submitted by Monsanto and about the quality of EFSA's work.[2] In an unprecedented move in May, 18 ministers from 12 EU countries sent EFSA a letter explaining scientific concerns linked to the unintended effects of MON810 on insects species.[3] The opinion published by EFSA today shows no evidence that these concerns were seriously taken into account.

In December 2008, EU environment ministers unanimously called for a review of the authorisation process for GM crops and substantial improvement in the way EFSA assesses the impact of GM crops on the environment and our health. EFSA itself acknowledges that it is currently not in a position to assess the long-term environmental effects of GM crops, as required by EU law. The Commission has given EFSA until April 2010 to improve its capacity to assess long term impacts.

"How can EFSA come up with a positive opinion on MON810 when it has publicly recognised its inability to determine the long term impacts of GM crops? Allowing EFSA to express opinions on GM crops while it cannot assess long term environmental impacts is like allowing someone into a Formula 1 race just because they have a driving licence," said Contiero.

Greenpeace calls on the European Commission to take account of existing scientific evidence on the negative environmental and socio-economic impacts of Monsanto's MON810 maize. No GM crop should be authorised until the EU risk assessment process is thoroughly improved and EFSA is equipped to assess the full impact of GM crops.

Contacts:

Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU GMO policy director:
+32 (0)477 77 70 34 (mob.), +32 (0)2 274 19 06, marco.contiero@greenpeace.org

Mark Breddy - Greenpeace EU communications manager:
+32 (0)496 15 62 29 (mob.), +32 (0)2 274 19 03, mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

Notes to the editor:

[1] Austria, Hungary, France, Greece, Luxembourg and Germany have invoked the safeguard clause and have forbidden the cultivation of MON810 maize. In March, 22 member states rejected the Commission's request to abolish existing MON810 bans in Austria and Hungary.

[2] For a list of peer-reviewed scientific studies on environmental impacts, go to: http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/Bt-maize-in-Europe-2009.pdf

[3] Last week, 11 EU countries also called on environment ministers to recognise the right to ban the cultivation of GMOs on their territory because of environmental concerns.

EFSA opinions give Monsanto new Euro confidence

Food Navigator.com, 30 June 2009. By Jess Halliday:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Publications/Food-Beverage-Nutrition/FoodNavigator.com/Legislation/EFSA-opinions-give-Monsanto-new-Euro-confidence

The European Food Safety Authority has issued positive opinions on the safety of Monsanto's MON 810 corn trait and Roundup Ready 2 corn product, giving the firm confidence that Europe could become more accepting of genetic modification.

Monsanto's YieldGuard insect-protected corn trait, known as MON 810, was originally reviewed and approved in 1998 but has remained controversial, with member states France and Germany banning its cultivation. In general, there is a chasm between supporters and opposition to GM crops in Europe, which has thwarted Monsanto's ambitions in that market.

The trait - which is resistant to the corn borer pest - must be reviewed and re-approved every ten years, taking into account the latest scientific findings.

According to Monsanto, the new opinion is "favourable". It says this demonstrates "a strong commitment to science-based decision-making".

The scientific opinion had not been seen by FoodNavigator.com before publication of this article. A spokesperson for EFSA that the opinion has not yet been published and could not confirm its content.

EFSA is the EU's independent risk assessor. While the European institutions are not bound to take its opinions into account, the Commission may now propose renewing the MON 810 approval for cultivation and other uses of conventional corn in the bloc.

In 2008 the trait, marketed as YieldGuard, was planted on some 107,000 hectares in seven member states.

But in France, Germany, Hungary and Austria the trait has been banned. In April Monsanto filed a law suit against the German government after the cancellation of the planting of 3600 hectares. The trait has been approved in Germany since 2005 but agriculture minister Ilse Aigner claimed she had "legitimate reasons" to believe the maize to be a danger to the environment - and believes the Environment Ministry to agree with the view.

A clause in EU law does allow member states to impose such a ban, but Monsanto claims they can only do so once a plant has already been approved if new scientific evidence has come to light.

In March European agriculture ministers voted - for the fourth time - not to force Hungary and Austria to lift their bans.

Monsanto says completion of the renewal process is a condition of lifting such member state bans.

Roundup Ready 2

According to Monsanto EFSA has also given a green light that its Roundup Ready Corn 2, which is resistant to the firm's herbicides, is as safe as conventional corn after spending four years assessing the scientific information.

The company said: "Following the positive opinion from EFSA, the European Commission can now draft a proposal for approval for consideration by the Commission's Regulatory Committee".

"This is an exciting milestone for European farmers and an important step forward in the decision-making process around genetically-engineered crops in the European Union," said Monsanto's corn technology leader Dusty Post.

Opposition

Not everyone is as gleeful about the prospect of more GM crops in Europe, however. Voices opposed to widespread adoption argue that the full effects on the environment and on human health will not be seen for many years to come.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™:

Monsanto's excitement may be understandable, but it is not based on a sound understanding of the current scenario in the European Union. The EFSA has been under serious fire for quite a while for the not-so-defensible decisions it has published. Within the EU Commission and, most recently, at the meeting of the EU Council of Environmental Ministers on 25 June, the question has been raised more and more loudly whether a positive verdict by the EFSA panel should lead to an automatic EU-wide approval for planting a GM variety.

In the future, besides the purely scientific safety questions, there will also be a review of the socio-economical effects of the planting of a GM variety. And the approval for planting may be put into the hands of each individual Member State.

13 of the 27 Member States, among them the two large economies of France and Germany, reportedly have supported such a change of EU laws at the last Council meeting.

Monsanto's claim that as a result of the EFSA decision the EU Commission is now obligated to propose an extension of the approval of MON810 and newly approve NK603 is thus very doubtful in its essence.

On top of that, Monsanto may want to seek professional advice in the area of style. Informing the Commission and the Member States' ministers about a decision of their own agency - EFSA - before EFSA informs them directly is unlikely to be a source of much amusement among the recipients of the information.

GM maize given renewed safety approval

Agra Europe Weekly, 30 June 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com

The only GMO crop cultivated in the EU has today (Tuesday) had its safety approval renewed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The Parma-based body deemed the MON810 maize variety no more of a threat to human and animal health than conventional maize, while identifying low environmental risks which can be controlled through pest management schemes.

The positive opinion renews the right of European farmers to grow MON810, after the product's original safety approval - obtained in 1998 - expired last year.

Jerry Hjelle, regulatory lead for MON810 manufacturer Monsanto, said: "These announcements from the European Union demonstrate a strong commitment to science-based decision-making to allow farmers to choose biotech crops for their farms."

EFSA's green light has nonetheless met with stern criticism from environmental groups, who have questioned the body's independence and its capacity to carry out environmental risk assessments.

No human health risks

The MON810 maize variety expresses an insecticidal protein which protects against pests such as the European corn borer.

EFSA's assessment looked into fresh data submitted on the MON810 by the manufacturer Monsanto and by member state authorities, seeking evidence of threats to human or animal health from the presence of the inserted protein.

However, no new threats were uncovered in regard to toxicity, allergenicity and nutritional quality, with EFSA's GMO panel deeming that insertion of the new trait still leaves the rest of the plant's DNA composition "agronomically equivalent to the non-GM counterparts".

No adverse nutritional effects were seen in feeding studies involving rats and broilers, EFSA added.

"The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize MON810 is as safe as its non-GM counterparts and that the overall allergenicity of the whole plant is not changed through the genetic modification", it was concluded, providing a strong backing for the variety on food and feed safety grounds.

Environmental risk assessment

An assessment of environmental impacts of MON810 cultivation was also undertaken by EFSA, relying heavily on data submitted by Spain, the EU's single largest grower of the biotech crop.

The Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission gave a favourable opinion on environmental grounds, providing certain risk management strategies are implemented.

EFSA agreed that the environmental risks of the crop variety and the protein it expresses are limited, with modelling exercises said to have revealed little effect on non-target organisms (primarily lepidoteran species).

"Maize MON810 has no altered survival, multiplication or dissemination characteristics", the panel argued, concluding that "the likelihood of unintended environmental effects due to the establishment and spread of maize MON810 will be no different from that of conventional maize varieties".

EFSA in fact concluded that the crop behaves much like non-GM maize and is therefore not prone (under European environmental conditions) to survive over subsequent seasons outside cultivation, nor to establish feral populations with the potential to disturb ecosystems.

Increased resistance among target species?

EFSA agreed, nonetheless, with an assessment from the Spanish authorities that the possible evolution of resistance in target species is a risk linked to the cultivation of maize MON810.

The body meanwhile acknowledged that the crop variety is overall "unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment in the context of its intended uses", indicating that appropriate measures such as pest management schemes should continue to be applied.

EFSA's environmental proficiency under fire

Today's report will nonetheless fuel doubts over EFSA's ability to carry out full impact assessment's on environmental grounds, with the body acknowledging that its predictions on target species impacts are limited by the fact that cultivation of Bt-maize in the EU has been "on a limited scale in a few geographic regions".

In a set of conclusions agreed unanimously in December, EU environment ministers ordered a revamp of EFSA's environmental risk assessment procedures. MON810's renewal request has fallen into the gap between these conclusions and implementation of the changes by EFSA, sparking concerns about the legitimacy of today's opinion.

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director, said: "How can EFSA come up with a positive opinion on MON810 when it has publicly recognised its inability to determine the long term impacts of GM crops?"

Concerns about EFSA's neutrality were also raised yesterday when MON810 manufacturer Monsanto reported the favourable opinion a day before EFSA made the results public on its own website.

"This genetically modified maize is the most controversial authorisation issue in Europe at the moment, and to give privileged access to Monsanto over the public, environmental, consumer and health organisations shows just how pro-GMO and pro-industry the Authority is," according to Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe.

Member state resistance to GMOs

Despite achieving EU approval a decade ago, MON810 is only grown in seven EU member states, and six others currently operate a national ban on the crop variety which overrides EU policy.

MON810's renewed safety approval now comes amid growing calls for a wholesale revamp of GMO cultivation policy among EU member states.

An Austrian paper at last week's Farm Council garnered the support of a majority of member states for the idea of renationalising GMO cultivation policy, so as to allow member states to "opt out" on a permanent basis (see AE2367, 26.06.2009, EP/4 http://www.agra-net.com/portal/home.jsp?pagetitle=showstory&article_id=1246027543591&pubId=ag002).

Applications (EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810) for renewal of authorisation for the continued marketing of (1) existing food and food ingredients produced from genetically modified insect resistant maize MON810; (2) feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON810, including the use of seed for cultivation; and of (3) food and feed additives, and feed materials produced from maize MON810, all under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto

European Food Safety Authority, 30 June 2009:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902628240.htm

Question number: EFSA-Q-2007-150, EFSA-Q-2007-153, EFSA-Q-2007-164

Adopted: 15 June 2009

Summary pdf (0.1Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/gmo_op_ej1149_maizeMON810_finalopinion_summary_en.pdf?ssbinary=true

Opinion pdf (0.4Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/gmo_op_ej1149_maizeMON810_finalopinion_en.pdf?ssbinary=true

Summary

This document provides a scientific opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 3 applications submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for renewal of the authorisation of (1) existing food and food ingredients produced from genetically modified (GM) maize MON810 (Unique Identifier MON-ÿÿ81ÿ-6); (2) feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON810, including the use of seed for cultivation; and of (3) food and feed additives, and feed materials produced from maize MON810, developed by Monsanto to provide resistance to lepidopteran target pests.

The scopes of the 3 renewal applications cover the continued marketing of:

•

existing food and food ingredients produced from maize MON810 (Reference EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[8-1a]) that have been placed on the market in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97;

•

feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON810 that were authorised under Directive 90/220/EEC (Commission Decision 98/294/EC), including the use of seed for cultivation (Reference EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[20-1a]);

•

food additives produced from maize MON810 that were authorised under Directive 89/107/EEC, and feed produced from maize MON810, i.e., feed additives lawfully placed on the market under Directive 70/524/EEC and feed materials (Reference EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[8-1b/20-1b]).

After the date of entry into force of the Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the products mentioned above were notified to the European Commission according to Articles 8 or 20 of this Regulation and subsequently included in the Community Register of GM food and feed. Maize MON810 expresses a Cry1Ab insecticidal protein, derived from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki, which confers protection against lepidopteran target pests such as the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) and species belonging to the genus Sesamia.

In delivering its scientific opinion, the EFSA GMO Panel considered the 3 renewal applications (EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[8.1.a], EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[20.1.a] and EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810[8.1.b/20.1.b]); additional information supplied by the applicant; the scientific comments submitted by Member States; the report of the Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission; and relevant information published in the scientific literature.

The EFSA GMO Panel assessed maize MON810 with reference to the intended uses and appropriate principles described in the guidance document of the EFSA GMO Panel for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed. The scientific assessment included molecular characterisation of the inserted DNA and expression of target proteins. A comparative analysis of agronomic traits and composition was undertaken, and the safety of the new protein and the whole food/feed were evaluated with respect to potential toxicity, allergenicity and nutritional quality. An assessment of environmental impacts and the post-market environmental monitoring plan were undertaken.

Maize MON810 was generated by particle acceleration technology. Maize MON810 expresses a cry1Ab coding sequence that encodes an insecticidally active Cry1Ab protein. The molecular characterisation data established that a single insert is integrated in the maize genomic DNA. Appropriate analyses of the integration site including sequence determination of the inserted DNA and flanking regions and bioinformatic analysis have been performed. Updated bioinformatic analysis of junction regions demonstrated the absence of any potential new open reading frames coding for proteins known to be toxic for humans and other mammals and/or allergens. The expression of the genes introduced by genetic modification has been sufficiently analysed and the stability of the genetic modification has been demonstrated over several generations. The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that the molecular characterisation of the DNA insert and flanking regions of maize MON810 does not raise any safety concern, and that sufficient evidence for the stability of the genetic modification was provided.

Analyses carried out on materials from maize MON810, including stacked GM maize events where maize MON810 was one of the parental lines, and their comparators indicate that maize MON810 is compositionally, phenotypically and agronomically equivalent to the non-GM counterparts and conventional maize, except for the newly expressed trait.

The Cry1Ab protein shows no homology with proteins known to be toxic for humans and other mammals and/or allergens. In addition, this protein is rapidly degraded under simulated gastric conditions. Furthermore, the Cry1Ab protein has been extensively assessed in previous opinions of the EFSA GMO Panel. No concerns for humans and animals were identified regarding the safety of the Cry1Ab protein.

In a 90-day feeding study in rats, no indications of adverse effects were observed. In addition, a 42-day broiler feeding study provided evidence of nutritional equivalence of maize MON810 kernels to kernels of conventional maize. The toxicological and nutritional data on maize MON810 and appropriate non-GM maize control published during the last 10 years confirm that these maize varieties have comparable influence on the test systems. Therefore, the EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize MON810 is as safe as its non-GM counterparts and that the overall allergenicity of the whole plant is not changed through the genetic modification.

The Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission provided to EFSA its report on the environmental risk assessment in line with Articles 6.3(e) and 18.3(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission conclude that "according to the current state of scientific knowledge and after examining the existing information and the data provided by the Monsanto Company, the Spanish Commission on Biosafety could give a favourable opinion to the renewal of commercialisation in the EU of maize MON810 if the proposals and conditions defined in this environmental risk assessment report are implemented".

Since maize MON810 has no altered survival, multiplication or dissemination characteristics, the EFSA GMO Panel agrees with the assessment that the likelihood of unintended environmental effects due to the establishment and spread of maize MON810 will be no different from that of conventional maize varieties.

On the basis of the data provided by the applicant and obtained from a literature survey and a modelling exercise on the effect of the cultivation of maize MON810 on non-target lepidopteran species in representative maize cultivation regions in the European Union (EU), the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the likelihood of adverse effects on non-target organisms or on ecological functions is very low, especially if appropriate mitigation measures are adopted. In agreement with the environmental risk assessment by the applicant and the assessment conducted by the Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission, the EFSA GMO Panel identifies the possible evolution of resistance in target species, as a potential risk linked to the cultivation of maize MON810.

In conclusion, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that the information available for maize MON810 addresses the scientific comments raised by Member States and that maize MON810 is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health. The EFSA GMO Panel also concludes that maize MON810 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment in the context of its intended uses, especially if appropriate management measures are put in place in order to mitigate possible exposure of non-target Lepidoptera. Moreover, the EFSA GMO Panel advises that pest resistance management strategies continue to be employed.

Technical meeting report 2009-05-26 pdf (0.2Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/gmo_maizeMON810_final_meeting_report_2009-05-26.pdf?ssbinary=true

Survey shows most Canadian farmers oppose GM wheat

Food Navigator.com, 30 June 2009. By Caroline Scott-Thomas:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Survey-shows-most-Canadian-farmers-oppose-GM-wheat

Most Canadian wheat farmers are opposed to the introduction of genetically modified (GM) wheat unless market conditions change, according to a Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) survey.

The annual CWB survey was based on 1,300 telephone interviews with Western Canadian farmers. It found that most (57 percent) thought that GM wheat should not be grown in Canada until certain conditions are met, such as added agronomic benefits for farmers or an identified market demand.

Nineteen percent said that GM wheat should not be grown in Canada, while only nine percent said it should be grown as soon as it becomes available.

The survey showed split opinion in how interested farmers would be in growing a GM wheat variety: 51 percent said they were "not interested at all", while 46 percent said they were "somewhat" or "very" interested.

Opposing views

The issue of GM wheat has moved to the fore since a group of wheat industry representatives from Canada, the US and Australia signed a joint statement in May pledging to synchronize their efforts to commercialize the introduction of GM wheat.

Their position prompted a counter-statement from another tri-national group of organizations that centered on the lack of consumer acceptance for GM wheat and lack of agronomic benefits of existing GM crops.

Contradicting US wheat growers?

The CWB survey results on Canadian farmers' attitudes to GM wheat could be seen as contradictory to a similar survey conducted by the US National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) in February.

The NAWG said that 76 percent of respondents were in favor of a petition for developing biotech traits in wheat. However, it has since been criticized for only including farms with at least 500 acres of wheat and 1000 acres in production. The NAWG said the reason for excluding smaller farms was "in an effort to concentrate on commercial wheat growers and to manage mailing and data costs".

The reply post card asked respondents to either agree or disagree "with the National Association of Wheat Growers petition to support the development of advanced technologies and biotech traits in wheat."

There are currently no commercially available GM wheat varieties.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

Sometimes, when reading an article it is a good idea to look at the last sentence first. In the news item above it reads, There are currently no commercially available GM wheat varieties.

The fact that 57 percent of the Canadian farmers recently polled are opposed to GM wheat as long as certain prerequisites are not met shows that these people have a sense of marketing intelligence their soy colleagues one country further south were lacking in the late '90s when GM soybeans were introduced.

Subsequently, U.S. soybean farmers lost hundreds of millions of dollars of business to their traditional European markets due to their eagerness to plant Roundup Ready soy. As long as the common sense of the Canadian wheat farmers prevails such a loss in export markets will certainly not happen to them.

29 June 2009

GMO seeds could dominate India if Seed Bill passes, could lead to even more farmer suicides

Current.com, 29 June 2009:
http://current.com/items/90399549_gmo-seeds-could-dominate-india-if-seed-bill-passes-could-lead-to-even-more-farmer-suicides.htm

"MNCs will dominate if Seeds Bill adopted: Farmers Associations Press Trust of India / New Delhi June 29, 2009, 14:35 IST

Several farmers associations, including the Bharat Krishak Samaj, have raised concerns over the Seeds Bill saying it would increase the domination of multi-national seed companies in India and may force farmers to pay royalty on hybrid seeds.

"The Indian farmers will lose their rights on using seeds of their choice and it would mainly promote interests of the multi-national firms," BKS Chairman Krishan Bir Chaudhary said.

The bill would serve the interests of firms producing genetically modified (GM) seeds in the country, he added, saying the bill may force farmers to pay royalty on hybrid seeds.

The government tabled the controversial Seeds Bill in the Rajya Sabha in December 2004 and later it was referred to the parliamentary standing committee on agriculture for review. The standing committee took about two years to review the Bill and had submitted its report in 2006.

The report is still pending with the government and is expected to be intoduced in the coming session of Parliament. "

There have already been thousands of Indian farmers who committed suicide b/c they could not make a living being farmers anymore, and saw no other way out.

These GM seeds are more expensive than traditional seeds to buy, and they require expensive chemicals and technology to operate. This would endanger the lives of many more farmers, as well as the lives of Indians who will have no other choice but to eat Genetically Modified food!

Bio-hegemony: the political economy of agricultural biotechnology in Argentina
• Biotechnology and political economy: do they match?

Eldis, 29 June 2009:
http://www.eldis.org/go/display&type=Document&id=43702

Authors: P. Newell; J. Martin
Publisher: Cambridge University, 2009
Full text of document
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=4454884&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=01&aid=4454876&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=

This paper examines relations between the state and capital in Argentina with respect to agricultural biotechnology. Argentina is one of the world's leading exporters of genetically modified (GM) crops and is a key player in the global politics of biotechnology. Whereas in other parts of the world, active civil societies and some governments have rejected the technology, Argentina has adopted it as a central accumulation strategy. Looking at the role of business in the political economy of agricultural biotechnology is revealing both the extent and forms of corporate power and contributes to an understanding of hegemony in practice.

The paper outlines a number of factors that have led to widespread adoption of GM crops in Argentina:

•

the fact that nearly all of Argentina's GM production is for export, principally as animal feed means that, to date, has avoided the public controversy surrounding the human consumption of GMs that has characterised debates in Europe and parts of Asia

•

state-led effort to promote soya, working through civil society organisations, made the acceptance of GM soya two decades later easier and less contentious

•

key enabling condition for the adoption of GM varieties was the existence of a strong and dynamic agricultural inputs and services sector, particularly regarding seeds, which provided the local germplasm platform for the new genes

•

biotechnology was received as a welcome development that offered the prospect of extracting greater profits from using land more intensively but with fewer inputs

•

growing dependence on exports of agricultural products left by the decline in manufacturing that followed the liberalisation of the Argentine economy meant biotechnology had a key part to play.

The paper concludes that the case of Argentina presents a series of fascinating insights into the political economy of biotechnology and the role hegemony plays in the governance of the environment and technology. Using the concept of bio-hegemony to understand the political economy of agricultural biotechnology generates insights into the sources and manifestations of corporate power across the material, institutional, and discursive spheres and shows how each accounts for a distinct dimension of power which together produce the hegemonic effects. Through the material contributions to the economy, access to the centers of decision-making and extensive access and control over the media, the proponents and producers of agricultural biotechnology have been able to present support for the technology as a necessary and essential element of state economic strategy.

Disclose toxicity data of GM foods: CIC to Biotech Dept

Zee News [India], via CheckBiotech.org, 29 June 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/disclose_toxicity_data_gm_foods_cic_biotech_dept

New Delhi - The CIC has directed the Department of Biotechnology to provide crucial data pertaining to genetically modified agricultural products to an environmentalist working with voluntary group Greenpeace.

In a decision by its full bench, the Commission has refuted the arguments put forward by "third party" MAHYCO, a firm which markets Bt Cotton and other genetically modified seeds, that disclosure of data pertaining of such agriculture products will affect their business interests.

The company claimed non-disclosure of data citing section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act which exempts information from disclosure if it includes commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property. But it has a rider that such details can be disclosed in larger public interest.

The Commission held, "toxicity and allergenicity of any product to be put on large-scale trial is a matter of overriding public interest."

Activist Divya Raghunandan, in her RTI application, had sought list of field trials of genetically engineered brinjal, okra, mustard and rice approved by review committee of genetic manipulation. She also sought toxicity, allergenicity data about the products and minutes of the committee meeting.

The department had allowed disclosure of toxicity and allergenicity data but Mahyco filed an appeal with the CIC to stop the disclosure arguing that this would affect its business interests.

Council takes up a ban on GM taro

The Maui News [Hawai'i, USA], via CheckBiotech.org, 29 June 2009. By Chris Hamilton:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/disclose_toxicity_data_gm_foods_cic_biotech_dept

WAILUKU - Maui County may become the second county in the state to ban the genetic engineering of taro, the Polynesian staple that is considered sacred by many Native Hawaiians.

County Council Member Bill Medeiros, who is Native Hawaiian and holds the rural Hana residency seat, introduced his bill Thursday for discussion that prohibited "any person from testing, propagating, cultivating, raising, planting, growing, introducing or releasing genetically engineered" taro in Maui County.

About 50 people, many of them taro farmers, attended Thursday's Maui County Council meeting of the Economic Development, Agriculture and Recreation Committee to hear discussion on the controversial proposal.

The five-member committee will reconvene at 9 a.m. today for further public testimony and perhaps a vote on whether to forward the measure to the entire County Council, said committee Chairwoman Jo Anne Johnson.

The idea of banning genetic modification of taro, which is called kalo in Hawaiian, has been circulated around Maui County and the Legislature for the past couple years and has been the subject of mass demonstrations.

Walter Ritte Jr. of Molokai testified that scientists should not be allowed to alter the traditional food and cultural touchstone, especially when they have no way of knowing the long-term ramifications of their actions.

"What is happening here today with this bill is the right thing," said taro farmer Uilani Kapu.

Meanwhile, those who support genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they're often called, say the more than decade-old science can produce crops with higher yields that grow faster and in challenging conditions.

Genetic modification also has a perfect health and safety record as well as providing protection against disease, global warming and insects, said Harold Keyser, University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources county administrator. UH has now taken an official stance against any taro genetic modification ban.

However, opponents of crop genetic modification, which has been dubbed "Frankenfoods" by pressure groups, vigorously and often vehemently dispute any positive claims about genetic modification. The long-term byproducts of genetic engineering, including potential health risks, remain unknown, they said, and point to Europe's ban against the practice.

Taro farmer Victor Pellegrino submitted written testimony that stated that the American Academy of Environmental Medicine released a position against genetically modified foods in May. In the paper, the association said such foods "pose a serious health risk" and called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods. The risks included effects on allergies, immune function and reproductive health, according to study excerpts provided by Pellegrino.

Medeiros was joined by Council Members Wayne Nishiki, Johnson and Sol Kaho'ohalahala in questioning UH's Keyser as well as Monsanto Co. employees about genetic modification. Monsanto employs about 600 people on Maui and Molokai to produce genetically modified corn and soybean seeds, they said.

Monsanto Hawaii Vice President of Research and Business Operations Fred Perlak called Medeiros' legislation a "special interest crusade" against choice. In addition, Perlak said Monsanto has no plans to test taro. He also said there is no discernible difference between a genetically modified organism and one that has not been modified.

However, Perlak said his main point was that a GMO taro ban could lead to similar legislation against everything from corn and cotton to soybeans.

"My concern is that we start banning something before there is a need for it," said Perlak, who added that the international agricultural giant utilizes about 4,000 acres in Maui County for its seed business. "Others in the industry would see this as an unfortunate precedent."

Medeiros responded to Perlak by simply asking if it is not prudent - and normal - to create laws that preclude a health catastrophe from ever occurring.

When asked by Nishiki about the European ban against genetic modification, Perlak said there is a whole host of political and industrial competition behind the ban.

Dr. Lorrin Pang, who works for the state Department of Health but was speaking on his own behalf, said there is no proof that GMO foods are safe or dangerous.

Keyser said UH has had a self-imposed moratorium on the genetic modification of taro since 2005, and no testing is planned. However, he said Hawaiian varieties of taro should be protected if they become the unwitting victims of disease.

"It's not a cultural issue," Keyser said. "It would be a disservice if we do not reserve the ability to use the best science available to protect taro."

This spring, Medeiros introduced the taro genetic engineering ban. His bill has been met with opposition by the Maui Farm Bureau as well.

The bill's opponents also said a GMO prohibition could stunt Hawaii's lucrative bioagricultural industry from taking further hold in the state.

So far, only the Hawaii County Council has voted to ban genetically modified taro and coffee on the Big Island. The measure passed in November, and Hawaii County leaders have called on Maui County elected officials to join them.

A bill by state House Speaker Calvin Say that would have taken away county authority statewide to enact such genetic modification bans failed to gain enough support during the most recent legislative session. Under persistent questioning by Kaho'ohalahala, Perlak said he lobbied in favor of the challenge to county self-rule.

Then in March, the "Taro Security Bill," which was co-authored by Maui County's state Sen. J. Kalani English and Rep. Mele Carroll, passed both houses of the Legislature by wide margins. Both Carroll and English are Native Hawaiian and believe in the sanctity of taro.

However, the four-year ban on genetic engineering of Hawaiian varieties of taro stalled when House of Representatives' leadership either failed to or decided against assigning conference committee members to hammer out the differences in the bills. That's the final stage in the legislative process before the bill would have gone to Gov. Linda Lingle for her signature.

Carroll has said she intends to reintroduce the measure next year.

Maui County spokeswoman Mahina Martin said the administration has no position on the ban, but would much rather see the state take the lead in this issue. Martin said that the county has no agricultural specialists who are qualified to enforce a genetic modification ban.

But the state Department of Agriculture probably does, Martin said.

A Truce in the Crop Wars
• A high-tech route back to traditional farming

Newsweek, June 29 2009. By Marc Margolis:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204234

A funny thing happened on the way to the next green revolution. The world's biggest biotech corporations have deployed the latest in genetic science to pump up yield, ward off crop disease, make food more nutritious and fundamentally reengineer what we plant and eat, and no one is complaining. Environmental groups are not shouting about the perils of "Frankenfoods." There's no rabid French cheese maker with a bad mustache leading foodies on a rampage through high-tech farms. Prince Charles is quiet. Has the war over the world's dinner table finally ended?

Not quite. Europe, much of Asia and parts of Africa fiercely resist filling the larder with genetically modified groceries, and many in agribusiness despair that they always will. So instead, they're trying to woo them with distinctly non-GM varieties. Crop scientists, seed companies and clever farmers are using the most advanced tools of science to reinvent native breeding-the age-old technique of selecting the best crops and then painstakingly breeding and crossbreeding them to make more and better food. These discoveries are remaking the world's farms by boosting productivity, creating more-nutritious food and steeling harvests against diseases and inclement weather. And yet because the new methods do not require gene splicing, they circumvent the conflict between Big Biotech and the Cassandras of food that has roiled for decades. In part, this is also a recognition that early claims for the coming genetically modified utopia were overstated.

Don't call it retro farming. Behind the revival of "traditional" farming techniques are many of the same breakthroughs in genetics, computerization and plant physiology that have driven the biotech revolution. The difference is, instead of food fashioned in the laboratory by lifting DNA from one species to another, scientists are working to unlock the secrets bundled inside each plant itself.

Part of the story is that conventional breeding can still do certain things extremely well-even better than genetic manipulation. What GM techniques are best at is isolating particularly useful bits of DNA in a prized plant, and transferring that single gene to another plant that is less well endowed. (In the best-known example, Monsanto spliced a gene from naturally herbicide-tolerant grass into soybeans, so farmers could apply the chemicals without killing their crops.) Conventional breeding still does better at building up qualities that require a complex suite of genes, such as the ability to fight off certain insects or to resist drought, which involves a host of genes that determine the way plants take up and manage water. The Switzerland-based company Syngenta, which made its name through gene splicing, has found that the best way to fight off sucking aphids, which devour soybeans, is through a combination of techniques, from spraying with pesticides to using molecular markers to identify naturally resistant strains of soy and then crossbreed them to create bugproof new varieties. Without resorting to GM, researchers at the Brazilian agricultural institute Embrapa are breeding varieties of upland rice that not only ward off pests and increase yield, but also contain up to double the vital minerals (iron, zinc) found in unimproved varieties. They have tripled the amount of vitamin A in corn and boosted iron uptake in wheat. Cimmyt, a wheat- and maize-improvement center in Mexico, is breeding corn for pest resistance that has cut losses to weevils in half. The German biotech company BASF has launched an improved, non-GM strain of corn that resists striga, a weed that ravages African fields, and is working to breed high-yielding commercial strains of wheat that also resist fungus and drought.

The recent advances in genomics are saving scientists time, grief and money over old methods of crossbreeding by allowing them to quickly zero in on the genes associated with desired traits like high growth or vitamin A content or efficient ethanol production. Ag experts are especially excited by a technique called marker-assisted breeding, which mines a plant genome to enhance native breeding. Just as modern medicine has found ways to track bits of human DNA responsible for good traits (straight teeth) or bad (cancer), high-tech farmers peer inside the submicroscopic components of seeds and plants to pinpoint the specific genes, or markers, that command growth, or that make plants susceptible to disease. Identifying and tracking markers can lead in a matter of months to the strongest varieties for further breeding while discarding the weak. Research can then use lasers to take microslices of a seed without damaging it and evaluate the genetic components to see if they've got a potential winner. The techniques have cut the time it takes corn breeders to create a new strain from 10 years to four.

Avoiding gene tinkering also saves money that would otherwise be spend on lawyers, patents and getting the products through the labyrinth of health and safety hurdles-often 90 percent of the cost of GM, estimates Thomas Lumpkin, head of maize breeding at Cimmyt. The battle over Frankenfoods is sure to smolder on. But thanks to the breakthroughs of cutting-edge agricultural science, traditional farming still has a brilliant future.

26 June 2009

Monsanto's philanthropy

The Ecologist, 26 June 2009. By Kamalakar Duvvuru of Dissident Voice:
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/276492/monsantos_philanthropy.html

How do you get your GM crops and herbicides into countries that don't want and can't afford them? Simple - you just wait for a crisis, and offer a helping hand...

Over a period of several years, biotech giant Monsanto has worked very hard to build its image as a champion of the poor. To legitimise this image it has engaged in a high profile effort through giving grants to some established NGOs such as the World Vision.

Monsanto established 'Monsanto Fund' in 1964 as the charitable arm of the company. It states that 'our philanthropic goal has been to bridge the gap between people's needs and their available resources. We want to help people realize their dreams, and hopefully inspire them to enroll others in their vision.'

Monsanto has also Monsanto Fund Matching Gifts Program. This programme 'gives permanent Monsanto employees and active members of the Monsanto Board of Directors an opportunity to join Monsanto Fund's support of not-for-profit institutions.' Monsanto makes it candid that the request for support of an NGO is honoured 'if the recipient organization adheres to the guidelines of the Matching Gifts Program.'

'Eligible organizations include, but are not limited to: Colleges and universities, private and public elementary and secondary schools, organizations that serve youth, museums, libraries, health and human service agencies, environmental, community and cultural organizations.' World Vision is one of the recipients of the 'matching gifts'.

Monsanto's philanthropic activities are meant to not only improve its image, but also provide key relationships. It understands better than anyone that relationships, partnerships and network are the key for success of the company.

On November 1, 2006, in his 2006 IBM lecture at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, on 'Sabina Xhosa and the New Shoes: Introducing Technologies into Developing Countries', Hugh Grant, Chairman, President, and CEO of Monsanto, focused on agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. He took Malawi as a model, where agriculture is the primary industry. According to Grant, 'seventy-two percent of the people's caloric intake depends on maize, or corn.' Maize or corn is the staple food in most Sub-Sahara African countries.

Monsanto was seeking a foothold in the Sub-Sahara Africa. Grant said:

'We haven't broken through in Africa in any of the Sub-Sahara African countries. So what do we need? We need one African country to say yes. One African country to start field trials. We need to start the field trials and start testing this in African soil, and at Monsanto we're ready to work with an array of partners to make happen.'

Waiting to strike

The rights time for Monsanto came with the arrival of severe drought in Malawi in 2004. Any predator looks for a vulnerable prey. Malawi, after the drought, was just the kind of prey companies like Monsanto look for.

According to Grant, Monsanto held 'a discussion with relief organizations, non-government organizations, the Malawi government, and some of the relief agencies, particularly an agency called World Vision. We got together and said this is going to keep on happening unless we take a different approach. And that's what we did.'

On December 20, 2005 Monsanto announced its intention to donate 700 metric tons of 'quality hybrid maize seeds' to farmers in Malawi. This 'high quality seed' was 'donated' to the farmers through 'some of the NGOs and government and relief agencies working on delivery and distribution systems.'

U.S. Ambassador to Malawi Alan Eastham praised Monsanto for its donation. He said, 'The donation of hybrid seed to local farmers will potentially have a significant impact on the quality of next year's harvest and represents the best tradition of socially responsible giving by the U.S. private sector.'

A representative of World Vision Malawi, one of seven members of the NGO consortium, said, 'This donation is addressing both the short-term and the long-term needs of the people in Malawi, and fits very well with our programs in this country.'

The nexus between the US government and Monsanto is evident by not only the statement of the US Ambassador to Malawi, but also a highly positive report given by Charles Corey, Washington File Staff Writer. The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, US Department of State (Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov).

It seems pretty clear that Monsanto's 'donation' of seeds to Malawi farmers through its partners like the World Vision was to get a foothold in the Sub-Sahara Africa. But what are its interests?

A poisoned chalice...

Monsanto pledges 'Growth for a Better World':
'We want to make the world a better place for future generations,' its website claims.

Increased yields are the core of this agenda. To achieve this Monsanto provides 'the products and systems' to farmers. Its main product is Roundup herbicide. Monsanto also produces GM seeds. The GM crop is resistant to the herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. These are known as Roundup Ready Crops. The genes contained in the GM seeds are patented.

Patenting means that farmers who buy GM seeds enter into a licensing agreement with Monsanto for the use of that particular gene. They are forbidden from saving seeds for the next season. They must buy new seed from the company each season. This denies farmers' right to save seed. The implications of this are huge for poor farmers. Saved seed is the one resource that the poor farmers depend upon to carry them through the year. Denial of this right will greatly impact them economically, as they have to pay more each season to buy new seed. Although Monsanto purports to help farmers 'improve their lives' through the supply of GM seed, the reality is that it places unbearable economic burden on the poor farmers. Teresa Anderson says, 'Social and economic risks from GM crops are equally weighty. They will increase dependence on outside technologies, marginalize farmers from R&D, and consequently exacerbate the social and economic difficulties....'

The implications of patenting of the gene in the GM seed go further than forbidding seed saving. If a GM crop cross-pollinates with a neighboring crop through the movement of wind, insects, birds, or accidental seed mixing, the neighboring harvest would be likely to carry the patented gene also. Monsanto could then claim that the neighboring farm has infringed their patent. The farmer, who was unintentionally contaminated by somebody else's GM crop, would be breaking the law if he saved his seed and planted it. Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers' co-ops, seed dealers or anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. Ever since commercial introduction of its GM seeds, in 1996, Monsanto has launched thousands of investigations and filed lawsuits against hundreds of farmers and seed dealers.

All this boils down to one dreadful outcome: Monsanto controlling much of the world's food supply. Control of food supply leads to control of people.

Where next?

Monsanto's genetically modified seeds have transformed the company and are radically altering global agriculture. The company has produced GM seeds for soybeans, corn, canola and cotton. More products have been developed or are in the pipeline, including seeds for sugar beets and alfalfa. The company is also seeking to extend its reach into milk production by marketing an artificial growth hormone for cows that increases their output.

On April 25, 2009 Monsanto announced in India a special fellowship programme for research on rice and wheat plant breeding. Under the programme, the company will allocate $10 million to encourage young Ph.D. scholars to pursue their research in rice and wheat breeding. Edward Runge, Director of Monsanto's Beachell-Borlaug International Scholars Program, told that the company was looking at attracting students from India and China, two of the fastest growing economies and the largest populated countries. In these nations, rice and wheat are not cash crops; they are staple foods.

This is an edited version of a longer article, reprinted with kind permission of Dissident Voice newsletter. Read the full version here.

Kamalakar Duvvuru teaches the New Testament in India with an objective of promoting peace, justice, unity and love. He can be reached at: kamalakar.duvvur@gmail.com. Read other articles by Kamalakar.

EC agrees to explore GM opt-out proposal

Food Production Daily, 26 June 2009:
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/EC-agrees-to-explore-GM-opt-out-proposal

The European Commission has agreed to draw up a list of options for further discussion after 11 countries urged that individual nations be allowed to opt out of growing genetically modified (GM) crops.

The group, lead by Austria, tabled the proposal at yesterday's Environment Council meeting. The bid is being seen by some as one possible solution to break the deadlock that has dogged the proliferation of GM produce over the past decade.

This view was reinforced after the Netherlands, a traditionally pro-GM country, did not object to the bid. Once source told FoodProductionDaily.com that Dutch officials saw the move as a practical resolution to a long-running problem.

Under the proposal, the rule change would national governments say-so over cultivation only, with decisions surrounding authorisation and bringing products to market still being made at EU level.

EU Member States Seek Solution for Biotech Crop Debate

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
Bridges Trade BioRes, Volume 9, Number 12, 26 June 2009:
http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/49590/

Austria, with the support of several other EU states, tabled a proposal to change the way the bloc regulates the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. The proposal aims to make minor amendments to EU Directive 18/2001, which would allow Member states to independently decide their position on the controversial issue, rather than the decision making process taking place in Brussels.

The Austrian initiative, tabled Tuesday at a meeting of EU environment ministers in Luxembourg, proposes a 'socioeconomic' rationale that would allow countries to regulate or prohibit completely the cultivation of biotech crops. For example, one diplomat explained that a wine-growing country could prohibit the cultivation of GM crops next to vineyards as the quality of wine could be affected by their proximity to the engineered strains.

"The legally soundest solution we envisage is a set of minor amendments to relevant EU legislation, which should introduce the right of an individual member state to restrict or prohibit indefinitely the cultivation of authorised GMOs on its territory," the note reads. "Such an 'opt-out' clause could be formulated in quite straightforward legal terms and could easily be integrated into the existing legislation."

But while the proposal is based on a socioeconomic rationale, the note acknowledges that there is currently no methodology available for defining or evaluating the concept. "Such criteria could be discussed and agreed upon during the process of discussion on socio-economic aspects that started with the adoption of the Council conclusions of 2008," the note reads.

Currently, only one crop - MON810, a maize variety distributed by the company Monsanto - has been approved for cultivation in the EU. However, the EU's failure to lift national bans in France and Greece in February led to a string of similar initiatives around the Union. In addition to the two countries, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg, and Germany now have national bans on cultivating MON810.

Biotech giant Monsanto has been frustrated by the spread of GM restrictions in Europe and has launched legal action against Germany over its ban (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 1 May 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/45945/).

The current bans take advantage of a temporary 'safeguard clause' that allows EU states to implement restrictions or bans if the country determines that there is a risk to human health or the environment. The new Austrian proposal aims to replace the safeguard clauses, which must be perpetually renewed, with a more permanent solution.

While the proposal seeks to facilitate national bans on GM cultivation, some environmentalists have expressed concerns with the bill. "We're not very enthusiastic about the proposal," said Corinna Zerger, the Green Party's Advisor on Food Safety and Quality. Zerger says that allowing countries to decide their own biotech policy will allow GM cultivation to continue in biotech-friendly EU countries.

The other countries supporting the Austrian proposal are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, and Slovenia.

Additional information

Austria's proposal, 'Genetically Modified Organisms - A Way Forward', can be accessed here: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st11/st11226-re01.en09.pdf

Movie, 'Food, Inc.' Chews Up Monsanto, Agribusiness Cousins

St. Louis Post-Dispatch [USA], 26 June 2009. By Georgina Gustin:
http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=14480

The movie "Food, Inc." begins in the aisles of a grocery store, then eventually makes its way through Southern chicken coops, western feedlots and Indiana cornfields.

The film ventures into hog slaughterhouses, through the hallways of Congress and to a celebrated farm in Virginia, exploring how food makes its way to American dining tables and skewering the industrialized food system along the way.

It's not a scenic drive. The documentary attempts to demonstrate that the food Americans eat is largely controlled by a handful of corporations -- and all at the expense of the environment, human health and the economic well-being of farmers.

Today, the movie makes its debut in the St. Louis area, home to one of the film's primary targets -- Creve Coeur-based Monsanto.

And the world's largest seed company isn't happy.

Monsanto is portrayed as a Goliath that owns American crop farmers. Since the movie began a limited release, the company has been quick to defend itself. It launched a section of its website dedicated to the film, saying it demonizes American farmers and contains factual errors.

"We realized we needed to respond," said Brad Mitchell, the company's director of public affairs. "It's a selective portrayal of information."

The filmmakers say they set out to lift the veil on our nation's food industry, and the movie is a fair and accurate depiction. Critics around the country have raved. The New York Times called the film "one of the scariest movies of the year."

"Our food is fundamentally different than it used to be," Robert Kenner, the film's director, told the Post-Dispatch this week. "But there's this illusion that it comes from a farm with a white picket fence and red barn."

Monsanto officials did not appear in the film. Kenner and the film's producer, Elise Pearlstein, said this week that they repeatedly tried to get company officials to participate, but they declined.

"We questioned their objectivity," Mitchell said. "Would we do it on their terms? No."

Instead, Monsanto invited the filmmakers to interview company officials at a trade show run by commodity groups. Kenner said they were denied press credentials by the show's operators. When contacted this week, the show's operators said they don't have records on rejected press requests.

Many farmers likely haven't seen the film yet because it hasn't made its way out of larger cities. But the documentary has incited some farmers, who, along with food activists, have filled blogs and social media sites with debate and rancor.

"The thing the film does is attempt to pit everyone against the agribusiness sector," said Trent Loos, a cattle and goat rancher in central Nebraska, who runs a nonprofit organization called Faces of Ag. "Farmers understand we have to work in conjunction with agribusiness."

Loos said he had not seen the film and was basing his opinions on the movie's trailer and a television interview with Kenner, as well as one of the films primary voices, the author Michael Pollan.

"Basically they're implying we need to go back 80 years," Loos said. "Kenner thinks he's siding with farmers and he's not. He's ignoring the farmers' willingness in implementing the science and technology in today's food system."

The film suggests that farmers have been victimized by Monsanto, which has aggressively pursued violators of its patented seed.

Monsanto officials emphasized that farmers sign contracts when they plant the company's seeds and that reusing them is illegal. Mitchell notes that the film focuses only on farmers who have had "unpleasant legal dealings" with Monsanto.

"We have 250,000 farmer customers in the U.S.," Mitchell said. "We've filed lawsuits 129 times in the last 10 years, and we've settled all with the exception of nine cases, and we've prevailed in all of those."

Kenner and Pearlstein said that the movie is entirely accurate and that Monsanto has not pursued them for any inaccuracies.

"We tried to treat everybody as fairly as possible, and we would've done that with Monsanto," Kenner said, adding that Monsanto's website disputes points the movie doesn't try to make.

Kenner said he hopes that farmers will see the film and decide whether, indeed, they are being unfairly demonized as Monsanto suggests.

"I appeal to all farmers who think we've done them wrong to see the film."

25 June 2009

2953rd Council meeting Environment Luxembourg, 25 June 2009

Europa Press Releases RAPID, 25 June 2009:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=PRES/09/190&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

2953rd Council meeting Environment Luxembourg, 25 June 2009

[Extract only]:

Genetically modified organisms

The Austrian delegation intervened on the basis of a note ( 11226/2/09 REV 2 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st11/st11226-re02.en09.pdf ) concerning policy options for the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the EU. Austria, supported by a large number of delegations, argued that individual member states should be enabled to prohibit or regulate the cultivation of GMOs throughout the whole territory or in certain areas. The way forward described involves agreeing on socio-economic criteria for this, as well as on a set of minor amendments to relevant EU legislation. The member states supporting this initiative urged the Commission to put forward a proposal and possible additional options.

Canadian farmers opposed to GM wheat: survey

Reuters, June 25 2009. By By Rod Nickel:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE55O2Z620090625

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan - Canadian farmers oppose the introduction of genetically modified wheat until market conditions change, a Canadian Wheat Board survey has found.

In the CWB's annual survey of 1,300 Western Canadian farmers, only 9 percent said GMO wheat should be grown as soon as it's available, with the majority saying it shouldn't be grown until conditions are met such as proving benefits to farmers and demonstrating market demand. Nineteen percent said it should not be grown in Canada.

Farmers were close to evenly split when asked how interested they are in growing GM wheat. Fifty-one percent said they're not interested, with 46 percent very or somewhat interested.

"My sense is that farmers are mostly taking an economic look at it," said CWB chairman Larry Hill, a farmer in the western province of Saskatchewan. "They're pretty aware that there's not major acceptance by customers and if it's going to be introduced they want to be sure it's going to make them money."

Canadian farmers grow other GMO crops, particularly canola, but there's greater sensitivity around wheat because it's a direct human food ingredient unlike canola which is crushed for vegetable oil or biofuel, Hill said.

Debate about genetically modified wheat resurfaced in May when farmer groups in the top wheat-exporting countries of Canada, the United States and Australia jointly called for synchronized production of GMO wheat. Other farm and environmental groups later issued a joint statement of opposition.

A new publicly funded academic study, to be published this week in the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research, shows Canadian farmers were overwhelmingly opposed in 2004 to Monsanto's aborted proposal for herbicide-resistant genetically modified wheat.

That study surveyed 1,566 Prairie farmers five years ago and found 83 percent disagreed Roundup-Ready wheat should be commercially developed. Farmers felt the benefits of Roundup-Ready wheat outweighed the risks of losing markets, increasing corporate control of the food supply and contamination of non-GMO crops, said Ian Mauro, the lead author and a post-doctoral fellow at University of Victoria in British Columbia.

"All of the research indicates that the marketplace is very sensitive to any GM trait and what we found is farmers are concerned about market risks," Mauro said. "Although we've identified the risks specific to Roundup-Ready wheat, I can definitely see that many of them could apply to other GM wheat."

The Roundup-Ready wheat survey is irrelevant today because five years have passed and Monsanto is no longer pursuing that or any GMO wheat, said Trish Jordan, the company's spokeswoman in Canada. The CWB's results aren't surprising because no private companies are known to be developing GMO wheat, she said.

"In the absence of having that information (on potential GMO benefits) it's very difficult for a farmer to decide," Jordan said, adding that market acceptance would also be critical.

Syngenta AG, the world's largest agrochemical group, said in February it's not actively pursuing genetically modified wheat because of consumer resistance.

(Editing by John Picinich)

EU countries should be able to ban genetically modified plants

GMO Compass, 25 June 2009:
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/453.docu.html

The Member States of the EU should decide for themselves in the future whether to permit the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) plants. At their meeting in Luxembourg on 25 June, EU ministers for the environment discussed among other issues this proposal raised by Austria and other countries. No concrete decisions were made.

The document was presented as an Austrian initiative and suggests that GM plants continue to be approved in the EU in general according to actual legal regulations but that individual countries nonetheless be allowed to prohibit the cultivation of the plants in question on the national level. The "gene-technology-friendly" Netherlands already had advanced a similar idea in March.

National cultivation bans are expected to be valid for an unlimited period of time. Furthermore, it is suggested that the EU Commission prepare a list of "socio-economic criteria" that may be cited in the justification of a national ban.

Currently, EU regulations allow a cultivation ban only in the case that a Member State is presented with new scientific findings that support doubt with regard to the safety of a GM plant. A national ban then is regarded as an effective measure towards the protection of the consumer or the environment from a newly recognised risk.

To date, numerous EU countries have made use of this prohibition clause. The most recent example is the German ban of MON810 maize.

The reasons given for such bans must be checked for soundness by the panel of experts at EFSA who are responsible for gene technology. At present, all national bans have been rebutted as scientifically unsound. However, the necessary majority was not reached at the requisite ballots in the council of ministers in order to enforce a removal of the bans.

Despite the European domestic market and common legal regulations agreed upon by all Member States, the cultivation of MON810 is allowed in some EU countries and not in others. The Austrian proposal would legalise this long-existing political reality. Each national government then could issue primarily politically-motivated cultivation bans without being obliged to deliver a scientific substantiation of new risks.

In Luxembourg, the ministers of the environment acknowledged the proposal. Other countries including Germany and France signalised their support. Nonetheless, no formal decisions were made. In any case, only the EU Commission may introduce changes to the existent legislation, with which the EU Parliament and Member States must be in agreement.

Austria proposes GMO 'opt-out' clause

EurActiv.com, 25 June 2009:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/austria-proposes-gmo-opt-clause/article-183467

After a debate on environmental risks related to the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Austria is now calling for an opt-out clause to be introduced to related EU legislation to allow individual member states to decide on cultivation.

The issue has been added to the agenda of a meeting of EU environment ministers today (25 June) in Luxembourg.

As authorisation of GMOs still remains problematic, the Austrian delegation has submitted a note http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st11/st11226-re01.en09.pdf to ministers on the "way forward" on the issue.

The delegation argues that "relevant socio-economic aspects could form a basis for individual member states to prohibit or regulate the cultivation of GMOs on the whole territory, or certain defined areas, of individual member states".

This view is officially supported by Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovenia.

However, as there is currently no methodology available for defining and evaluating socio-economic criteria, Austria proposes that such criteria could be agreed upon "during the process of discussion on socio-economic aspects" that were started under French EU Presidency last year (EurActiv 09/12/09 http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/eu-ministers-back-gmo-free-zones/article-177557).

One example of socio-economic criteria could be forbidding the cultivation of GM crops next to vineyards, the GM contamination of which could affect the quality of wine, a diplomat explained.

The Austrian note stresses that the development of socio-economic criteria should consider options which could allow member states to decide for themselves on cultivation "without changing the general authorisation procedure for placing GMOs and products on the market".

"The legally soundest solution" could be a set of minor amendments to relevant EU legislation, introducing the right of an individual country to "restrict or prohibit indefinitely the cultivation of authorised GMOs on its territory," reads the note. Such amendments could be based on both the EU's subsidiarity principle and the principle of unanimity for decisions on land use.

"Such an 'opt-out' clause could be formulated in quite straightforward legal terms and could easily be integrated into the existing legislation," concludes the note.

Last March, a declaration by the Dutch delegation proposed to separate the market authorisation of GMOs from their cultivation and give member states total control over decisions on the latter.

Links

European Union

•

Council: Genetically Modified Organisms - A Way Forward - Information from the Austrian delegation Pdf (23 June 2009) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st11/st11226-re01.en09.pdf

•

Commission: Biotechnology http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm

•

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): GMO - Genetically Modified Organism http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/ScientificPanels/efsa_locale-1178620753812_GMO.htm

Blogs

•

Julien Frisch: Genetically manipulated organisms in the EU: Subsidiarity and banning http://julienfrisch.blogspot.com/2009/06/genetically-manipulated-organisms-in-eu.html

GRDC working against farmers

Note from GM Watch: The following letter details how corporates such as Monsanto will eventually control the global food supply. It also explains why governments are supporting GM. It was printed in both main West Australian rural papers, the Farm Weekly and the Countryman on June 25 2009. GRDC is the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

GRDC working against farmers

Farmers are forced to pay GRDC almost $80 million/year by a research and development levy on all grain produced. GRDC funding is taken for granted by the research sector and naturally everyone on the GRDC gravy train will be very precious towards any critical scrutiny of GRDC and they have the money to deflect criticism.

Farmers need to ask why we do not own the intellectual property we pay for and why we are not given the same 125% tax benefit for R&D that apply to other business enterprises. Federal government policies dictate the direction of GRDC funding which is to promote corporate investment to research and to capitalise on existing government investments. Despite farmers contributing around 70% of the GRDC budget, both Federal and State governments promote GRDC funding as their own government contribution to agriculture and both are cutting their own funding.

In recent years, our plant breeding research and development sector has been commercialised and commercial partners plan to make very good profits from a previously unprofitable industry. GRDC's priority is to assist its research partners to be "self funded through revenues from end point royalties" which are deducted from farmers grain payments on delivery. GRDC now only funds pre-breeding which was previously only funded by governments.

GRDC's strategic plan 2007-2012 details the drive to increase profits from farmers, not for farmers. The target aim is to increase wheat yields by only 1% which is far less value than our payments. The strategy to drive efficiency gains is to be achieved by pushing a path to market for GM crops, improving the efficiency of end point royalty collection from farmers and to "explore grower contracts that allow increased adoption of new plant varieties" which indicates moves to restrict farmers ability to replant our own seeds through the contracts associated with new varieties. If the commercial research sector forces farmers to buy new seed every year through lack of choice, they can dictate what seeds are available and increase the costs and onerous contracts involved.

All WA public plant breeders have since formed a wheat breeding alliance called Intergrain and their past collective intellectual property now belongs to Intergrain, based at Murdoch University which arranges alliances with corporate business partners. The sole seed distributor is Cropcare, a fully owned subsidiary of Monsanto's Australian alliance partner Nufarm.

It was Intergrain that killed the variety Carnamah by the sudden introduction of EPR's and Intergrain that is introducing contracts to stipulate sole marketers for new varieties. What restrictive commercial contracts will we see in the future despite using our GRDC funds to develop new varieties?

It appears that our reseach sector has sold out to corporates and farmers could effectively be forced to be contract growers for their supply chain. I strongly object to being forced to fund GRDC and GM crops when this money is used against farmer choice and profitability.

Julie Newman
66 North Rd
Newdegate, 6355
WA
08 98711562

2008/09 Priorities
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/654543/2008-09-grdc.pdf

2007-12 Strategic direction
http://www.grdc.com.au/uploads/documents/GRDC%20Strategic%20R&D%20Plan%202007-12.pdf

24 June 2009

Monsanto sees Roundup annual gross profit halving

Reuters, 24 June 2009. By Carey Gillam:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN2417532920090624

NEW YORK - Monsanto Co (MON.N) will see gross profit from its Roundup herbicide business drop by half to about $1 billion annually because of increased competition, the company said on Wednesday.

The business, once a core money-maker for Monsanto, should fall from about $2 billion in gross profit this fiscal year to $1 billion by 2012 and in the future should amount to less than 15 percent of the company's total gross profit, Chairman Hugh Grant said.

Company officials said they were creating a separate division for the herbicide business to help stabilize and better align spending and working capital needs.

They did not rule out eventual divestiture but said they were focused on stabilizing the business.

Monsanto Executive Vice President Carl Casale said the pace and magnitude of the competition in the sector had surprised the company as the price gap between its glyphosate herbicide offering and competitors grew from about 50 cents per acre last fall to more than $2 currently.

As a result, volume sales of Roundup have been steadily sliding this year. Monsanto said herbicide values had dropped to $3 a kilo from $10 last year.

Total volume sales for the quarter were down 28 million gallons and company officials said 2009 should be the peak for this business, with competition remaining tight.

"What we are facing is a changing supply environment," said Casale. "Our goal now is to manage the volatility."

The company had previously forecast Roundup gross profit annually at $1.9 billion based on a competitive price of $6.00 per kilo. The company now is basing its forecast of $1 billion in annual gross profit on a price of $3 a kilo. In August of last year, the price per kilo was $10.

The slide in herbicide revenue comes as Monsanto continues to strengthen its position as a leading global developer of genetically modified seeds for corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops.

Officials said strong growth in those businesses should keep the company on track to increase gross profits companywide to a range of $8.6 billion to $8.8 billion by 2012 from $4.2 billion in 2007. (Reporting by Carey Gillam, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Federal Court Upholds Ban on Genetically Engineered Alfalfa
• Appeals Court Rules Planting of Biotech Crop Can Cause Irreversible Harm to Organic and Conventional Crops, Farmers, and the Environment. Monsanto's Petition to Rehear Denied in Full

Center for Food Safety [USA] press release, 24 June 2009:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/GE%20crops_alfalfaPR6_24_09.cfm

June 24, 2009 - In a decision handed down here today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has re-affirmed its previous decision upholding a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers.

Although the suit was brought against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In September 2008 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, but the Intervenors continued to press the appeal alone, requesting the appellate court to rehear the case. Today's decision denied that request and re-affirmed the earlier decision in full.

"This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers' livelihoods and the environment; the court rightly dismissed Monsanto's claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and America's farmers. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country."

Today's decision again upholds District Court Judge Charles Breyer's earlier ruling of May 2007, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. The Ninth Circuit decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement.

The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms. For more information, please visit http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Contact

The Center for Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #302
Washington DC 20003
P: (202)547-9359, F: (202)547-9429
office@centerforfoodsafety.org

A closer look at the proposed EU opt-outs for GM plants

TraceConsult™ [Switzerland], 24 June 2009:
http://www.traceconsult.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=47&Itemid=50&lang=en

Geneva - Tomorrow, on 25th June, in the round of the EU Council of Environmental Ministers, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovenia will table a proposal that is to entitle Member States to ban GMOs on their territory that have already been approved by the EU. For the time being, the Environmental Ministers are debating, i.e. they will not yet vote on the proposal. Originally, the Netherlands were also behind this deal, but as it appears now, this Member State does not support the proposal any further.

Quoting a little from the Note 11226/1/09 of 23 June 2009 from the Council to its individual delegations, besides "reasons of nature conservation and biodiversity, the delegations supporting this initiative are of the opinion that relevant socio-economic aspects could form a basis for individual Member States to prohibit or regulate the cultivation of GMOs on the whole territory, or certain defined areas, of individual Member States. However, there is currently no methodology available for defining and evaluating socio-economic criteria. Such criteria could be discussed and agreed upon ..." In order to understand all this a little better it is good to know some further background:

There is hardly ever a sufficient majority in the Council of Ministers for the approval of a new GMO variety. In the end, the decision lies with the EU Commission. As history has shown, the Commission always nods its approval. After their futile attempt in March (see eNews http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKBRU00731420090302 by TraceConsult of 02 March 2009) to revoke the national planting bans for MON810 corn in Austria and Hungary, the Commission and the Council began looking for a way out of the constant haggling.

The Netherlands, a fervent biotechnology promoter, have the following vision: If the Member States are authorized to issue their individual national planting bans then they will vote for an approval on the EU level. The Austrians, however, want self-determination. They probably cannot believe in the schizophrenic situation favored by the Dutch, that a given Member State will vote for an approval in the Council of Ministers and then turn around and issue a ban at home.

The upside to this approach is probably that the responsibility for the approval for the planting of a GM variety is to return to the Member States, meaning they will decide on it instead of the EU Commission. A country's vote for a GMO approval on the EU level, while issuing a ban domestically, however, would be quite assailable politically.

Therefore it remains to be seen whether the Dutch reckoning will work out. Perhaps they have already figured this out on their own and have therefore withdrawn their initial support for tomorrow's proposal.

23 June 2009

11 EU member states issue proposal to ban GM crops:

Council of the European Union
Brussels, 23 June 2009
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st11/st11226-re01.en09.pdf

11226/1/09
REV 1

ENV 453
AGRI 276
AGRILEG 112

NOTE

from : General Secretariat
to : Delegations
Subject : Genetically Modified Organisms - A Way Forward
- Information from the Austrian delegation

Delegations will find annexed a note from the Austrian delegation, supported by BG/IE/EL/CY/LV/LT/HU/MT/PL/SI, on the above subject, which will be dealt with under "other business" at the meeting of the Council (Environment) on 25 June 2009.
ANNEX

Genetically Modified Organisms - A Way Forward

Note submitted by the Austrian delegation, supported by Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovenia

Background

The authorisation of GMOs is one of those rare subjects of EU legislation where no qualified majority has been achieved in recent years. In accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC on Committee Procedure and in the absence of a qualified majority, it has primarily been the European Commission which has adopted decisions for the authorisation of GMOs.

On four occasions, a qualified majority in Council voted against EC proposals to lift the safeguard clauses invoked with regard to certain GMOs by several Member States: in June 2005, in December 2006, in February 2007 and most recently in March 2009. These safeguard clauses concerned in particular GMOs approved for cultivation.

The French EU Presidency showed great initiative by establishing the Ad hoc Council Working Party on GMOs in the second half of 2008, which resulted in unanimous Council conclusions on 4 December 2008. These Council conclusions called inter alia for a strengthening of environmental risk assessment, more freedom for Member States to decide upon GMO-free zones on their national territory and the appraisal of socio-economic benefits and risks.

The Netherlands delegation came up with a declaration at the last Environment Council on 2 March 2009 calling for Member States to have the right to decide for themselves on the cultivation of GMOs. The delegations cited above appreciate this initiative and are willing to develop it further in order to find a satisfactory long-term solution.

The Way Forward

Given the unsatisfactory situation and the negative attitude towards GMOs of large parts of the population in many Member States, the time has come to find a new approach to deal with the authorisation and use of GMOs in agriculture.

In addition to reasons of nature conservation and biodiversity, the delegations supporting this initiative are of the opinion that relevant socio-economic aspects could form a basis for individual Member States to prohibit or regulate the cultivation of GMOs on the whole territory, or certain defined areas, of individual Member States. However, there is currently no methodology available for defining and evaluating socio-economic criteria. Such criteria could be discussed and agreed upon during the process of discussion on socio-economic aspects that started with the adoption of the Council conclusions of 2008.

In anticipation of the development of socio-economic criteria, we believe that options should be considered which could allow Member States to decide for themselves as regards cultivation, without changing the general authorisation procedure for placing GMOs and products thereof on the market. In this context it should be noted that the Commission has started a process to re-evaluate the respective Regulations on GMOs, i.e. Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

The legally soundest solution we envisage is a set of minor amendments to relevant EU legislation, which should introduce the right of an individual Member State to restrict or prohibit indefinitely the cultivation of authorised GMOs on its territory. The amendments could be based on the subsidiarity principle (Article 5 TEC) and the principle of unanimity for decisions on land use (Article 175 TEC). Such an "opt-out" clause could be formulated in quite straightforward legal terms and could easily be integrated into the existing legislation.

The Member States supporting this initiative urge the Commission to put forward a proposal on the basis of this discussion on GMOs and possible additional options, with the common goal of finding a solution acceptable to all Member States as soon as possible.

All Member States supporting this note are willing to discuss any further options and proposals which might arise.

GM contamination

The Scottish Government, 23 June 2009:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/06/23152801

Strict new rules to crack down on those who accidentally pollute the environment through GM contamination come into force today.

They mean Scotland's stance on GM contamination is now much tougher than south of the border, where polluters may be able to exempt themselves from liability.

The Scottish Government has also introduced a measure which means those responsible for GM pollution can be found liable up to 75 years later.

The new rules form part of wider regulations designed to get tough on those who pollute the environment and ensure they meet the costs of cleaning up the damage.

Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham said:

"The environment is one of Scotland's most valuable assets - it attracts millions of tourists and underpins much of our most iconic produce.

"We therefore simply cannot afford to run the risk of permanently tainting it by gambling with GM.

"Scotland must remain GM-free and that means putting in place tough regulations which make clear our zero tolerance stance and send out a strong message that the polluter must pay if accidental contamination occurs."

Last year, corrective action had to be taken after trial sowings of a new variety of oilseed rape in Scotland were found to contain small amounts of unauthorised GM material. The seed was destroyed and further sowings of the seed were halted.

The Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009 have been signed today and transpose the European Environmental Liability Directive into Scots law. The Regulations apply to incidents which cause significant damage to land, water or biodiversity and are based on the 'polluter pays' principle.

In England, GM polluters will be allowed to mount a 'state of the art' or 'permit' defence. This will not be the case in Scotland. Scotland has also chosen to allow action to be taken up to 75 years after the offence.

Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells
• Used in gardens, farms, and parks around the world, the weed killer Roundup contains an ingredient that can suffocate human cells in a laboratory, researchers say

Scientific American, 23 June 2009:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p

Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup's inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

The new findings intensify a debate about so-called "inerts" - the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States.Ý About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.

Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup's inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells-even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.

One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself - a finding the researchers call "astonishing."

"This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert," wrote the study authors from France's University of Caen. "Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels" found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.

The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.

Monsanto, Roundup's manufacturer, contends that the methods used in the study don't reflect realistic conditions and that their product, which has been sold since the 1970s, is safe when used as directed. Hundreds of studies over the past 35 years have addressed the safety of glyphosate.

"Roundup has one of the most extensive human health safety and environmental data packages of any pesticide that's out there," said Monsanto spokesman John Combest. "It's used in public parks, it's used to protect schools. There's been a great deal of study on Roundup, and we're very proud of its performance."

The EPA considers glyphosate to have low toxicity when used at the recommended doses.

"Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern," said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The EPA classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means there is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans.

In addition, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture both recognize POEA as an inert ingredient. Derived from animal fat, POEA is allowed in products certified organic by the USDA. The EPA has concluded that it is not dangerous to public health or the environment.

The French team, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a University of Caen molecular biologist, said its results highlight the need for health agencies to reconsider the safety of Roundup.

"The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures," Seralini's team wrote.

Controversy about the safety of the weed killer recently erupted in Argentina, one of the world's largest exporters of soy.

Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina's Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. Since specific herbicide formulations are protected as trade secrets, manufacturers aren't required to publicly disclose them. Although Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, several other manufacturers sell similar herbicides with different inert ingredients.

The term "inert ingredient" is often misleading, according to Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization. Federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that don't harm pests as "inert," she said. Inert compounds, therefore, aren't necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless - they simply don't kill insects or weeds.

Kemery said the EPA takes into account the inert ingredients and how the product is used, whenever a pesticide is approved for use. The aim, he said, is to ensure that "if the product is used according to labeled directions, both people's health and the environment will not be harmed." One label requirement for Roundup is that it should not be used in or near freshwater to protect amphibians and other wildlife.

But some inert ingredients have been found to potentially affect human health. Many amplify the effects of active ingredients by helping them penetrate clothing, protective equipment and cell membranes, or by increasing their toxicity. For example, a Croatian team recently found that an herbicide formulation containing atrazine caused DNA damage, which can lead to cancer, while atrazine alone did not.

POEA was recognized as a common inert ingredient in herbicides in the 1980s, when researchers linked it to a group of poisonings in Japan. Doctors there examined patients who drank Roundup, either intentionally or accidentally, and determined that their sicknesses and deaths were due to POEA, not glyphosate.

POEA is a surfactant, or detergent, derived from animal fat. It is added to Roundup and other herbicides to help them penetrate plants' surfaces, making the weed killer more effective.

"POEA helps glyphosate interact with the surfaces of plant cells," explained Negin Martin, a scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina, who was not involved in the study. POEA lowers water's surface tension--the property that makes water form droplets on most surfaces--which helps glyphosate disperse and penetrate the waxy surface of a plant.

In the French study, researchers tested four different Roundup formulations, all containing POEA and glyphosate at concentrations below the recommended lawn and agricultural dose. They also tested POEA and glyphosate separately to determine which caused more damage to embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

Glyphosate, POEA and all four Roundup formulations damaged all three cell types. Umbilical cord cells were especially sensitive to POEA. Glyphosate became more harmful when combined with POEA, and POEA alone was more deadly to cells than glyphosate. The research appears in the January issue of the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.

By using embryonic and placental cell lines, which multiply and respond to chemicals rapidly, and fresh umbilical cord cells, Seralini's team was able to determine how the chemicals combine to damage cells.

The two ingredients work together to "limit breathing of the cells, stress them and drive them towards a suicide," Seralini said.

The research was funded in part by France's Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, a scientific committee that investigates risks associated with genetically modified organisms. One of Roundup's primary uses is on crops that are genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate.

Monsanto scientists argue that cells in Seralini's study were exposed to unnaturally high levels of the chemicals. "It's very unlike anything you'd see in real-world exposure. People's cells are not bathed in these things," said Donna Farmer, another toxicologist at Monsanto.

Seralini's team, however, did study multiple concentrations of Roundup. These ranged from the typical agricultural or lawn dose down to concentrations 100,000 times more dilute than the products sold on shelves. The researchers saw cell damage at all concentrations.

Monsanto scientists also question the French team's use of laboratory cell lines.

"These are just not very good models of a whole organism, like a human being," said Dan Goldstein, a toxicologist with Monsanto.

Goldstein said humans have protective mechanisms that resist substances in the environment, such as skin and the lining of the gastrointestinal tract, which constantly renew themselves. "Those phenomena just don't happen with isolated cells in a Petri dish."

But Cox, who studies pesticides and their inert ingredients at the Oakland environmental group, says lab experiments like these are important in determining whether a chemical is safe.

"We would never consider it ethical to test these products on people, so we're obliged to look at their effects on other species and in other systems," she said. "There's really no way around that."

Seralini said the cells used in the study are widely accepted in toxicology as good models for studying the toxicity of chemicals.

"The fact is that 90 percent of labs studying mechanisms of toxicity or physiology use cell lines," he said.

Most research has examined glyphosate alone, rather than combined with Roundup's inert ingredients. Researchers who have studied Roundup formulations have drawn conclusions similar to the Seralini group's. For example, in 2005, University of Pittsburg ecologists added Roundup at the manufacturer's recommended dose to ponds filled with frog and toad tadpoles. When they returned two weeks later, they found that 50 to 100 percent of the populations of several species of tadpoles had been killed.

A group of over 250 environmental, health and labor organizations has petitioned the EPA to change requirements for identifying pesticides' inert ingredients. The agency's decision is due this fall.

"It would be a big step for the agency to take," said Cox. "But it's one they definitely should."

The groups claim that the laws allowing manufacturers to keep inert ingredients secret from competitors are essentially unnecessary. Companies can determine a competitor's inert ingredients through routine lab analyses, said Cox. "The proprietary protection laws really only keep information from the public," she said.

This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.

Puerto Rico: Biotech Island
• Frankencrop Experimentation in the Caribbean

Counter Punch [USA], 23 June 2009. By Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ruiz06232009.html

In the global debate regarding genetically modified (GM) foods and organisms (GMO's), the little-known role of the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico in testing and propagating GM crops has gone largely unnoticed and unexamined. The agricultural biotechnology activity in this tropical US colony is simply massive.

"Puerto Rico attracts agricultural biotechnology companies because of the tropical climate that permits up to four harvests yearly and the willingness of the government to fast-track permits", according to professors Margarita Irizarry and JosÈ Rodríguez Orengo, of the University of Puerto Rico's Medical Sciences Campus. "Furthermore, the opposition to GM foods is almost non-existent on the island and no particular environmental group is protesting the presence of Dow, Syngenta Seeds, Pioneer HiBred, Mycogen Seeds, Rice Tech, AgReliant Genetics, Bayer Croposcience, and Monsanto."

Since 2004 we at the Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety have been trying to find out just what is going on in our land regarding GM crops. We have obtained very little information so far, but what little we have managed to get is quite worrying.

The most recent US Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) data we have obtained show that as of January 2005 it had authorized 1,330 field releases for experimental GM crops in the island, which resulted in 3,483 field tests. Of the field releases, 944 were for corn, 262 for soy, 99 for cotton, 15 for rice, 8 for tomato, 1 for papaya and 1 for tobacco. According to the documentation, these releases were being authorized as early as 1987, almost a full decade before US authorities permitted GM foods for human consumption. Where in Puerto Rico exactly? What traits have been tested? The BRS says it's all "confidential business information".

With the sole exception of Hawai'i, no state in the USA has had so many GM crop experiments per square mile. The only ones that had more field tests than Puerto Rico's 3,483 were Hawai'i (5,413), Illinois (5,092) and Iowa (4,659). Keep in mind that Puerto Rico has less than 4,000 square miles, whereas Illinois and Iowa each have over 50,000 square miles. Puerto Rico surpassed California by far, which had only 1,964 field tests, although California is 40 times larger.

These data, of course, must be updated. We have been walking around with these and showing them to everyone for four years now. But we do not see any reason to believe that the situation has significantly changed since 2005.

It must be pointed out that not all the GM crop activity in our territory is experimental. There is also commercial GM production, about which we know even less. Commercial GM crop production is exported to the US- and who knows where else- for use as seed.

Most of these crops are planted in the southern plains, between the municipalities of Juana Díaz and Guayama, and especially concentrated in the stretch of land between the towns of Santa Isabel and Salinas, south of expressway 52 and north of route 1. Various eyewitnesses have told us that security in these lands is extreme. You cannot even stop your car alongside these fields without having policemen show up and ask you what your business is. And no, you cannot film or even take photos. They claim to be concerned about theft of crops. While we acknowledge that theft- of both produce and machinery- is one of the most serious problems facing Puerto Rican agriculture today, we also note that no other farming operations in the island enjoy such dilligent police protection.

GM crops can also be found in the northwest town of Isabela, where Monsanto Caribbean has an experimental station right on the south side of highway #2. Plus, we would not be surprised at all to find more of these crops in the fertile and bountiful Lajas valley, in Puerto Rico's southwest, possibly the very best farmland in the whole island.

Successive governments of both major political parties, the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and the New Progressive Party (NPP), have put biotechnology at the center of their strategies for attracting investment. From the Cold War days of the manufacture boom, known as "Operation Bootstrap", we have moved on to biotechnology, both agricultural and pharmaceutical, with pompous slogans like "The Knowledge Economy" and "Mentes a la Obra" (Operation Mindstrap?). The Puerto Rico Industrial Development Corporation markets Puerto Rico as the "Bio-Island" and agressively sells investors on the advantages and desirability of setting up biotech operations in the island.

The life sciences industry, which is how the biotech corporate giants like to call themselves, are very grateful for Puerto Rico's fine investment climate. In 2006, then-governor Aníbal Acevedo-Vil· (PDP) was named "governor of the year" by the Biotechnology Industry Association in its annual convention in Chicago.

In January 2009 senator Berdiel Rivera (NPP) introduced bill #202, which aims to promote agricultural biotechnology. As if the biotech corporations needed any more support than they have already gotten from the PR government in the last 20+ years!

Mr. Rivera and his fellow senators who support Senate bill 202 should take notice of GM-related developments outside the island. Just in May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine declared that GM foods pose a serious health risk. Referring to a number of studies, the Academy concluded that "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health."

And 2008 saw the release of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report (IAASTD), a unique, unprecedented and definitive report on the state of world agriculture. It was authored by over 400 international experts, subjected to two independent peer reviews, and was the product of an inclusive and participatory process in which industry, governments and civil society participated as equal partners, with the support of UN agencies and the World Bank.

The report concluded, in a nutshell, that the model of industrial, corporate, globalized agriculture cannot continue, as it is unsustainable and is literally eating up the planet's patrimony, and favors in its stead small-scale agroecological production that uses local resources and minimizes the use of fossil fuel-based inputs- precisely what environmentalists and organic farmers had been advocating for decades.

With regards to biotechnology and GM crops, the IAASTD report was cautious and unenthusiastic. Instead of the uncritical cheering one hears from governments and the mainstream media, the report counseled caution and called for further studies regarding GM foods' safety.

And while all over the world the safety and necessity of GM crops and foods is increasingly questioned, over here in Puerto Rico our government is selling us this technology as if it were the last coke bottle in the desert.

Some well-intended folks have argued to us that Senate bill 202 will regulate GM crop activity in Puerto Rico and that this is preferrable to having these crops without any regulation or control. But this technology cannot be controled. Once planted outdoors, GM crops cannot be controlled or recalled. They proliferate and multiply, as living things will. No country that has allowed the entrance of GM crops has been able to control them. Therefore, bill #202 will only further legitimize and entrench this dangerous and unnecessary technology in Puerto Rico.

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero, journalist, author and unintentional comedian, directs the Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety. The Puerto Rico Biosafety Project's bilingual blog can be accessed at: http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/

Sources:

American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Position paper on genetically modified foods, May 2009. http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

Biotechnology Industry Organization. "BIO names Puerto Rico governor 'Governor of the Year'", April 10 2006.

IAASTD Report, 2008. http://www.agassessment.org/

M. Irizarry and J. Rodríguez-Orengo. "Biotechnology in Puerto Rico: Educational and Ethical Implications", 2009.

TexPIRG Education Fund. "Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States", 2005.

22 June 2009

EU proposal for national opt-outs on GM crops

FoodNavigator.com, 22 June 2009. By Rory Harrington:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/EU-proposal-for-national-opt-outs-on-GM-crops/?c=4UZvOL3vyw3p1h999H%2BF3g%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

A proposal to allow individual countries in the European Union to opt out of growing genetically modified (GM) crops is to be tabled this week at a top-level meeting at the European Commission.

The bid for GM national self-determination comes as 11 nations plan to present a paper at the Environment Council on Thursday as a way to end the deadlock on GM authorisations that have frustrated EU member states and industry players alike for a number of years.

Individual countries to decide

Citing opposition amongst national populations, the proposal calls for a rethink on the process to sanction GM products.

The document, co-written by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and the Netherlands, says: "Given the unsatisfactory situation and the negative attitude towards GMOs of large parts of the population in many member states, time has come to find a new approach to deal with the authorisation and use of GMOs in agriculture.

"The legally soundest solution we envisage is a set of minor amendments of relevant EU legislation, which should introduce the right of an individual member state to restrict or prohibit indefinitely the cultivation of authorised GMOs on its territory."

Proposals

The group claims it would be possible to draw up such an opt-out clause and integrate it into the current EU legal framework.

They suggest formulating an inventory of socio-economic criteria that governments of individual member states to employ to "prohibit or regulate" cultivation of GM crops. This could apply to either the whole territory or certain designated areas.

However, before that takes place, the paper proposes that EU Environment ministers look at options that "could enable national self-determination for cultivation, without changing the general authorisation procedure for placing GMOs and products thereof on the market."

Strict rules

Under current regulations, GM products are granted a 10-year licence permitting their cultivation or importation across the entire EU-27 bloc.

However, it is understood there are a number of hurdles that would need to be overcome to make the proposal a reality. Strict rules on the regulation of the EU's single market would make it difficult to change the law and may be viewed by many as setting a dangerous precedent.

Procedurally, the paper for this week's meeting has not been tabled as one on which a decision needs to be made. However, it is understood that the group may view Thursday's move as a way to register the proposal in the minds of the membership of the Environment Council, with a view to bringing forward a more formal motion in future.

21 June 2009

EU to examine national opt-outs for GM crops

The Guardian (UK), 21 June 2009. By Jeremy Smith:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8569274

BRUSSELS - Eleven European Union countries will call next week for the right to opt-outs for growing genetically modified (GM) crops, to cut through complex EU decision-making and end years of stalemate on biotech policy.

The suggestion, to be floated at a meeting of EU environment ministers in Luxembourg on Thursday, would be for governments to restrict cultivation of specific GM crop types if they saw fit.

Even though there will be no decisions taken, the paper authored by the 11 countries is certain to spark a debate on Europe's GM policy. The European Commission, the EU's executive, has already started a review of the two main biotech approvals laws: on cultivation, and imports of GM food and feed products.

The paper was co-written by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and the Netherlands.

"Given the unsatisfactory situation and the negative attitude towards GMOs of large parts of the population in many member states, time has come to find a new approach to deal with the authorisation and use of GMOs in agriculture," it said. "The legally soundest solution we envisage is a set of minor amendments of relevant EU legislation, which should introduce the right of an individual member state to restrict or prohibit indefinitely the cultivation of authorised GMOs on its territory," said the paper, obtained by Reuters.

It would be straightforward to formulate such an 'opt-out' in legal terms and integrate into existing EU laws, it said.

National self-determination

The 11 countries also suggested drawing up a list of socio-economic criteria that national governments could use to "prohibit or regulate" GM crop cultivation on their entire territory, or certain defined areas of it.

But before then, EU environment ministers should consider options which "could enable national self-determination for cultivation, without changing the general authorisation procedure for placing GMOs and products thereof on the market."

At present, any EU licence for import or cultivation of a GM product is for a 10-year period and always applies across all the bloc's 27 member countries.

Even though EU law provides under certain strict conditions for a country to restrict GM crop cultivation or GM product imports, authorisation licences are valid across the bloc -- in accordance with the principles of the single EU internal market.

However, only one GM crop may be grown at present, a maize type developed by U.S. company Monsanto. That has frustrated many pro-biotech EU states, as well as industry, which are keen to see far more European GMO authorisations.

But in practice, to change the EU's strict rules on regulating the internal market would be extremely difficult, diplomats say. It would probably involve EU finance ministers and ruffle the feathers of a number of EU governments.

The European Union has long been split on GM policy and its member states consistently clash over whether to approve new varieties for import -- but without ever reaching a conclusion. (Editing by Rupert Winchester)

19 June 2009

Eleven EU member states want to ban GMOs

GreenPlanet.net, 19 June 2009:
http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/656-eleven-eu-member-states-want-to-ban-gmos.html

Eleven EU countries call for the opportunity "to ban the cultivation of GMOs on their territory": Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands and Slovenia hope that the request is examined by the Ministers of Environment during next Council on June 25 in Luxembourg.

"This is an initiative undertaken by the Federal Republic of Austria, that we support because it goes in the direction desired by GMO-free regions'' said to ANSA Gerald Lonauer, head of the Brussels office of Upper Austria region, that founded - together with Tuscany - the Network of European GMO-free Regions.'' We claim the right at the regional level to decide whether to grow or not GMOs'', he pointed out. Nevertheless, Upper Austria has lost its battle before the EU Court of Justice which was appealed against the Commission's decision to reject the possibility to declare the region as "GMO-free".

Last March 22 Member States rejected the Commission's request to abolish the embargo that Austria and Hungary apply on the cultivation of GM maize type MON810.

Italy, GMO-free fodder is possible

GreenPlanet.net, 19 June 2009:
http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/652-italy-gmo-free-fodder-is-possible-.html

Nourishing livestock with GMO-free fodder is a goal within reach in Italy, according to Emilia Romagna region's councillor for Agriculture Tiberio Rabboni.

During the presentation of the results of a project to increase production of GMO-free vegetable protein to be employed in fodder for livestock, Rabboni claimed: "In Italy it is possible to extend the cultivation of GMO-free crops destined to animal fodder."

The results of this research can make the two targets set by Rabboni possible: reducing dependence from foreign countries and having high quality products.

The study, that lasted three years involving 16 Italian regions, showed the possibility of increasing domestic production of "GMO-free" guaranteed soybean, field bean, pea protein and alfalfa. The results and operative indications are gathered into a manual for farmers that will soon be distributed nationally. "The research - concluded Rabboni - urges the Ministry of Agriculture to implement the National Plan of vegetable proteins which so far is missing: the strength of Italian milk lays in its health."

WWF and Monsanto - is GM soy now okay?

The Ecologist, 19 June 2009. By Stephanie Roth:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/271944/wwf_and_monsanto_is_gm_soy_now_okay.html

Environmental group WWF has faced a barrage of protest for sitting at the table with the likes of Monsanto and Cargill. Has it gone a step too far to appease the multinationals?

Large scale soybean production used for animal feed, biofuels and in food additives has come at a price: millions of hectares of rainforest and other sensitive ecosystems have and are being destroyed. In order to put an end to this the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and others founded the Roundtable on Sustainable Soy in 2004.

Today this initiative is called the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS). It comprises producers, finance, trade & industry representatives, NGOs, certification bodies and universities. Members range from Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill, Bunge to Unilever, Shell, BP, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, WWF and producers such as Gruppo AndrÈ Maggi - the world's largest soybean producer based in Brazil. Its scope http://www.responsiblesoy.org/faq.php is to 'promote responsible soy production irrespective of the type of production model' and to develop a label to certify such soy as 'responsible'. In order to achieve this aim, RTRS organises meetings to eventually reach a voluntary consensus based on several criteria. Its last one took place in May in Campinas, Brazil.

Since its inception the RTRS has come under criticism from NGOs such as Friends of the Earth International, the Global Forest Coalition and farmers associations, which argue that rather than stopping deforestation the RTRS legitimises soy expansion. Furthermore, given that roughly 60 per cent of global soybean production uses genetically modified (GM) beans, endorsing current production systems as 'responsible' effectively means endorsing GM soy production, and giving it the halo of 'responsibility.'

As tends to be the case with monocultures, so argue the critics, soy monocultures cause and increase environmental problems; plagues, soil erosion, loss of agricultural diversity and destruction of regional economies. In the case of GM soy monocultures, they tend to create over-reliance on one herbicide (usually Monsanto's RoundUp), resulting in the development of herbicide-resistant weeds; leading to the use of greater volumes of chemicals to control them. They also make famers dependent on patented product ranges and have been linked with health problems in people exposed to the aerial spraying of herbicides. They question the authentication of this kind of farming under the label 'sustainable'.

On the subject of forests, the RTRS has the following to say: http://www.responsiblesoy.org/faq.php

'The RTRS recognizes the importance of forests, rivers, biodiversity and fragile ecosystem conservation. It stresses the importance of respecting legal limits on deforestation, all conservation areas and international treaties on that matter.'

Those opposed to the intiative say that the companies behind it were supposed to be respecting those laws already, yet the result has been continued deforestation. They argue that 'recognition' and 'respect for' legal limits is far too weak and instead would like to see a stronger commitment and language.

Important issues on how monitoring and enforcement will be paid for, or when and how sanctions will be applied if criteria are broken or ignored, have, according to the critics, also remained unclear.

So where does that leave the responsible GM soy bean? There is currently fierce discussion amongst NGOs who argue that the RTRS process is ineffective in protecting the rainforest and other sensitive ecosystems and want to ensure that GM soy is excluded from any 'responsible' certification process.

In the run-up to the Campinas meeting over sixty organizations sent an open letter to RTRS's members calling for it to be abandoned. WWF, which is officially opposed to GMOs, promptly responded: http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/forests/news/?uNewsID=156602

'... WWF believes that by developing standards with other stakeholders, we can have a far greater impact than by refusing to participate. ... The RTRS is currently 'technology neutral' meaning that both GM and non-GM technologies can meet the RTRS standard, ... If the RTRS principles and criteria included a prohibition on the use of GMs, their potential application would be restricted to the limited proportion of global production (estimated at 30%) that is GM-free. This would limit the potential of the RTRS to address impacts of GM soy production as well. ... Options include an optional protocol within RTRS for those who want to verify that soy is non-GM or use of systems already operating in some national markets to identify non-GM products.'

In response to this, campaign groups A SEED Europe and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) launched a petition asking WWF to abandon the process altogether. It was followed by a stunt in which several campaigners paid a visit to WWF's Netherlands office, one of them dressed as a 'Monsanto circus director' who during the action tried to convince a fellow campaigner in a 'panda' costume to sign a RTRS declaration that ends with the words 'I hereby declare GM RoundupReady soy RESPONSIBLE'. The panda refused.

The real panda seems to have been more equivocal, however. At its meeting in Campinas the RTRS executive board endorsed a criterion that could allow 'responsible' soy to be grown on land that was deforested as recently as May 2009. And soy can still be labelled 'responsible' when harvested from lands deforested after May 2009 if the producer can demonstrate that it was not prime forest or an area of High Conservation Value, or land belonging to local peoples. Argentinean NGO Fundapaz walked out of the process at this point, saying that it didn't find the criteria strong enough http://www.corporateeurope.org/agrofuels/blog/nina/2009/05/30/soy-round-table-fails-all-fronts.

At the time of writing pressure on WWF and RTRS is continuing, with 2400 people writing protest letters to RTRS's members. On the other side, WWF maintains that it will stay the course with RTRS. The issue is set to continue dividing the environmental movement for some time to come.

For more information, visit http://www.toxicsoy.org, or to learn about the RTRS process click here http://tinyurl.com/l68qxl.

Stephanie Roth is a former News Editor of the Ecologist.

18 June 2009

PBS Selects New Director

Program for Biosafety Systems blog [USA], 18 June 2009:
http://pbsblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/pbs-selects-new-director/

Dr. Judy Chambers has been selected as the new PBS director and will formally assume the role on July 27. Dr. Chambers joins PBS with extensive experience in biotechnology and biosafety. She served as Director of International Government Affairs at Monsanto Company and as Senior Advisor to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where she was responsible for co-developing the first public-private sector agency program on agricultural biotechnology (ABSP). She has also worked as an independent consultant on agriculture biotechnology issues for public, private, non-profit and academic establishments. As a highly-regarded, internationally-recognized senior executive with over fifteen years of experience in strategic leadership positions within and on behalf of diverse institutions, Dr. Chambers joins PBS with a strong background in international and cultural issues affecting technology and product acceptance, public-private sector coalition building, and corporate social responsibility initiatives. PBS welcomes Judy to the team.

---

Comment by GM Watch:

PBS is the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS), managed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It targets countries in Africa and Asia for the "responsible development and safe use of agricultural biotechnology". Who better to oversee it than a former Monsanto director?

Landliebe profiting
• Consumers reward "GM-free" production

LebensmittelZeitung Online (Subscription) [Germany], 18 June 2009:
http://www.lz-net.de/news/topnews/pages/protected/show74202.html

[English translation from the German original by TraceConsult™]

Dairy group FrieslandCampina (FC) insists on its goal that in the long run all products of the Landliebe brand are to carry the "ohne Gentechnik" (GM-free) logo. Already, the brand is benefitting from the fresh milk.

The new issue of the so-called "GM-free Shopping Consultant" by Greenpeace has focused the attention again primarily on dairy products.

While a large part of the diary industry is being criticized by the environmentalists for biotech in the feeding trough - above all the Theo Müller group of companies - FrieslandCampina's Landliebe meets a lot of approval. All the while, Greenpeace refers to Landliebe as an enterprise and ignores that by far not all milk from FC is produced GM-free.

Michael Feller, CEO of Campina Germany, is delighted by the Greenpeace praise, particularly because a lot of work went into the conversion of the production, he says.

It took Campina around three years to reach the current status. The program started in autumn 2008 with 150 million kg of milk. By now, the participating Landliebe farmers supply approximately 260 million kg of milk by cows reared conventionally.

About 100 million kg of that volume is currently marketed as UHT and fresh milk, the remainder is used for other Landliebe products.

Problematic Ingredients

It is the company's goal to produce all Landliebe milk without the use of GMOs. The long-term goal is to provide all Landliebe products with the "ohne Gentechnik" claim.

Until that point it is a long road, according to Feller, because all ingredients from suppliers will have to be GM-free as well. By introducing GM-free fresh milk last fall, Campina created a furor. Competitors and retailers viewed the kick-off critically. Retailer reactions varied, confirms Feller, but were mostly positive.

Supermarkets want innovations and differentiation in the product range. Concerns by some retailers that their private label range might be discriminated by the Landliebe claim were not confirmed.

Consumers reward the commitment. For instance, according to Feller, Landliebe milk sales increased during the first four months of 2009 amidst a generally receding market - around 10 percent for UHT milk and 3.9 percent for fresh milk.

Control remains in the product range

Landliebe is already sporting a "beautiful growth" at 6 percent. "Our activities, such as a new design, innovations and new packaging, show results", says Feller. The "ohne Gentechnik" claim of the milk helps, too.

On the other hand, the Optiwell brand is not quite as successful. It suffers, like the entire range of light products, from decreasing sales. The new introduction of Optiwell Control has not met expectations, but the product will remain in the range. "It is a profitable niche. We will foster and take care of the core products."

Climate resistant crops should not be patented

CheckBiotech.org, 17 June 2009.
Source: Financial Express [India]. By Ashok B. Sharma:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/climate_resistant_crops_should_not_be_patented

Biopiracy of traits of climate resilient crops by leading seed multinationals can endanger the income and livelihood of farmers, more particularly in the developing world said a report compiled by a civil society organization, Navdanya.

In tune with the proposals made by the Group of 77, China and other developing countries at the recently concluded 30th meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 30) at the climate change talks in Bonn, Navdanya has appealed that climate-friendly technologies should be excluded from patenting.

The report - Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops - has documented drought resistant rice varieties grown by farmers from generations to generations in different parts of India, including Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka and flood resistant rice varieties grown in Assam, West Bengal, Orissa, Kerala and Karnataka. Quoting the Guinness Book of Record, the report mentioned Mehite Kenye La rice as the tallest grown paddy in the world which grows up to 2.55 metre or 8.5 feet.

The report documented salinity resistant rice varieties grown in the Sunderban area of West Bengal alongwith the mangroves, Orissa, Kerala, northern Karnataka. It also mentioned some of the diverse aromatic rice varieties and rice varieties having therapeutic values and unique characteristics.

The Navdanya report expressed concern over the biopiracy being done by leading seed multinationals by getting broad patent rights over climate-resistant traits of conventional crops from different patent offices across the world. German company, BASF has acquired 21 such patent rights. Another German company, Bayers has five such patent rights. Ceres Inc of US which partners with Monsanto holds four such patent rights. The reports also mentioned other seed companies holding such patent rights like Dow, DuPont, Evogene, Mendel Biotechnology, Monsanto, Syngenta, Agrigenetic, Mycogen, Agrinomics, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Plant Research International BV.

"Climate resistant traits are found in many crops conventionally grown across the world, particularly in tropical and sub-tropical countries. These crops are traditionally bred by farmers. The seed multinationals are robbing the farmers of this traditional knowledge and patenting the traits. Some of them are trying to develop second generation genetically modified (GM) crops based on these traits," alleged Vandana Shiva of Navdanya.

According to Shiva GM crops have failed to provide food and nutritional security. The claim of pest control has turned out to be a hoax. The failure of Bt cotton was an example she said and added that Bt cotton cultivation has placed farmers in heavy losses and brought them to acute point of distress.

In 1994 Navdanya along with its sister organization, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) filed a legal opposition against the USDA and WR Grace patent on fungicidal properties of neem (no 436257 B1) in the European Patent Office (EPO) at Munich, Germany. The patent on neem was revoked in May 200 and it was reconfirmed on March 8, 2005 when the EPO revoked in entirety the controversial patent and adjudged that there was "no inventive step" involved in the fungicide patent.

In 1998 Navdanya opposed the patent right given to the US company, RiceTec over basmati rice vide patent no 5663484. On August 14, 2001 the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) revoked the patent on basmati rice. On January 27, 2004, RFSTE alongwith Greenpeace and India's leading farmers' organization, Bharatiya Krishak Samaj the patent right given to Monsanto over the Indian wheat landrace, Nap Hal wide patent no EP 0445929 B1. The patent was revoked by EPO in October, 2004.

Health regulator raises GM concerns

Stock Journal [Australia], 18 June 2009. By Lucy Knight:
http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/health-regulator-raises-gm-concerns/1543320.aspx

[Photo caption: Canadian senior health regulator Dr Shiv Chopra was in Canberra this week, speaking about what he sees as the major threats to food safety from the use of "genetically manipulated foods, pesticides and herbicides, hormones and antibiotics in animal production systems".]

AUSTRALIA'S long-term food security is being severely compromised by genetically-modified crops and the use of pesticides, according to a former senior health regulator from Canada.

Visiting Australia for the first time, Shiv Chopra was in Canberra this week to launch his new book 'Corrupt to the Core' about what he sees as the major threats to food safety from the use of "genetically-manipulated foods, pesticides and herbicides, hormones and antibiotics in animal production systems".

Far from being the answer to higher yields or a drought-proofing option, Dr Chopra told a forum in Parliament that GM organisms and pesticides, in particular, were a serious threat to public health.

He believes they are behind huge increases in cancer rates, neurological and reproductive disorders and breakdowns in immune systems.

He said rather than being under the watch of the Agriculture Minister, GM crops should be the responsibility of the Health Minister.

Dr Chopra told the forum that claims GM crops produced higher yields were nonsense and untrue.

New figures released this week by Monsanto reveal a four-fold increase in the area being planted to GM canola in Australia this year.

GM canola crops in New South Wales and Victoria will roughly account for 10-15 per cent of the entire canola production this year, with plantings expected to grow from 9500 hectares to 40,000ha.

But Dr Chopra said Australian farmers should not "follow blindly" the US and Canada and believes there is a huge market opening for Australian farmers to reject GM crops and pesticide use.

Dr Chopra said the worst food safety offenders were Canada and the US, but he warned that Australia and NZ were "not far behind".

He said those pushing GM crops were "scientists posing as environmentalists".

Dr Chopra said the greatest issue facing the developed and developing worlds were climate change and carbon emissions, while little attention was being paid to food safety and the security of the food supply.

"GMO seeds require enormous applications of energy, pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and other chemicals to protect their own integrity," Dr Chopra says in his book.

"What problems GMOs are creating most policy makers do not care to know."

He said Australian farmers have done so well in the past, and they would continue to do so if they looked after the consumer.

GM crops set for approval in Britain, warn campaigners
• The Government is supporting the approval of two new varieties of GM crops for cultivation.

The Telegraph [UK], 18 June 2009. By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/5562155/GM-crops-set-for-approval-in-Britain-warn-campaigners.html

It is already possible to grow one variety of pest resistant GM maize in Britain and the Continent.

The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs said it was highly unlikely that any British farmers would seek to grow any of the GM crops as they are designed for much hotter climates.

However environmental campaigners pointed out they may be appropriate for Britain in the future because of global warming and accused the Government of bringing in GM crops "by the back door".

They say GM crops are being "drip fed" into Britain.

In 1998 the Monsanto variety MON810 was approved for cultivation across the EU including Britain.

It is currently grown mostly in Spain, although a Welsh farmer caused an outcry when he grew the crop near Hay-on-Wye last year. It is also possible to grow trial crops of GM in Britain although there are currently no trials going on.

At the moment two more varieties which are resistant to the corn borer pest - a severe problem in maize-growing areas of southern Europe and the US - are awaiting approval by the European Council.

The European Council is in charge of approving the cultivation of GM crops across Europe, although individual countries can choose to opt out.

The application has passed through a Labour-dominated committee in the House of Commons without any objections. The Government backs approval of scientifically proven GM crops.

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, chairman of the all-party environment group, accused the Government of sneaking in GM.

"Once they bring in one crop for cultivation it becomes more difficult for people to oppose more coming in," he said.

"They are taking an enormous risk with the environment by bringing in GM by the back door."

Clare Oxborrow, a senior food campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said the GM crops are being "drip fed" into Britain.

"The Government is taking decisions that have implications for our food and farming in the UK that people are not aware of," she said. "They are getting away with incremental decisions on food and crops for growing and people are just don't know about it.

"If the UK Government gets its way we could have three GM crops being grown in Britain."

However Dan Norris, the Environment Minister, said it was important to back crops on the basis of scientific evidence.

"All GM products are properly assessed for their impact on human health and the environment, and strict labelling rules for GM products in food are in place to allow consumers to make an informed choice," he said.

"It is highly unlikely that any GM crops will be grown in the UK for the foreseeable future and before this happens, appropriate mechanisms for separating GM and non-GM crops will be in place. It will ultimately be up to farmers and consumers whether they wish to choose GM."

17 June 2009

Soon in Europe not melting, lower fat ice-cream. But is it GMO?

Green Planet, 17 June 2009:
http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/646-soon-in-europe-not-melting-lower-fat-ice-cream-but-is-it-gmo.html

It might seem a paradox, but obviously the market wants it: Unilever is now ready with the GMO ice-cream, 50% lower in fats, improved in stability and even having lower production costs.

The secret is the ingredient Ice Structuring Protein (ISP), originally isolated from an Arctic fish and reproduced in laboratory through the fermentation of a genetically modified yeast.

The European Commission has recently granted approval to the ISP, which can therefore be used now - as early as the forthcoming summer - in the 27 EU Countries to make ice creams. The application was made in 2006 by Unilever, which already sells products containing the ingredient in other markets such as the US, Australia and Mexico.

According to Unilever, ISP can help reduce the fat and calorie content of products by up to 50 percent. Its ability to improve the stability of ice cream also allows for a higher fruit content, an improved taste, better structure and slower melting.

EU's green light is based on EFSA's favourable opinion in July 2008, which has excluded the risk of allergenicity.

According to Unilever there is no GM residue in the ISP: actually the ingredient is obtained by "inserting a synthetic ISP gene into a genetically modified yeast, and then this is fermented", Unilever's external affairs director Anne Heughan explained. "The protein is then separated from the yeast by micro-filtration and concentrated by ultra-filtration. This removes all yeast cells from the ISP preparation. EFSA and the member states have independently confirmed that the ISP is not genetically modified", she said.

This is contrary to what stressed by the Italian Genetic Rights Foundation, which warns consumers by citing research carried out in 2006 by the Independent Science Panel. The survey show that Unilever's protein is not entirely equivalent to that naturally produced by the Arctic fish. It is even said that it is an allergen, due to its derivation from genetically modified yeast", said the Foundation's Nicoletta De Cillis.

The body in charge of "novel foods" approval - the ACNFP -, although approving the ingredient, had proposed mandatory labelling, but the option was excluded by the Commission's decision.

The most serious matter is actually that the new product will be simply labelled as "ISP protein", in accordance with the current EU legislation, which doesn't consider cases like the Unilever one to be regulated as GMOs.

Debate over GM Wheat Reignites

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development / Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, Vol 13, No 22, 17 June 2009:
http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/49051/

Farmers associations and environmental groups are rekindling the debate about whether to support research for genetically modified (GM) wheat. A group of nine wheat organisations in the US, Canada, and Australia - the world's largest wheat exporters - issued a statement on 15 May calling for "the synchronized introduction of biotech wheat." Two weeks later, 15 groups opposing GM wheat issued a response offering point-by-point counterarguments against the crop's introduction.

The GM supporters' statement revived a debate many believed had run its course. In 2004, biotech company Monsanto shelved plans to develop an herbicide-resistant strain of GM wheat after hearing the concerns of farmers, buyers, and exporters, who feared such a seed would cause them to lose export markets.

This concern has not changed in the past five years. Many consumers, particularly in Europe and Asia, are apprehensive about eating genetically modified food. Six European countries have now invoked national bans on the cultivation of a GM maize variety produced by Monsanto, despite the EU's approval of the crop (see Bridges Weekly, 22 April 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/45446/). Opponents cite this as a principal reason for prohibiting the introduction of GM wheat.

But GM proponents say this is a challenge worth pursuing. "If the consumer perceives that the benefit is just for the producer or worse still, just for some big company that's making a profit out of it, why would they want to adopt it?" Robert Henry, director of the Center for Plant Conservation Genetics, told Reuters. "They really need to be convinced there's some benefit for the environment from a point of view of their own health."

Proponents hope to build this support by highlighting the crop's unique characteristics. According to their statement, GM wheat would offer increased insect and disease resistance and improved tolerance of extreme weather, both of which contribute to higher crop yields. The crop could also be designed for consumption by people with wheat intolerance.

But critics argue that GM wheat offers no agronomic improvement other than easier application of pesticides, according to their statement. Additionally, they suggest that "there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that GE [genetically engineered] crop varieties increase yields."

The GM wheat debate is complicated by the ease with which seeds move through the environment. When wheat seeds are carried by the wind, they can cross-pollinate with other seeds. "If [genetically engineered] wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be non-GE," the opponent groups stated. Some farmers would unwittingly become subject to gene patent restrictions and labelling requirements.

"Once you introduce it, it's over and it's over and it's over and it all becomes GMO just like we now have in canola," Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser told the Canadian Press. Monsanto sued Schmeiser in 1998 for using the company's genetically modified seeds without a license. Schmeiser claimed that the seeds could have blown over from a neighbouring field.

Even if proponents build the necessary political support for GM wheat research, the new crop would not be introduced for some time. Supporters estimate that it could take six to eight years for new biotech wheat crops to be ready for commercial introduction.

ICTSD reporting; "GMO wheat acceptance hinges on public benefit," REUTERS, 7 June 2009; "Debate on growing GM wheat rises again, but experts say issues are the same," THE CANADIAN PRESS, 6 June 2009.

Ministers accused of trying to bring GM crops to Britain 'by the back door'

Daily Mail [UK], 17 June 2009. By Sean Poulter:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193736/Ministers-accused-trying-bring-GM-crops-Britain-door.html

[Photo caption: GM protesters: The Government has decided to support the cultivation of genetically modified maize, despite safety concerns]

Ministers were yesterday accused of trying to bring GM crops to the UK 'by the back door'.

The Government has decided to support the cultivation of two new types of genetically modified maize or sweetcorn which contain a toxin that kills certain pests.

It will vote in favour of approving the crops in the EU, making Britain the chief supporter of the controversial technology in Europe.

Once a crop is approved at the EU level, a British farmer will be permitted to grow it here.

Labour has routinely supported the U.S. government in its efforts to bring GM crops to Europe and the rest of the world.

UK ministers have voted to approve some GM crops despite concerns in other member states about their safety for the environment, wildlife and human health.

In the past, the UK also tried - and failed - to kill off attempts to label GM ingredients on food products.

Yesterday, the Government pushed through its intention to support the growing of GM maize crops in Britain and Europe without a House of Commons debate.

The two maize crops involved are BT11, developed by Syngenta, and 1507.

Both contain a toxin that kills the corn borer pest - a severe problem in maize-growing areas in southern Europe and the U.S. but not in the UK.

Several European countries, including Germany and France, have recently banned other types of GM corn on the basis of suspected dangers to health and the environment.

Chairman of the all party environment group, Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, condemned how the Government's position had been pushed through the Commons without debate.

'This is bringing in GM crops by the back door,' he said.

'The public will be very concerned by this sleight of hand. It shows the cavalier way the Government treats the environment.'

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that, given the British climate, it was 'highly unlikely' that any farmer would want to grow the crops.

However, an increasing number of British farmers do grow maize.

Clare Oxborrow, senior food campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: 'The public is not generally aware that the Government is making these decisions at EU level which could in the future have large ramifications for GM-free food and farming in the UK.'

Environment Minister Dan Norris said: 'All GM products are properly assessed for their impact on human health and the environment, and strict labelling rules for GM products in food are in place to allow consumers to make an informed choice.'

Dangerous Genetically Engineered (GE) Eucalyptus Trees on Fast-Track to Large-Scale Release in the U.S.
• ACTION NEEDED BY 6 JULY! Tell the USDA NO WAY to ArborGen's Eucalyptus Frankentrees

Global Justice Ecology Project / Stop GM Trees Campaign, 17 June 2009.

In an unprecedented move toward commercial large-scale release of GE forest trees in the United States, GE tree giant ArborGen is petitioning the U.S. government to be allowed to plant an estimated 260,000 flowering GE eucalyptus trees [1] across seven southern U.S. states on 330 acres in so-called "field trials."[2]

The mass-planting of 260,000 flowering GE eucalyptus trees is a major step toward the unregulated development of large-scale GE eucalyptus plantations in the U.S. ArborGen has already requested permission for the commercial planting of GE cold tolerant eucalyptus clones across the U.S. South. The government is expected to issue their decision on this later this year.

Government approval of GE eucalyptus trees will set a dangerous precedent to allow other experimental GE forest trees, including poplar and pine, that would inevitably and irreversibly contaminate native trees with destructive GE traits, devastating forest ecosystems and wildlife. Once GE trees escape, there is no way to call them back.

The only way to stop genetic contamination of native forests is to ban the commercial release of GE trees before it is too late.

TAKE ACTION! http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/petition.php

Tell the USDA that GE cold-tolerant eucalyptus plantations pose an unprecedented threat to U.S. forests and wildlife. Tell them to reject ArborGen's request to plant more than a quarter of a million dangerous alien GE trees on nearly 30 sites across the Southern U.S. Since these field trials are a concrete step toward unregulated commercial growing of dangerous GE eucalyptus, they must be rejected.

•

Sign on to the STOP GE Trees Campaign's Comments to the U.S. government http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/petition.php

•

Have your organization become a STOP GE Trees Campaign partner [contact info@globaljusticeecology.org] and endorse our goal of a global ban on GE trees! For more information about the STOP GE Trees Campaign, click here http://www.nogetrees.org

Background:

According to ArborGen, eucalyptus is a "fast-growing hardwood tree that is a favorite of the international forest products industry"[3] Globally, forests in tropical and subtropical regions have been decimated for the development of eucalyptus plantations, with devastating results for communities and biodiversity. ArborGen now wants to spread this disaster to new regions with their GE cold-tolerant eucalyptus.

Some of the impacts caused by eucalyptus plantations that now threaten the U.S. include:

•

Widespread destruction of native forests: Australian Eucalyptus were introduced to California in the 1850s and these invasive aliens now grow throughout the state; more than 200 species have been introduced into the U.S. The cold-tolerance trait will allow the disaster of eucalyptus plantations to be expanded into regions that are too cold for conventional eucalyptus--including the U.S. South.

•

Uncontrollable wildfires: Raging wildfires in Australia this year, made worse by drought, traveled over 60 miles an hour, devastating wildlife and killing 173 people. The1991 Oakland, CA firestorm, exacerbated by eucalyptus, cost $1.5 billion in damages.

•

Loss of fresh water: Eucalyptus trees are fast-growing "water-suckers." They require tremendous amounts of water, threatening to worsen the drought already being experienced in areas of the Southern United States.

•

Vast clearcutting of biodiverse forests to grow monoculture plantations of GE Eucalyptus clones;

•

Silent forests: Wildlife that cannot use the Eucalyptus for habitat nor food will be lost. Endangered species will be threatened.

•

Contamination of soils and groundwater with toxic pesticides used on the plantations, often aerially sprayed;

•

Worsening of climate change through the destruction of carbon-rich native forests for carbon-poor plantations.

•

Eucalyptus is a known host for the deadly pathogenic fungus Cryptococcus Gattii. Originally a tropical fungus, it was recently found around Pacific Northwest Eucalyptus groves, and can kill both humans and wildlife.

SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OPPOSING GE EUCALYPTUS PLANTATIONS

http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/petition.php

Download the Global Justice Ecology Project's 10-page report on the dangers of GE trees and wood-based agrofuels http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/stopgetrees_about.php?ID=117

Notes:

[1] These GE eucalyptus, a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus urophylla, are engineered to tolerate colder temperatuves, produce less of the structural polymer lignin, and digest some of their own RNA in the hope of reducing fertility (a Terminator-type genetic technology). The permits, if granted, would also allow the GE trees to flower. Eucalyptus thrives in tropical to sub-tropical conditions, but ArborGen's cold-tolerant Eucalyptus would allow growth in the Southern United States, which experience occasional winter freezes. The states targeted for field trials are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. Note: in 2007 ArborGen was given permission to allow 1.1 acres of GE eucalyptus to flower. This was expanded to 7.6 acres with no public input. This means ArborGen could receive permission to expand these 330 acres of field trials after the fact.

[2] The number 260,000 is based on the number of trees ArborGen reported to the USDA, which was recorded in the USDA's Environmental Assessment.

[3] See http://www.arborgen.com/eucalyptus2.php

16 June 2009

Pretty in pink, but don't splash out on glofish

The Independent [Ireland], 16 June 2009. By Paul Melia:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pretty-in-pink-but-dont-splash-out-on-glofish-1774630.html

WHAT's pink, swims and glows in the dark? Genetically modified fish found in a pond in Co Offaly.

And now the owners of the four glofish found by inspectors from the Environmental Protection Agency face the possibility of court action and a fine of up to €3,000 for trying to put something a bit different into their garden.

The agency yesterday confirmed that it found transgenic -- or genetically modified -- fish which literally glow in the dark. It is the first time that GM fish have been discovered here.

Called glofish, the offenders are tropical zebra fish about an inch long which contain a gene from a sea coral that makes it a bright pink under normal light and fluorescent under ultraviolet light.

They are also bred in green and orange but are illegal in Ireland and the EU because if accidentally released into the wild they could have a detrimental effect on native fish species.

EPA inspectors discovered the fish after being tipped off that glofish had been found in the UK and could be in Ireland.

"The EPA is investigating the illegal importation of glofish," it said in a statement. "This happened on foot of notification received that this had happened in the UK and the Netherlands. "There is no impact on human health or the environment," it added.

If the agency prosecutes, a fine of up to €3,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment can be imposed in the district court. If the case is heard in the Circuit Court, a fine of up to €15,000 is applicable and/or 10 years in prison.

The EPA confirmed that a "quantity" of fish had been found in Co Offaly and that it was investigating the "deliberate release of GMOs (genetically modified organisms)".

Glofish were originally bred to help detect water pollution. Scientists hoped to develop a breed which would light-up in the presence of severe pollution, while remaining unlit when the water was clean.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

For more on the dangers of GM fish, see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/fish/

Gen-frei Gehen. The GMO free march

Green Planet, 16 June 2009:
http://en.greenplanet.net/news-in-brief/news-in-brief/636-gen-frei-gehen-the-gmo-free-march.html

A 38-day march for over 1,000 kilometres, from Berlin to Bruxelles, will start on June 18 to raise awareness and to emphasize the importance of taking a stance against genetic engineering in agriculture.

The most important enterprises and organizations of the European organic and natural sector have already confirmed their participation to the Gen-frei Gehen, that is the GMO free march. The initiative is organized for the second time by Joseph Wilhelm, president and founder of Rapunzel Naturkost, a leading German producer, manufacturer and distributor of organic foods.

"The initiative is not a simple protest against this technology, but it uses walking as a way to encourage people to become active and to take the initiative for a future worth living", the organizers state in their website (www.genfrei-gehen.de).

The route will pass trough three Countries, including also Bonn with the German federal government HQ and Maastricht being the European administrative heart. These significant stops have been chosen in particular to make pressure on national and international institutions against genetic engineering, which "creates an irreversible reality with the harvests ultimately ending up on our plates", Wilhelm states.

Many demonstrations will take place along the route, including the presentations of several No-GMOs supporters among which Percy Schmeiser and Vandana Shiva.

The anticipated arrival in Bruxelles will be on July 30.

Crop standards benefit farmers, agribusiness

CheckBiotech.org, 16 June 2009. By Philip Brasher:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/crop_standards_benefit_farmers_agribusiness

WASHINGTON - Define "sustainable farming."

Lawyers, farmers, environmentalists and government officials have been arguing about that for decades.

Now, efforts are under way internationally and in the United States to establish standards for sustainable agriculture that could have a real impact on the bottom lines of both farmers and agribusinesses.

The initiatives are intended to develop rules for certifying foods and biofuels as "sustainable."

So far, the rules look good for big biotech companies such as Monsanto and DuPont. The standards being developed don't rule out genetically engineered seeds and could discourage the use of pesticides that farmers don't need with the biotech soybeans and corn popular in the U.S. and South America.

Both the international and U.S. standard-setting bodies reached key milestones recently.

A group called the Round Table on Responsible Soy reached agreement on a set of standards covering treatment of workers as well as rules protecting water and soil quality, preventing greenhouse gas emissions and banning dangerous farm chemicals.

The standards are to be field tested over the coming year. Once finalized, they could be used to certify soybean oil used for biodiesel in the European Union, which is moving toward environmental certifications for biofuels.

U.S. farmers didn't take part in writing the standards, but they could benefit from them. Jason Clay, who has followed the round table's work as director of market transformation for the World Wildlife Fund, said the standards could restrict soybean production and increase prices for the crop.

The standards will discourage deforestation in places such as Brazil and "reduce the biological impacts from producing soy," Clay said. "Increasingly people are going to have to actually comply with this to get access to markets."

The U.S. initiative isn't as far along, but the standards it produces will cover all crops, not just soybeans.

The standards are being developed under auspices of the American National Standards Institute, a private group that accredits standards for a wide array of products, including baby cribs, bicycle helmets and lawn mowers.

The institute commissioned the Wisconsin-based Leonardo Academy to develop standards for sustainable agriculture. Initially, the group started with a draft set of rules similar to those for organic crops. Federal organic standards bar the use of genetically engineered seeds and synthetic pesticides.

But farm groups attacked the draft rules - the American Soybean Association said only 0.2 percent of the U.S. soybean crop would have qualified as "sustainable" - and the Bush administration tried to get the standards institute to take the job away from the Leonardo Academy. The institute rejected the administration's appeal, but in any case the academy's standards committee decided to scrap the draft rules and "start over with a clean slate," said Leonardo's Amanda Raster, who is overseeing the project.

The 58-member committee, which includes representatives of farmers, environmental groups and the food industry, agreed to set performance-based standards, rather than specify what technology or methods farmers could use. Such standards would probably include requirements that farms improve soil and water quality, for example.

Conventional farmers will like the way the initiative is headed.

The committee "realized that any technology that increases sustainability should have a seat at the table," said Tom Redick, a lawyer who is following the initiative for soybean growers.

But will the standards wind up making any difference in how farmers farm?

Suzy Friedman, a committee member who represents the Environmental Defense Fund, said it is far too soon to tell. If the standards are too strong, few farms will try to get certified, she said. But if the rules are too weak, they won't change farming practices.

The target date for completing the standards isn't until 2012. That leaves plenty of time to keep debating what sustainable agriculture means.

Monsanto India seeks approval to sell genetically modified corn

WSJ and LiveMint, 16 June 2009:
http://www.livemint.com/2009/06/15224315/Monsanto-India-seeks-approval.html

Mumbai: Seed producer Monsanto India Ltd has sought regulatory approval in India to sell its genetically modified (GM) corn that is tolerant to herbicides and provides protection from pests.

"We have started the regulatory process for approval of this new GM crop in the Indian market," said Harvey G. Glick, senior director, scientific affairs, Asia, Monsanto Singapore Co. (Pte) Ltd.

The GM corn, currently undergoing field trials in the country, would be the second such product, after Bt cotton, to be marketed by the Indian arm of US-based Monsanto Co.

Monsanto India managing director Amitabh Jaipuria said the firm has received approval from India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee to conduct field trials to evaluate the bio-safety of the genetically modified product against target insects and weeds. "The field trials are being conducted by state agriculture universities across India," he said in an email.

GM corn is cultivated in 16 countries and has been approved by at least another 10 nations, the company said.

Monsanto is focusing on development and launch of new vegetable seed varieties in the Asian markets, especially India and China, Glick said.

Monsanto India, which launched its genetically modified cotton in the domestic market in 2002 in the face of protests from environmentalists, also sells hybrid corn, fruit and vegetables, and several other agrochemical products in the country.

The US parent - which also operates a wholly owned subsidiary in India called Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd - markets Bt cotton through a joint venture company, Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Ltd. The GM corn will provide an 8-10% increase in yields, Glick claimed.

Crops tolerant to weed killers are common in developed countries where weed control strategies typically rely on herbicides, which can sometimes be toxic for the targeted crop as well with excessive use.

A 2006 report, authored by agricultural scientists S.R. Bhat and V.L. Chopra in Current Science magazine, says resistance to herbicides is an important trait of GM crops.

"While the proponents advocate that the new technology is scale neutral and its benefits should be made available to Indian farmers, the other section firmly believes that such crops are not suitable to our conditions and pose serious threat to the employment and livelihood opportunities of the poor and marginal farmers and labourers, and adversely impact environment, ecology and biodiversity," the report adds.

GM crops food security concern, says senior health regulator

Stock & Land [Australia], June 16:
http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/gm-crops-food-security-concern-says-senior-health-regulator/1542076.aspx

[Extract only]

AUSTRALIA'S long-term food security is being severely compromised by genetically modified crops and the use of pesticides, according to a former senior health regulator from Canada.

Visiting Australia for the first time, Dr Shiv Chopra was in Canberra this week to launch his new book, Corrupt to the Core, about what he sees as the major threats to food safety from the use of "genetically manipulated foods, pesticides and herbicides, hormones and antibiotics in animal production systems".

Far from being the answer to higher yields or a drought-proofing option, Dr Chopra told a forum in Parliament that genetically modified organisms and pesticides in particular were a serious threat to public health.

He believes they are behind huge increases in cancer rates, neurological and reproductive disorders and breakdowns in immune systems.

He said rather than being under the watch of the Minister for Agriculture, GM crops should be the responsibility of the Minister for Health.

He told the forum that claims GM crops produce higher yields were nonsense and untrue.

Scientist wants better government controls on food safety

ABC [Australia], 16 June 2009:
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200906/s2599503.htm

A Canadian scientist says governments are puting humans at risk by not improving food and crop safety testing.

Dr Shiv Chopra came to prominance in 1998 when he told a Canadian Senate hearing that senior supervisors had pressured him to approve drugs of questionable safety, while he worked for a government agency.

He's currently visiting Australia, and says the methods used to assess the risks of genetically-engineered food and crops are uncertain and inexact.

Dr Chopra says governments like Australia need to take responsibility.

"What I found was corruption, that the governments get lobbied by these major multinational companies," he says.

"So it's this kind of political pressure occurring on governments around the world, and the multinationals are ruling."

15 June 2009

GM: Truth modified more than genetics

Network of Concerned Farmers [Australia] press release, 15 June 2009:
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com

In a world first and with a surprising lack of fanfare, a detailed cross industry information paper on GM canola has been released. The report (1) is a culmination of over two year's debate between members of the West Australian Ministerial GMO Industry Reference Group incorporating the views of 14 representatives representing all sides of the GM debate(2). The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF), an active member of this committee claims that it disproves much of the current misinformation supporting GM crops and proves that there are major flaws in the coexistence plans to segregate GM and non-GM canola.

"This report proves that the GM truth has been modified more than the genetics." said Julie Newman, NCF National Spokesperson.

"Economically and agronomically, GM canola does not offer a benefit to farmers but risks are very real,"

The committee analysed trial data that has been used to support GM crops and found that, despite non-GM yields being affected by inadequate weed control, if technology access fees were included, there would be "no financial advantage in using the Roundup Ready treatment." (3)

The greatest agronomic limitation of GM crops identified is the lack of residual weed control and the requirement for additional chemicals for residual grass control prior to emergence. The information paper explains how Roundup Ready canola can only be sprayed with glyphosate from the two to the six leaf stage and why control of wild radish and wild turnip will not be possible after this stage. (4)

"A key finding proves no GM is accepted in non-GM. (5) WA coexistence trials are designed to fail as they are to test incompetent protocols designed to accept GM contamination rather than prevent it (6). This is a serious issue considering 90% of WA's 2008/09 exports was exported to GM-sensitive European Union. (7)

"Minister Redman was advised of this issue well before these GM trials were planted and yet he chose to ignore the facts and ignore this report." (8)

Unresolved legal issues have been identified in the report and by the Upper House who voted against the GM trial approval. This included unfair costs and liabilities imposed on non-GM growers and the possibility that non-GM farmers may be required to pay for contamination that they could not avoid. (9) The information paper also identifies unresolved health issues and the inability for consumers to avoid GM through labelling as GM canola is not labelled and a non-GM label is not possible.(10)

"It appears that this report is being deliberately hushed up as it exposes the truth that GM canola is proven to be all about hype and high risk."

Contact: Julie Newman Phone 08 98711562

References:

1. Report available at: http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/OBJTWR/imported_assets/content/food/Ministerial_GMO_Industry_Reference_GM_Canola.pdf With the following amendments approved but not yet inserted:

Pg. 14: In average long term GRDC NVT trials, early season TT canola varieties (1982kg/ha) out-yield conventional (1417kg/ha), hybrids (1513kg/ha), clearfield (1386kg/ha) and clearfield hybrids (1360kg/ha) by an average of 39.67percent and mid season TT canola varieties (1,643kg/ha) were out-yielded by conventional (2191kg/ha), hybrids (2176kg/ha), clearfield (2146kg/ha) by an average of 32.13 percent. (Graph 2.1).

2. Ministerial GMO Industry Reference Group and Ministerial GMO Specialist Advisory Panel: http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/PC_91991.html?s=1665006087

Chaired by Kim Chance (Minister for Agriculture prior to recent election). Representatives: Western Australian Farmers Federation, Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd, Operations Division, Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd, Marketing, Edstar Genetics Pty Ltd, The Farming Community (Producers Forum), Organic Farming Systems Bio Farmers, Network of Concerned Farmers, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Chief of Staff to the Minister of Agriculture Food, WA, Murdoch University, The University of Western Australia, AWB Limited, Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

3. Economics:

Pg. 21/22. Pratley report (common research used to support GM crops): "...due to inadequate weed control, broadleaves were not adequately controlled in non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties and grasses were not controlled in triazine tolerant varieties, which would lead to yield reduction."..."Including technology access fees resulted in no financial advantage in using the Roundup Ready treatment. Including the technology access fee of $75.94/ha the gross margin in year one of the triazine tolerant treatment was $45/ha higher and $12/ha higher over the four year rotation compared to Roundup Ready treatment."

Pg. 23. Table 3.2 2008 costs: If growing 100ha GM canola yielding 1.4t/ha, an additional 9.7% increase in yield is needed to cover costs. If growing 500ha GM canola yielding 0.7t/ha, an additional 15% increase in yield is needed to cover costs. (*Note costs have increased considerably for 2009 season.)

Pg. 37 "If volunteers are not controlled, they may appear in the following crop. This may result in GM canola being detected in cereal crops (e.g. wheat and barley). If the produce is required for GM sensitive markets, cereals may need to be graded at outturn to remove canola from cereals. This additional cost could range from $2 to $10/tonne."

Pg. 23: "In addition to expenditure relating to technology user agreements and seed premium, the cost of volunteer control, compliance with resistance management plans, segregation, identify preservation through the supply chain, any discount on market returns and any negative environmental risks should also be brought to account."

4. Agronomics:

Pg 19 "Glyphosate herbicide can only be applied to Roundup Ready canola from the two to six leaf stage. Weeds that germinate after the six leaf stage in a Roundup Ready canola crop can be controlled by selective weed control; however, wild radish and wild turnip control options are not available after this stage."

Pg. 17: The greatest limitation of herbicides use in combination with GM canola is their lack of residual weed control. Both triazine and imidazolinone, the chemicals used on non-GM herbicide-tolerant crops, have a residual weed control. Both the herbicides used on GM crops, glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate do not have a residual control and while the chemicals will kill weeds that come in contact with the chemical, it will not control weeds that continue to germinate after spraying. If using glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium on weeds known for multiple germinations, it is necessary to either use multiple chemical applications or delay spraying until as much as possible of the weed population have germinated. However, any delay of uncontrolled weed growth for early germinating weeds will lead to crop losses and yield penalties. A weed management strategy includes multiple chemical applications, additional residual herbicides and/or mechanical weed control prior to sowing. It is for this reason that the application of trifluralin is required in order to control grasses on emergence."

Pg. 37 "While volunteer canola is currently only a minor problem in agricultural areas within Western Australia and other states, glyphosate tolerant canola could become a problem as glyphosate is the most commonly used knock-down herbicide in the agricultural industry."

5. Zero tolerance:

Pg. 32 "In 2001 The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission made it clear that a GM-free claim left no room for ambiguity under the Current Trade Practices Act. GM-free means no detectable GM." To " ... EU Member States that have legislation in place that strictly regulate positive claims for non-GM products and no detectable GM content is allowed."

And pg. 68 and 76.

6. Coexistence protocols

Pg. 30: "...the responsibility will remain with the non-GM farmer to minimise or prevent contamination if a neighbouring crop is GM. Monsanto's Crop Management Plan recommends that non-GM farmers adopt "appropriate management strategies as communicated by the supply chain for the specified product". The communication from the supply chain as to the specific details required by Australian non GM farmers to meet non-GM market specifications is that a guarantee of no GM is required."

Pg. 33 "The rationale for establishing thresholds is because inadvertent presence is considered unavoidable."

Pg. 31 "Due to these contractual obligations and liabilities involved, it is essential for farmers to know the GM content of their seed prior to delivery to avoid costs and liabilities. Unfortunately, there are no quantitative tests available at the delivery site."

7. Markets.

Pg. 49 Table 5.7. Pg. 50 "... in 2008/09 this market (Japan) took 9 per cent of Western Australian canola exports while the European Union accounted for 90 per cent."

8. State Government won't act on GM report. http://www.abc.net.au:80/rural/wa/content/m1748596.ram Quote by Minister Redman: "It's not one I'll be formally responding to." "Not going to be something we will be using as a key bit of information in our decisions on GM."

9. Law:

Pg. 75 "Farmers growing GM crops, contract harvesters and transport operators may be held liable under common law for trespass, nuisance or negligence."

Pg. 76 "as yet there are no established levels of GM content that results in a deduction of royalties for patent use, it is up to the discretion of the companies concerned."

Pg. 77 "The experience of end-point royalty collection of GM soy in Brazil has resulted in non-GM growers paying royalties if a positive test is registered. This implies the trigger for deduction of royalties is set at the level of sensitivity of the tests used which can easily be reached due to accidental contamination."

10. Health

Pg. 60. "Under existing protocols, consumers will be denied the choice to avoid GM products."

Pg. 66 "GM canola was approved for commercial release without any long-term feeding trials performed on GM canola oil. The remaining meal escapes regulation as meal is used for stock feed and FSANZ has no authority over stock feed. The results of Roundup Ready canola fed to stock compared to non-GM canola meal showed an increase in liver weights of up to 17 per cent after a few weeks feeding trial. This was claimed to be due to an increase in glycosylates and was not investigated further."

Consumer-led movement to scrap genetically modified food

Ode Magazine [The Netherlands], 15 June 2009:
http://nl.odemagazine.com/exchange/7812/consumer_led_movement_to_scrap_genetically_modified_food

In his latest weekly address, President Obama says health care reform must no longer mean "reform that throws good money after bad habits".

A wide array of interest groups that have lined up against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) hope President Obama's commitment to eradicating health care bad habits extends to the nation's de facto investment in genetically modified crops which have been linked to 65 health risks and long-term health care costs.

GMOs are the result of laboratory processes, which artificially insert foreign genes into the DNA of food, crops or animals. Those genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.

With a growing body of new scientific evidence behind them, experts say that any acceptance of the safety of GMOs flies in the face of modern scientific methods. They point out the handful of original safety studies on file come primarily from GMO patent holders themselves.

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM Foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body," said Dr. Amy Dean, a Board Member of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. "With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM Foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health."

The White House staff now grows organic vegetables in a much-publicized garden for the first family. A lesser-known fact is the former president and Mrs. Bush insisted on an organic diet at the same time the administration pushed international trade in biotech foods.

The No GMO Challenge co-sponsored by the Institute for Responsible Technology and RealFoodMedia.com is a consumer-led movement to end consumer demand for genetically modified organisms.

Organizers of the No GMO Challenge hope U.S. shoppers will flex their considerable spending power to buy non-GMO products. They offer a free non-GMO shopping guide for consumers to download.

Similar to the successful Eat Local Challenge, the No GMO Challenge is a way to organize, educate and build awareness around the issue of genetically modified food.

http://realfoodmedia.com/no-gmo-challenge/

GM Crops and the Global Food Crisis

Institute of Development Studies [UK], 15 June 2009:
http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/news/gm-crops-and-the-global-food-crisis

On Wednesday 10 June, three speakers from SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research, Wageningen University and the University of East Anglia spoke at a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Debt, Aid and Trade on the often controversial topic of genetically-modified (GM) crops and their potential to counteract the global problems of poverty and hunger. The event marked the launch of a new paper by one of the speakers, Dominic Glover, entitled 'Undying Promise: Agricultural Biotechnology's Pro-poor Narrative, Ten Years on', which is a critical review of the available evidence on Bt cotton's effectiveness in improving the incomes of poor farmers. http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/idspublication/undying-promise-agricultural-biotechnology-s-pro-poor-narrative-ten-years-on

The example of Bt cotton

Glover began the debate, which was chaired by the Countess of Mar. There has been, he felt, a 'triumphalism' amongst advocates of GM crops, and too little attention paid to the environmental, social and political context surrounding their use. Glover has kept track of the evidence on Bt cotton, which he feels has been distorted, leading to the risk of poor policy decisions being made on the basis of insufficient facts.

His paper reviews the literature that has been published in peer-reviewed journals on Bt cotton. In it he explains that there are a number of limits to the potential usefulness of Bt cotton. It protects against pests, but will not improve yield in those years when pests are not a problem - and in fact, in those years yield might even be less than with other seeds. It has a marginal impact on pesticide use, and has been shown in some studies to have less impact than farmer training. There is concern that secondary pests might increase in numbers to fill the 'ecological gap', which would mean the benefits are not sustainable. There is a chance poor farmers could suffer financially if they spend extra on Bt cotton, and then lose the crop anyway to a different pest.

Overall the impacts of Bt cotton have been diverse and contingent; but this is not what one would gather from some authors' summaries of their work. The impacts are not, as has been claimed, necessarily significant, consistent or even positive. There is the allure of the technological 'quick fix'; when a product is preconceived as effective and successful it can be tempting to swim with the tide rather than against it.

The complex problems of hunger and poverty need complex answers. There is a danger that a focus on GM crops could crowd out other possibilities, such as integrated pest management systems or irrigation, in the fight for donor dollars and government attention. Glover finished by emphasising that he was not in any way anti-science, or event anti-GM, but calling for careful research which takes account of policy and institutional frameworks.

Context matters

The next speaker was Erik Millstone of SPRU. He began by setting out the question as he sees it; namely not 'is GM beneficial?' but 'under what circumstances are GM crops beneficial?' Millstone said that there are examples in which GM could be very beneficial; for instance, if crops could be made unattractive to locusts.

He explained that in order for GM to benefit poor farmers, it would have to be very low cost. Making GM crops the same price as other seeds is too high; he spoke to farmers in Kenya who had not bought any seeds at all for years, making the GM debate essentially irrelevant to them. The technology should also be employment-generating, not labour-replacing, if it is to alleviate poverty. Patents raise the price of technologies beyond the reach of poor farmers; often farmers are not allowed to re-use seed but have to re-buy it each year. Other times the technology itself has not been sensitive to farmers' situations; drought-resistant seeds contain more moisture, but this makes them more prone to mould and hence difficult for poor farmers to keep in good condition. He also dismissed the argument that GM crops are 'scale-neutral', saying that all technologies have economies of scale, and pointed out that introducing a new technology into an unequal society does not diminish poverty but can amplify inequalities.

A solution in search of a question?

Peter Newell of the University of East Anglia was the third speaker. He said that broader issues relating to poverty and hunger, such as land rights or social protection, were often ignored when talking about technology, and that GM crops could be seen as 'a solution in search of a question'. Newell stated that we need to be more explicit in what we mean when we talk about the pro-poor benefits of GM; yield increases may not be sustainable year on year, assumptions are often made about affordability and focus has been on the genetic modification of cash crops rather than staple foods. Assuming a technology can bypass its political and institutional context does its potential a disservice. He pointed out the contradiction in expecting commercial entities like Monsanto to make poverty reduction their aim; but emphasised that where public money is being spent a different process should come into play. Viewing GM as a magic bullet is only going to entrench opposition to it; instead, we need to be realistic about which technologies can best address the issues faced by poor farmers.

Barroso's two fingers to Europe
• As president of the European commission he embodied contempt for democracy. And now he wants a second term

The Guardian [UK], 15 June 2009. By David Cronin:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/15/barroso-european-commission?commentpage=1

For the next few weeks, there will probably be only one real topic of conversation within the Brussels beltway: jobs. This prattle will have little to do with the grim litany of layoffs that can easily be found in news bulletins from the outside world. Rather, it will revolve around what posts a smug cabal of overpaid and uninspiring men (and one or two women) will be able to wangle for themselves.

Speculation over the fate of JosÈ Manuel Barroso will surely leave a few tongues exhausted now that he has officially announced his intention to seek a second term as president of the European commission. Barroso has stressed that his reappointment is subject to approval by EU governments and MEPs, but I would be surprised if he encounters enough resistance to thwart his ambitions. And that's a shame.

Barroso's supporters intimate that he enjoys a mandate of sorts because he is affiliated to a centre-right party and the centre-right won a majority of seats in the European parliament in last weekend's election. Yet not one person who cast a vote in any of the EU's 27 countries would have seen Barroso's name on a ballot paper. Nor am I aware of any candidate who argued that we should vote for him or her to help secure Barroso's job.

Far from enjoying the blessing of voters, Barroso has been rebuffed in the small number of cases where EU citizens have been given a say on his policies. After the EU constitution that he championed was struck down in France and the Netherlands in 2005, he connived with government leaders to have it repackaged as the Lisbon treaty. Almost exactly a year ago, it was rejected in Ireland, the only country that put the treaty to a referendum, but Barroso refused to accept the Irish "no" and has insisted that the poll be reheld.

The contempt for democracy that he embodies is an enormous reason why Barroso should be booted out unceremoniously, yet there are plenty of others. At a time when a combination of selflessness and freshness is needed to sort out the world's economic and ecological woes, he has turned to men who represent a discredited orthodoxy and insatiable greed. To help him deal with the financial crisis, he sought the counsel of Callum McCarthy, the former chairman of Britain's Financial Services Authority, who as recently as 2007 regarded calls for greater oversight of banking as "mad dog overreaction". For advice on climate change, Barroso recruited Peter Sutherland from BP, a company that was accused in 2005 of being one of the 10 worst environmental performers in the world.

Time and again, Barroso has accorded corporate profit a higher priority than public interest. He has sought to open up the provision of essential services to competition, colluded with Peter Mandelson to browbeat poor countries into accepting ruinous free trade agreements, championed genetically modified foods and worked to allow thousands of chemicals on to the markets without health or safety tests.

Five years ago, Barroso had to withdraw his plans to make Rocco Buttiglione - a close friend of the late pope, John Paul II - the EU commissioner for justice because MEPs were outraged at Buttiglione's homophobia. In response, Barroso promised to pay special attention to fundamental rights, yet his commission has dithered on bringing forward new laws against discrimination. On asylum and immigration, it has followed an agenda set by the far right in advocating that failed asylum-seekers can be imprisoned for up to 18 months.

Going further back, Barroso has still not given a convincing explanation about Portugal's involvement in the CIA's torture programme (euphemistically known as extraordinary rendition) when he was prime minister. And anti-war protesters should never forgive him for hosting the 2003 Azores summit at which George Bush and Tony Blair put the final touches to a plan for an illegal invasion that has drenched Iraq in the blood of innocents.

The MEPs who have just been elected made countless promises on the hustings to valiantly defend the citizens of Europe. If they were serious about doing so, they should give Barroso his marching orders.

Growing possibilities A farming family with deep roots in Prineville hopes to be the first in the region to cultivate canola for oil

The Bulletin [USA], 15 June 2009. By Lauren Dake.:
http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090615/NEWS0107/906150378/1007/NEWS01&nav_category=NEWS01

PRINEVILLE [Oregon] - For the past 25 years, Wade and Janice Flegel have made a living off the land. Before them, their parents and their parents' parents did the same. And the Crook County couple hope that their five children will also find happiness working on a farm. But at the heart of keeping the land viable for future generations, the Flegels believe, is innovation.

That's one reason the couple is applying for a special permit from the Oregon Department of Agriculture to grow a test five- to 10-acre plot of canola for oil.

Currently, Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson county farmers are prohibited from growing canola for oil.

The Flegels' long-term hope is the experiment will make economic sense, eventually help offset their $75,000 annual fuel bill by turning the oil into biofuel, and help their farm become more sustainable.

Two years ago, Wade Flegel applied for a similar permit but was denied. There was too much uncertainty surrounding the impact of canola on the area's $14.9 million seed crop industry.

Bees are naturally more attracted to canola, which worried farmers that canola would compete for the pollinator's attention, and the high-value vegetable crops would lose.

But a trial plot at the Jefferson County Oregon State University Extension Service a couple of years ago showed that canola planted in the fall would flower at a different time than the vegetable seeds, avoiding competition for the bees' attention.

There is still a concern that the canola crops could end up pushing out vegetable crops. But now, it looks likely Flegel will receive the permit and become the first farmer in the area to experiment growing canola for oil, starting this fall.

"It's part of farming that if you try something and you see it's successful, there are a lot of rewards," Wade Flegel said.

The prohibition on canola was initiated by the area's vegetable seed growers more than 20 years ago, according to Mylen Bohle with the Crook County OSU Extension Service.

"It should be interesting," Bohle said of the Flegels' endeavors. "There are other growers who want to see him do it before they jump in and try."

Taking a chance

So far, carrot seed farmers are willing to let Flegel take a shot at growing canola, as long as he sticks to using conventional seeds. If genetically modified canola entered the area, the impact on crops could be devastating. The GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds have been chemically altered to be herbicide tolerant.

"The seed industry is afraid of cross pollination with GMO canola in the seed lot," Bohle said. "If that gets to Europe or Japan and someone finds it, there goes the market. They won't want to come back here ... If there is even the perception that GMO is raised in the area, they may not want to buy from the vegetable seed industry here."

Randy Gamble, a farmer in Crook County, who grows carrot seed, along with several other crops, said he's willing to let Flegel experiment, but proven crops, he said, should take priority.

"We make our living with carrots, it's a big part of our income," Gamble said. "If we couldn't grow carrots and onions, we would be out of business. To risk that for something that could be down the road is kind of silly, but at this point what he's doing isn't really affecting anything."

Dan Hilburn, with the Oregon Department of Agriculture, said if the Flegels get a permit, it will be a stipulation that he work with OSU researchers.

"We're trying to work with Wade so we can get data on yield and pest disease issues and timing of the flower relative to carrots," Hilburn said. "If we can learn something from him giving it a try, we can see if it's possible to grow canola for oil in the same area where there is carrot seed production or not."

Scientific approach

Hilburn said he's hoping to resolve the question of whether canola can be controlled.

If canola sprouted up in crops after it had been harvested (a volunteer), or alongside a ditch, it would be difficult for the vegetable seed industry to keep its fields clean for high-quality seeds. Eventually, it could push out the more valuable crops.

"If it becomes weedy, it becomes a problem and wouldn't matter if it was GMO or not," Hilburn said.

"We haven't answered the volunteer question," Hilburn said. "If you grow a crop and harvest it normally and a volunteer comes back in the crop, or in surrounding fields, it's bad for the long run. You would have canola spreading in the wild ... You can't control the flowering time, and you have a potential problem forever in the future. We don't want to do that. If canola is a problem ... We need to be able to shut it down."

Flegel said it's important to him that he's not only a good steward of the land but also a good neighbor.

"Our intent isn't to drive vegetable seed out, but to get some more crop availability here," he said.

Seeds of a new industry?

Richard Affeldt, with the Jefferson County Extension Service, is skeptical about how canola crops would fare in the long run.

"The key question that has been part of the discussion in Oregon is - Oregon has an established industry that is feasible and economically viable," Affeldt said. "And it's not clear whether canola is going to be economically viable, and most of the indicators based on research would say it's not going to be, so why would you jeopardize a specialty seed industry."

Flegel's plan is to crush the canola seed and produce the biofuel on his own. If successful, there could be opportunities beyond solely using it on their farm.

Lou Torres, with the Oregon Department of Energy, noted the tax credits available for those trying to grow oil seed crops.

"We want to develop a homegrown industry here," Torres said. "Right now, we import almost all our transportation fuel from out of state and most from out of country ... We're certainly trying to encourage more agriculture producers to take a look at feedstocks that can be used for biofuels."

On a Thursday afternoon, three of the Flegels' children were working with their parents in the field, moving irrigation pipes. All three of the boys have an interest in farming after college. For Wade and Janice, leaving their land in better shape and financially sound for their children is key.

"I like to work with the ground, and I want it to be better than when we started so it can be left improved for the next generations," he said.

Lauren Dake can be reached at 541-419-8074 or at ldake@bendbulletin.com.

14 June 2009

Plan panel says no to GM food crops

Times of India, 14 Jun 2009. By Mahendra Kumar Singh:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-4653953,prtpage-1.cms

NEW DELHI: After facing stiff opposition from environment ministry, the proposal to introduce genetically modified (GM) food in India has run into trouble with Planning Commission as well. In the first public positioning by the government, the highest planning body has shown the red light to GM technology in food crops.

However, the plan panel has fewer objections on introduction of GM technology in non-edible agro products like cotton. While food safety concerns remain, Planning Commission member Abhijit Sen said India's crop exports could be severely hit if it allowed GM food crops. He pointed out that several European and other nations preferred to buy food items from India because it was still known as "GM-free".

"There is bound to be much greater opposition to GM foods. In case of soyabean, we earn more money through exports as the West relies on us for not using GM technology," Sen, an agricultural economist, said. The promoters of this technology are keen to start cultivation of GM varieties of tomato, potato and green vegetables including brinjal, he added.

Environment minister Jairam Ramesh had earlier expressed reservations about allowing BT brinjal and other GM foods, many of which are in the trial stage in the country. On lesser objection to use of GM technology in non-edible agro products, Sen said use of this technology has reportedly been successful in enhancing the produce.

Introduction of BT cotton has made India the second largest producer of cotton in the world within six years. India is one of the six leading countries that are conducting field trials of GM crops.

12 June 2009

Food, Inc. Gets Rave Reviews, Big Ag Shudders

Huffington Post, 12 June 2009. By Paula Crossfield:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/food-inc-gets-rave-review_b_214766.html

Today, Food, Inc. debuts, with more cities to follow in the coming weeks, and almost every major media outlet has weighed in: it is certainly not a film to miss, it offers a view into the food system you've never seen before, and you will leave the theater changed.

Big Ag realizes that the tide is turning on the corporate control of our food system, and that their message is in jeopardy. This is why most of the corporations and corporately supported groups from Monsanto to the National Chicken Council (now tainted in light of the newly-released CDC report about chicken as contamination's numero uno) have created special sections of their websites dedicated to the film, in an attempt to mislead the public on the facts Food, Inc. is bringing to light for the first time.

Unfortunately agribusiness has chosen to try and turn the message on its head with falsehoods. Jill Richardson did a good job refuting some of these claims here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/4/192032/0602

One of the most seething attacks from Big Ag argues that Food, Inc. "demonizes family farmers," to which Farm Aid, an organization that has been supporting family farmers for 23 years, has replied:

Food, Inc. is an indictment of the industrial system of agriculture and the policy that promotes it, putting many family farmers out of business, compromising rural communities, degrading soil, air and water, and creating a public health epidemic. Troy Roush, an Indiana corn farmer, said in the film, "People have got to start demanding good, wholesome food of us and we'll deliver, I promise you." That's the epitome of the American family farmer: innovative, creative, adaptable. It's not to say that every farmer is going to start growing vegetables and selling direct to consumers... that doesn't represent the entirety of our agricultural system. But our food system is more nuanced than the dichotomies like 'commodities versus local food' or 'conventional versus organic.' The main point is there are better policies that can reward methods that benefit our farmers, our planet and our health. And if there's a market for that food, family farmers stand ready to meet the demand.

The second claim many of these agribusiness interests are making is that the film somehow reinforces that the sustainable food movement is elitist. It is time to lay this one to rest, Big Ag, for right now it has never been more obvious that the system we have in place is a two-tiered system in which the poor are forced to eat fast food at their peril; where some corporate bottom line is more important than the right of all people to eat healthy food. That is elitist.

So why is Big Ag shuddering in light of Food, Inc.'s reception by the media? Because Big Ag benefits from the status quo. With mass awareness about the current realities of the inner workings of our food system comes public outrage, and with public outrage comes regulation and thus a minimized corporate profits. So what is the government going to do about a public who is aware of the realities of our food system, conditions that are making us sick?

Here is hoping that the eye-opening that ensues from this film will roll into policy decisions.

Already in Washington we have legislation in the works like the Food Safety Enhancement Act, which is the biggest reform of food safety since 1938. It's a start. There is also the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill, in which agriculture is largely left out, but agribusiness is trying to use to its favor. We know that agriculture, and especially Big Ag contribute heavily to climate change and should thus play a role in this bill. But according to Tom Philpott's article, linked above:

"If the ag giants get their way, they could seriously compromise the legislation's ability to mitigate climate change... To move in that direction would require a tremendous shift in practices, [director of the School of the Environment and Natural Resources at Ohio State University, Rattan] Lal told me in an interview: a move to farming that explicitly seeks to build organic matter in soil. That means reduced tillage, extensive cover cropping, and 'as much manure and compost as possible.'"

Changing the way we view our relationship to the soil, however, requires us to get off our addiction to biotechnology. What Monsanto and other companies are proposing we "feed the world" is more potentially e. coli-ridden meat, cheap calories like high fructose corn syrup, and some feed for our cars: ethanol. That is what they are producing, not the leafy greens and grains we are told are so good for us. Yet we support these claims out of some unyielding dedication to technology as our big fix. Even the recently passed Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act slipped a cool 7.7 billion dollars that could be focused on research in genetically modified crops in to Big Ag coffers. (More here from the Ethicurean's Elanor Starmer). But we have yet to see the yield increase, nor has it been explained how Monsanto and others propose to increase said yields. So what does all this portend for our future legislation around agriculture?

Yesterday on the Huffington Post, Secretary Hillary Clinton weighed in on government strategies around hunger. One of her head advisers, Nina Federoff, is a well-known proponent of genetically modified food as a means of dealing with the food crisis, so one wonders if by "quality seeds" Secretary Clinton is hinting at GMOs.

It is my hope that the administration consider the following when making international development policy in Africa and elsewhere: it would be irresponsible, when yields have yet to be proven to increase here at home, and when farmers from the first Green Revolution in India are committing suicide over unmanageable debts and a depleted water table, and six countries in Europe have banned GMOs from their fields, to impose a policy built on such shaky ground.

Let's hope that Secretary Clinton and others in the administration see Food, Inc. (Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack already has, but has yet to comment) and get a broader image of our food system to draw on.

When Michael Pollan was recently asked whether this was a "pivotal time for food" in a Newsweek interview about the film, he responded:

"I do. I think we are reaching a tipping point, to use a cliche. This is one of the most interesting social movements afoot right now. The politicians haven't quite recognized it yet. There are a very small handful who realize that there are votes in these issues. Hopefully this movie will be part of the change. We are realizing that the way we are eating is making us sick. The phrase 'health-care crisis' is in large part another term for the catastrophe of the American diet. More than half the money we spend on health care goes to treat preventable diseases linked to diet."

Agribusiness has continuously blocked the labeling of genetically modified food, because they argue that too much information is a bad thing. After Food, Inc., hopefully consumers will be empowered to fight back for the information they deserve to know about their food.

Paula Crossfield is Managing Editor of civileats.com

Around the Web:

Official Food, Inc. Movie Site - Hungry For Change?
http://www.foodincmovie.com/

YouTube - Food, Inc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I

Apple - Movie Trailers - Food, Inc.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/foodinc/

Food, Inc. : Review : Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/24044311/review/28631104/food_inc

Movie review: Food, Inc (2008)
• Meet Your New Farmer: Hungry Corporate Giant

New York Times [USA], 12 June 2009. By Manolah Dargis:
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/movies/12food.html

[View trailers and clips at http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/455396/Food-Inc-/trailers]

Forget buckets of blood. Nothing says horror like one of those tubs of artificially buttered, nonorganic popcorn at the concession stand. That, at least, is one of the unappetizing lessons to draw from one of the scariest movies of the year, "Food, Inc.," an informative, often infuriating activist documentary about the big business of feeding or, more to the political point, force-feeding, Americans all the junk that multinational corporate money can buy. You'll shudder, shake and just possibly lose your genetically modified lunch.

Divided into chapters dedicated to points along the commercial food chain - from farm to fork, to borrow a loaded agribusiness phrase - the movie is nothing if not ambitious. "There are no seasons in the American supermarket," the unidentified voice intones in the opening scene, as the camera sweeps the aisles of one such brightly lighted, heavily stocked if nutritionally impoverished emporium. From there the director Robert Kenner jumps all over the food map, from industrial feedlots where millions of cruelly crammed cattle mill about in their own waste until slaughter, to the chains where millions of consumers gobble down industrially produced meat and an occasional serving of E. coli bacteria.

The voice in the opening belongs to the ethical epicurean and locavore champion Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma," as well as a contributing writer to The New York Times Magazine. (Somewhat confusingly, the movie uses voice-overs without clearly identifying who's issuing forth on the soundtrack.) Mr. Pollan, who periodically appears on screen seated at a homey-looking table, is a great strength of "Food, Inc.," as is one of its co-producers, Eric Schlosser, the author of "Fast Food Nation." These two embodiments of conscience, together with Mr. Kenner, chart how and why the villains not only outnumber the heroes in contemporary food production, but also how and why they outbluff, outmuscle and outspend their opponents by billions of often government-subsidized dollars.

If you've read either "Fast Food Nation" or "The Omnivore's Dilemma," you won't be surprised by what the movie shows and tells about the killing floors and soybean fields. Chances are that you'll still be appalled, which is to Mr. Kenner's credit. Much as Mr. Schlosser does in "Fast Food Nation," the movie takes a look at the animal abuse in industrial food production - including clandestine images of sick and crippled cows being prodded to join the rest of the ill-fated herd - but its main focus is on the human cost. It's a cost visible in the rounded bodies of a poor family that eats cheap if filling fast-food burgers for breakfast and in the obscured faces of farmers too frightened to go on record about Monsanto, the agricultural biotech giant.

As Mr. Kenner marshals his prodigious evidence, including bushels of statistics, a veritable village of talking heads and too many dopey graphics, he makes the case that there's something horribly wrong with a system in which a bag of chips cost less than a bag of carrots. It's such a good case that you soon realize there are a dozen more documentaries tucked inside this one. The section on Monsanto is particularly eye-opening and could be spun out in more detail. And I could have spent more time with the philosophizing organic farmer Joel Salatin, who guts his chickens al fresco, hails his free-ranging livestock ("Hey, pig!") and is a reality show waiting to happen. It could be called "Hello, and Goodbye, Pig!"

There is, in the end, something inherently frustrating about a movie that's at once as fine, ambitious and, at a crisp 93 minutes, as abbreviated as "Food, Inc." Time and again the movie stops short before it really gets started, as with the debates over the big business of organic food. The moment when an organic farmer cheerily tells a smiling Wal-Mart representative that her family has been boycotting the company for years is hilarious. But it's also over before the issues have really been thrashed through. And while I appreciate the impulse behind the final checklist that tells what viewers can do for themselves and the world (er, eat organic), given everything we've just seen, it also registers as far too depressingly little.

FOOD, INC.

Opens on Friday in Manhattan.

Directed by Robert Kenner; written by Mr. Kenner, Elise Pearlstein and Kim Roberts; director of photography, Richard Pearce; edited by Ms. Roberts; music by Mark Adler; produced by Mr. Kenner and Ms. Pearlstein; released by Magnolia Pictures. At the Film Forum, 209 West Houston Street, west of Sixth Avenue, West Village. Running time: 1 hour 34 minutes. This film is not rated.

Dow GM Soya Crop: a step back into the Dark Ages

GM Freeze (UK), 12 June 2009:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=385&iType=

Dow AgroSciences' recent request [1] to the regulatory authorities in Brazil to field test a new GM soya bean tolerant to weedkillers 2,4 D and haloxyfop R has been described by GM Freeze as "a step back into the Dark Ages".

2,4 D [2], which kills broad leaf weeds, has been approved since the 1940s and was a constituent part of Agent Orange - the defoliant used by the US during the war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. It is rated as "moderately toxic" and is considered by some authorities to be a possible cancer-causing agent. It can be washed from the soil after application and has been a pollutant in untreated drinking water in the UK. It is highly toxic to fish. It is still approved for use in the EU.

Dow's application for the approval of haloxyfop R has been rejected by the EU, citing [3]:

•

The potential contamination of groundwater

•

The risk to mammals

•

The high toxicity to fish

The only GM herbicide tolerant crop currently approved for growing in Brazil is Monsanto's Roundup Ready (RR) soya, which is tolerant to the weedkiller Roundup. The introduction of RR soya in 1996 was hailed as a way to reduce herbicide use and protect the environment form other, more harmful weedkillers. However new evidence is emerging that casts increasing doubts about the safety of Roundup [4], particularly significant for farmers handling Roundup or people living near sprayed fields. The legal limit on maximum residues was increased two hundred times to accommodate the use of Roundup on GM soya beans imported into Europe, mainly for animal feed [5].

Dow's new proposed GM may increase residues of 2,4 D or haloxyfop R in soya imports in the future.

In addition, weed resistance to Roundup is developing fast in North and South America, making the GM seeds both ineffective and expensive to use, as farmers now must apply extra weedkillers to kill the resistant weeds. In Argentina, Roundup resistant Johnson grass was first found in 2005, and since then it has infested at least 10,000 hectares of soya land, with some reports saying 100,000 hectares are affected [6]. More and more herbicides are being used to combat resistance following the adoption of RR crops in North and South America.

Weed resistance is now driving the push for new herbicide tolerant crops, such as those being developed by Dow.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"GM Roundup tolerant crops were supposed to reduce weedkiller use and cut out the need for using more toxic chemicals such as 2,4 D. Scientists always warned that the overuse of Roundup would lead to resistance developing in weeds, and that is exactly what has happened. The proposal by Dow to introduce GM soya tolerant to 2,4 D and haloxyfop R is a step back into the Dark Ages - these are exactly the sort of products GM was supposed to phase out.

"GM herbicide tolerant crops can now be seen for what they are - a short term fix for companies wanting to make money selling weedkillers. The sooner farmers recognise this and return to crop rotations and other agroecological approaches to control weeds the better."

Calls to Pete Riley on 0845 217 8992 or 07903 34106.

Notes

1. See www.aspta.org.br/por-um-brasil-livre-de-transgenicos/updates/update-june-2009/

2. See PAN UK Briefing www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/24d.htm

3. See http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/haloxyfop-r.pdf

4. Benachour N and Séralini G-E, 2009. Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells, Chemical Research in Toxicology Vol22 No1 pp 97-105 available from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx800218n

5. See www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990714/text/90714w21.htm#90714w21.htm_sbhd4

6. See www.weedscience.org/Case/Case.asp?ResistID=5271

No safety risk from GM marker genes

Agra Europe Weekly, 12 June 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com

The EU's food safety watchdog has said this week that it is unlikely antibiotic resistance marker genes in genetically modified plants would pose a risk to human health or the environment.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published an opinion on Thursday on the potential effect on human health and the environment of the transfer of the antibiotic resistance marker genes (ARMGs) nptll and aadA from genetically modified (GM) plants to bacteria.

The body said that such transfers have not been found to occur, and therefore it is unlikely an risk to health would be posed by the use of these ARMGs.

The use of nptll in the GM maize MON-863, and in the starch potato EH92-527-1 was included in the assessment.

ARMGs work by giving plant cells the ability to break specific antibiotics.

Uncertainties expressed

EFSA admitted in a statement that uncertainties were expressed by two members of its BIOHAZ (Biohazard) panel which carried out the evaluation jointly with the body's GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) panel.

However, EFSA claimed that any uncertainties expressed in the opinion are due to 'limitations on sampling and detection'. The body asked the two panels to consider whether these two 'minority opinions' required further clarification of the joint opinion, or further scientific investigation - but it was concluded this was not necessary.

No transfers from plants to bacteria

In the joint opinion, the two panels said that transfers of ARMGs from GM plants to bacteria have not been shown to occur either in natural conditions or in the laboratory. Transfers do not occur, EFSA said, due to a lack of DNA sequence identity between plants and bacteria.

Resistance genes to certain antibiotics are present in all environments analysed by the panels, the opinion said - but sampling and detection problems often mean that it is not possible to find out from which organism an antibiotic resistance gene was transferred to another.

The presence of antibiotics in the environment is a key factor in the selection and dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes, EFSA points out.

Human and veterinary impact

The panels also worked with the European Medicines Agency and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control to consider the clinical importance for human and veterinary medicine of the antibiotics to which ARMGs give resistance.

Nptll confers resistance to the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin, both of which are categorised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as 'highly important antimicrobials'. Kanamycin is used in the treatment of tuberculosis.

Doctors call for a moratorium on GM foods

Irish Medical Times, 12 June 2009:
http://www.imt.ie

The Irish Doctors' Environmental Association (IDEA) has backed calls for an immediate moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods. A new position paper from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) had said that GM foods 'pose a serious health risk' and called for a moratorium on them.

The paper also said doctors must educate their patients and the public to avoid GM foods and that doctors should consider the role of GM foods in the "patient's disease processes".

"Doctors have an ethical and moral duty to highlight concerns in relation to these issues and in the interest of the health of present and future generations. Permission to grow or consume genetically engineered foors in Ireland should be denied," it stated.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Irish Doctors' Environmental Association's position on GM foods:
http://www.ideaireland.org/gmfood.htm

American Academy of Environmental Medicine position on GM foods:
press release http://www.aaemonline.org/pressrelease.html
position paper http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

11 June 2009

Groups reject GMO wheat
• Industry leaders say opponents don't understand science behind products

Capital Press (USA), 11 June 2009. By Matthew Weaver:
http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=617&ArticleID=52011&TM=51172.23

On the heels of a joint statement from the U.S., Canadian and Australian wheat industries supporting development of genetically modified wheat, anti-technology groups have come out against it.

Fifteen groups last week released a statement criticizing the use of genetically engineered traits, according to a press release from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

Katherine Ozer, executive director of the National Family Farm Coalition, one of the 15 groups, said she expects other groups to sign on during the summer, reaffirming their position against genetically modified wheat.

Ozer said her concerns are tied into a "strong economic analysis" indicating a 30 to 35 percent drop in farm incomes as a result of consumer rejection of genetically modified wheat.

Another concern is yield. Other genetically modified crops, including corn and soybeans, have not produced the yields that were promised, Ozer said.

Daren Coppock, CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers, one of the organizations supporting the use of biotechnology in wheat, said the statement comes from the same set of "anti-technology" groups that protest biotechnology in every crop.

"The organizations that signed the 'rejection' petition cannot make a credible claim to represent wheat growers," Coppock said.

A grower survey conducted by the association earlier this year showed 76 percent of respondents supported commercializing biotechnology traits in wheat, Coppock said.

"It fully validated the position of NAWG and U.S. Wheat Associates on biotechnology," he said. "The producer position is clear."

Keith Bailey, a board member for the Washington Wheat Commission and chairman of the Portland, Ore.-based Wheat Marketing Center, said genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, have the potential to allow for more economic production.

But Bailey said more education is in order, to get customers comfortable with the idea the traits do not threaten human health or well-being.

Many people in the industry already understand the science behind such crops involved safety precautions and other measures, he said, but there is still a public perception that a gene could create health concerns.

"We don't want to see our markets damaged," Bailey said. "It won't do us much good to produce higher quality and more production if users don't want it."

Genetically modified organisms are already in the market in other commodities, Bailey said, but wheat is in a wait-and-see mode.

"Until the markets are ready for it, we're probably not going to be able to supply GMOs," he said.

Matthew Weaver is based in Spokane. E-mail: mweaver@capitalpress.com.

Disagreement in EFSA opinion puts future of BASF GM potato in doubt

Greenpeace European Unit, 11 June 2009:
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/EFSA-opinion-GM-potato-09-06-11

Brussels, Belgium - The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been unable to reach a unanimous opinion on the use of antibiotic resistance genes in genetically modified (GM) plants. This opinion has significant consequences for the authorisation of BASF's genetically modified (GM) potato and other GM products already on the market.

While acknowledging scientific uncertainties, EFSA's panel on GM crops claims that it is "unlikely" that antibiotic resistance genes in GM crops pose health and environmental risks. However, two senior scientists from EFSA's biohazard panel, which was jointly responsible for the assessment, did not agree with the conclusions and raised serious concerns about adverse effects on public health and the environment.

"We welcome this unprecedented opinion by the EU's food safety authority and its recognition of the uncertainties and disagreements that exist on GM crops within the scientific community. The opinion proves that a wider consultation of scientists is paramount if we are to assess the safety of GM crops,"[1] said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director.

In the first ever disagreement within EFSA on the dangers associated with GM crops, the two scientists claimed that "adverse effects [...] cannot be assessed" and that the probability of gene transfers from plants to bacteria ranges widely "from unlikely to high."[2]

EFSA has already expressed a positive opinion on a BASF GM potato, which contains an antibiotic resistance gene, but was forced by the European Commission to re-examine the risks linked to antibiotic resistance, after failing to address persisting legal and health concerns.[3] An EU law from 2001 requires the phase out of antibiotic resistance genes which may have adverse effects on human health and the environment by the end of 2004. According to the World Health Organisation, the gene contained in the BASF GM potato is connected with antibiotics that are vital in the treatment of serious diseases such as tuberculosis.[4]

"BASF had eight years in which to produce a potato without an antibiotic resistance gene, but chose not to in order to save money and time. Authorising it now would be as crazy as restarting the production of cars without seatbelts or airbags. The authorisation of GM products should be based on health and environmental assessments, not on protecting the corporate interests of BASF," said Contiero.

Given the obvious scientific uncertainties associated with antibiotic resistance genes, Greenpeace calls on the Commission to recommend a ban of the BASF GM potato and a withdrawal of all other GM products authorised on the market containing antibiotic resistance genes.

Notes to Editor

[1] The BASF GM potato contains an antibiotic resistance marker gene (ARMG) known as nptII, which conveys resistance to antibiotics.

[2 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Statement/gmo_biohaz_st_ej1108_ConsolidatedARG_en.pdf] (p. 90).

[3] For a detailed analysis of problems linked to the BASF GM potato and for a detailed chronology, see: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/pr-basf-gm-potato-council-vote

[4] World Health Organisation, Critically Important Antibacterial Agents for Human Medicine for Risk Management Strategies of Non-Human Use. Report of a WHO working group consultation, 15-18 February 2005, Canberra, Australia (http://www.who.int/foodborne_disease/resistance/amr_feb2005.pdf).

Also see: EMEA - Committee for medicinal products for veterinary use and Committee for medicinal products for human use, Presence of the antibiotic resistance marker gene nptII in GM plants for food and feed uses. EMEA/CVMP/56937/2007. 22 February 2007 (http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/opiniongen/5693707en.pdf).

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

BASF wins Amflora battle against GMO opponents

European Biotechnology News, 11 June 2009:
http://www.eurobiotechnews.eu/service/start-page/top-news/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=10199&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12&cHash=d5cc3ee883

Parma/Brussels - Chemical giant BASF has won the battle against GMO opponents who have argued that the GM potato Amflora was not safe for human health and the environment. This morning the European food watchdog EFSA confirmed that the antibiotic resistance marker npt2, which is used in the Amylopectin-producing GM potato, and the aadA marker, are unlikely to "to have adverse effects on human health and the environment." With the decision of the 42 members of the EFSA's GMO and Biohaz panel nothing stands in the way of market authorisation of the GM crop.

"We are very happy about this explicit scientific statement", said Dr. Stefan Marcinowski, Member of the Board of Executive Directors of BASF SE. "However, we are not surprised that EFSA reconfirmed their previous statements, because no new scientific has become available since EFSA published their last opinion. We see the positive EFSA opinion as an important step toward approval, although we are still dissatisfied with the approval process that has lasted for 13 years now."

BASF has already made preparations to grow the GM potato commercially. In May, the firm started to cultivate 20 hectares of the potato, which is to produce industrial starch for the paper and textile industry, in a "field trial plot" in northern Germany.

The decision on the authorisation is now up to the European Commission that have already signaled that they will give the Green light. "Today's assessment gives the entire EU Commission the final scientific clarity to approve Amflora," Marcinowski told European Biotechnology News. "I am pleased, since the EU Commission stated in May 2008 that it will approve Amflora "if and when" EFSA has confirmed the safety of the product."

EFSA publishes minority opinions

The publication of the EFSA opinion had been delayed due to a conflict within the European food safety authority EFSA. At the end of April, the EU food watchdog had already stated that two members of its BIOHAZ panel intended to publish so-called minority opinions, statements that must be added to an EFSA evaluation regardless of their scientific validity.

The announcement came as a surprise to most of the remaining experts of the BIOHAZ and GMO panel, who had already reached the conclusion expected by researchers and biotech associations. In an undisclosed statement submitted to the European Commission at the end of March, the experts stated that there was no new scientific evidence that would change previously published EFSA opinions on the safety of the antibiotic resistance marker npt2 that is used in Amflora and many other GM crops.

In an April letter to the heads of the EFSA panels, Executive Director Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle had asked them to discuss three questions at their meeting:

•

Do any of the issues raised in the minority opinions require further clarification of the current joint scientific opinion?

•

If yes, can this be done without further scientific work?

•

If further work is required, what might the nature of this work be?

The Panel chairs responded that the minority opinions had been extensively considered during the preparation of the joint opinion and no further clarification or scientific work were needed at the time.

In their joint opinion, the GMO and BIOHAZ Panels concluded that transfers of ARMG from GM plants to bacteria have not been shown to occur either in natural conditions or in the laboratory. The key barrier to stable uptake of antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM plants to bacteria is the lack of DNA sequence identity between plants and bacteria.

However, GMO sceptics from Greenpeace criticised the decision. "The EFSA has showed again that it is not capable of giving a consistent opinion on GMO-related questions" said GMO expert Stephanie T–we from Greenpeace Germany. "Besides our standpoint that the release of GMOs into the environment is not controllable, we think that it should be prohibited to use antibiotic resistance genes as markers because nobody can exclude that the relevant genes are transmitted, possibly leading to the ineffectiveness of important antibiotics."

T–we said that plant breeders already have established alternatives to antibiotic resistance marker (ARM) genes and that BASF had 8 years of time to develop potatoes without ARMs. She also said that it would be difficult for the Commission to authorise cultivation of the GM potato without giving the Green light to Amflora as food and feed. Albeit BASF intends to use Amflora for industry starch production there are many possibilities where it could enter the food chain, according to the Greenpeace expert.

Opinion in detail

The Panels concluded that the antibiotic resistance genes nptII and aadA occur at different frequencies in different bacterial species and strains, and environments. Recent analyses of total bacterial populations using the most advanced technologies[4] have demonstrated that resistance genes to the antibiotics kanamycin, neomycin and streptomycin are present in all environments investigated. The presence of antibiotics in the environment and antibiotic usage are key factors in driving the selection and dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes.

The Panels underlined limitations related among others to sampling, detection, challenges in estimating exposure levels and the inability to assign gene transfer to a defined source. Sampling and detection issues are technical aspects of experiments which may limit the validity of results. Furthermore, it is often not possible to find out precisely from which organism an ARM gene, present in another organism may have originated from nor to give a precise estimation of the extent of the phenomenon[5].

In collaboration with the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the Panels also considered the clinical importance for human and veterinary medicine of the antibiotics to which the ARMG confer resistance. NptII confers resistance to the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin. These are categorised by the World Health Organization (WHO) as 'highly important antimicrobials'. Kanamycin is used as a second-line antibiotic for the treatment of infections with multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis (MTB); increasing resistance of MTB to such antibiotics is of concern globally. However, the Panels noted that nptII has not been implicated in resistance to kanamycin in the treat

[remainder of article missing from website]

GM potato variety now likely to be given EU go-ahead

Farm Business [UK], 11 June 2009:
http://www.farmbusiness.cc/cogcms/default.aspx?Page=20&Article=4228

A genetically modified potato variety which produces higher yields of industrial starch, has again been given a clean bill of health and should soon be available for cultivation in the EU - only the second GM variety to do so.

Amiflora, a BASF variety, has been grinding through the EU political system for years but despite a series of assessments which showed it to be safe to humans, animals and the environment, it failed to receive the necessary final approval for use in the community.

But the decision announced today (Thur) by the European Food Safety Authority, which again could find no evidence to suggest there were any safety problems, means the European Commission now has little option but to go ahead and grant permission for its production by EU farmers - where, of course, national governments give their approval.

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

This article is mistaken and propagandistic (see Greenpeace press release above it for more honest coverage).

The article's claim that "the European Commission now has little option but to go ahead and grant permission" is totally false.

EU Member States can, if they so chose, refuse to allow this GM potato to be placed on the market, by so voting at forthoming meetings of the EU Standing Committee on Animal Health and the Feed Chain, and of the Council of Ministers. If the member states don't reach a so-called Qualified Majority Vote at either of these meetings, the European Commission can still refuse to approve this GM potato, and should do so to respect the democratic wishes of the vast majority of the citizens of EU member states - not to mention sound science!

BASF says GMO potato deemed safe by EU agency
• Assessment gives scientific clarity to EU - BASF
• Shares up 0.7 pct, slightly outperforming broader market

Interactive Investor / Reuters, 11 June 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSLB15338420090611

FRANKFURT - German chemical maker BASF (BASF.DE) said on Thursday its genetically modified potato, Amflora, designed to yield industrial starch, has again been described as safe for humans in a recommendation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

"Today's assessment gives the entire EU Commission the final scientific clarity to approve Amflora," said Stefan Marcinowski, executive board member in charge of BASF's plant science and pesticides business.

"I am pleased, since the EU Commission stated in May 2008 that it will approve Amflora 'if and when' EFSA has confirmed the safety of the product."

Shares in BASF were up 0.7 percent at 1011 GMT, while Germany's DAX top-30 index .GDAXI was 0.5 percent higher.

BASF in July last year took legal action against the European Commission, saying it unjustifiably delayed the approval process for Amflora, which BASF started 12 years ago.

BASF has been awaiting European Commission clearance of Amflora since July 2007, and hopes the fresh EFSA recommendation will result in the Commission giving its approval.

Thursday's recommendation by the EFSA follows its initial assessment in 2006 that Amflora was safe for humans and the environment.

Amflora was engineered not for human consumption but to yield high amounts of a type of starch that can be used by the paper and textiles industry. (Reporting by Ludwig Burger and Christoph Steitz; Editing by David Holmes and Simon Jessop)

'Food, Inc.': Documentary on your dinner

San Francisco Chronicle, 11 June 2009. By Tamara Straus:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/10/DDCT1833GH.DTL

[Watch the Food Inc trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf4ZmfjyEvI]

In case you are among the Northern Californians who have avoided thinking about where your dinner comes from, "Food, Inc.," a documentary by Robert Kenner that opens on Friday in San Francisco, will send you to the refrigerator to inspect the information on your food labels.

With the film, which is based largely on the best-selling books "An Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, the makers of "Food, Inc." hope to transform Americans' views on industrial food production, much the way "An Inconvenient Truth" helped turn global warming into a top national worry.

Among the points that galvanized the filmmakers:

•

In 1972, the Food and Drug Administration conducted 50,000 food safety inspections; in 2006, the FDA conducted 9,164.

•

During the George W. Bush administration, the head of the FDA was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association, and the chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington.

•

Cattle are given feed that their bodies are not designed to digest, resulting in new strains of the E. coli virus that sicken tens of thousands of Americans annually.

•

One in 3 Americans born after 2000 will contract early-onset diabetes; among minorities, the rate will be 1 in 2.

Kenner, a Los Angeles documentarian, says he did not set out to make an activist horror film. In fact, his original goal was to tell the story from the points of view of both organic and industrial food growers. But representatives of the 50 industrial food companies he contacted, including Monsanto, Perdue, Tyson and Smithfield, would not talk and, more important, would not allow their production practices to be filmed.

"The fact is they don't want us to see how the food is made," said Kenner during a recent visit to San Francisco. "They don't want us to know what's in it. And, ultimately, they don't want us talking about it."

Kenner said he spent six years trying to make a film that would not appear one-sided or biased but admits he ended up with a "connect-the-dots" portrait of the American food system that is "Orwellian."

Among the film's subjects is Carole Morison, a Maryland chicken farmer, who risks her livelihood to show the repulsive conditions under which her chickens are fed and housed, per Perdue's requirements. Morison is seen wading through a barn so stuffed with chickens covered in their own feces that there is no view of the floor. She sets about her daily chore: grabbing the birds that have died from trampling because they grew too fat to walk.

"I understand why farmers don't want to talk, because these companies can do whatever they want to do as far as pay goes," says Morison in the film. Equally maddening is Kenner's portrait of a working-class Los Angeles family, who talk about why they eat fast food most nights: It's cheaper than a home-cooked meal - because, as Pollan points out, it is largely made from processed corn, wheat and soybean, crops that are often genetically modified and heavily subsidized by the government.

Kenner is adamant that food is not an elitist issue. Rather, "it is a health issue, an environmental issue, a human rights issue. This industrialized food, whether you're eating it or not, is going to cost us all."

But what can be done? Although the film's Web site, foodincmovie.com, advocates such tips as "protect family farms; and stop drinking sodas and other sweetened beverages," transforming a monopolized food system that has government backing is a seriously uphill battle.

Kenner said it is unrealistic to believe we can convert U.S. agribusiness into a network of organic farms, but he sees glimmers of hope. Since he started researching "Food, Inc.," he said, "there's much more of a movement. When we screen this, people stand up and cry. There's a built-in anger there. It's Republicans. It's Democrats."

The film's social outreach is being handled by Participant Media, which helped turn "An Inconvenient Truth" into a catalyst for global warming awareness. John Schreiber, Participants' executive vice president for social action and advocacy, has been working with more than two dozen food-oriented nongovernmental agencies to develop what he calls "actionable issues" around the film. They include the Enhanced Child Nutrition Act, which will come up for a vote in Congress in the fall.

When Kenner began the film, times were flush. Now that the country is in the worst economic times since the Great Depression, can food reform really happen?

Kenner thinks so. The global economic crisis, which has highlighted the consequences of corporate consolidation and spotty government oversight, might be good for the food reform movement, he said.

"What's unclear is how big is the movement going to be," he said. "If it continues to grow, I think there's now an atmosphere in Washington and Sacramento that is ready to follow."

"Food, Inc." opens at the Landmark Embarcadero in San Francisco on Friday, and at the Oaks 2 and the Rialto in Berkeley on June 19. For a review of the movie, see Friday's Datebook.

E-mail Tamara Straus at dateletters@sfchronicle.com.

Organic growers irked by GM secrecy

The West Australian, 11 June 2009.
Watch video clip at:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=147274

Attempts to protect organic food crops from contamination by genetically modified canola were being hindered because the specific sites of GM trials had not been revealed, Organic Growers Association vice-president Maggie Lilith said yesterday.

Growers had been given only the shire council and road name of each of the 20 trial sites totalling 850ha. They wanted more specific information on their paddock locations because of concern that GM contaminants in feed supplies for livestock could threaten their certified organic status.

Protestors gathered in front of Parliament House yesterday with mouths covered and hands tied as a "symbolic gesture" of how organic growers felt in response to the first commercialsize trials of GM canola in WA.

Dr Lilith said the risk from GM crops to the certification of an organic property was huge because there was zero tolerance of GM contamination.

Agriculture Minister Terry Redman said organic growers could get distances from the nearest GM trial sites to their property by contacting the department. "I support an organic industry in WA," he said. "If we use the Canadian example, which we would argue is where a lot of GM canola and GM soy is grown, the organic industry has grown." He had not been advised of any case in Australia where a grower had lost organic status because of GM canola, which was grown for the first time commercially in Victoria and NSW last year.

Fremantle mayor Peter Tagliaferri, who runs a cattle and cropping property near Frankland River, said the introduction of GM crops threatened the "clean and green" image of the South-West with overseas buyers.

10 June 2009

Colombian cotton growers want to sue Monsanto

Colombia Reports. June 10, 2009:
http://www.colombiareports.com/colombia-news/economy/4472-colombian-cotton-growers-want-to-sue-monsanto.html

Colombian cotton growers want to sue U.S. agricultural company Monsanto for selling them a bad genetically engineered seed that caused damage to crops.

According to the cotton growers, the seed caused damage to 13 percent of the cotton crops in the north of Colombia, resulting in a 7 million dollar loss, economic magazine Portfolio reported Wednesday.

Conalgodón, the Colombian federation of the cotton growers, declared that Monsanto gave the seed, stating that it was strong enough to resist plagues and the effects of the glyphosate herbicide. At the same time, Monsanto did not give an appropriate information about the variety that would be planted for the first time in the region.

The seed, known as DP 164, was three times more expensive than the traditional one, but did not resist the plagues as promised.

Monsanto offeed to compensate the growers with 640 thousand dollars, but put conditions on the compensation the growers find hard to accept. Morever, this is not the first time Monsanto has a similar problem in Colombia. In 2008 same situation was in the Tolima department with Monsanto seeds.

Argentina eyes further growth of GM crops

Agra Europe Weekly, 10 June 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com

Argentina looks set to increase its growth of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, with particular emphasis on GM maize and soybeans, Gustavo Idígoras told delegates in London this week.

A long term policy on GM has been in place in the South American country since 1992, and with more than 20 more GM approvals in the pipeline, the industry is set to boom, he told delegates at the IGC conference.

Argentina currently holds an international leading position, with 20% of global agri-biotech acreage grown in the country.

Between 2003 and 2008, Argentina increased the percentage of GM soybeans of total soybeans from 90% to 99%, Idígoras said. This compares with 65% in Brazil, 95% in Paraguay and 92% in the US in 2008.

The percentage of GM maize of total Argentine maize stood at 75% in 2008, up from 50% in 2003, however it still lagged behind the US, which produced 80% GM maize.

New GM events in soybean and maize are expected in the next ten years, with increasing production in all Mercosur countries, he said.

However, challenges remain for sustainable growth, particularly on export markets, he said, as "asynchronous approval on GM events with the EU, China and India" dominate discussions.

Idígoras also noted that the low level presence threshold in importing countries presents a problem to Argentine producers.

The "excessive cost for certified free GM maize" is a hindrance to producers, he said. There are grain shortages in importing countries with no clear GM approval systems, he went on to say.

Genetically modified offsets
Will Big Ag plow under Waxman-Markey?

Grist [USA], 10 June 2009. By Tom Philpott:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-10-big-ag-waxman-markey/

[Note: Follow link above for numerous embedded links to source documents mentionned in this article]

As the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill moves forward in the House, Big Ag interest groups are circling their plows and sharpening their pitchforks. Some of the largest corporations in the agribusiness sector - including the GMO-and-herbicide giant Monsanto - are pushing to control how agriculture would fit into the bill's cap-and-trade scheme.

The main agent for their will is House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who has launched a veritable jihad to make sure the historic climate legislation hews to the interests of "production" (i.e., industrial) agriculture. Via Farm Policy blog, here's an MP3 clip of Peterson's latest harumphing on Waxman-Markey, in an interview with a radio program called Agritalk, which is sponsored by Monsanto, Syngenta, and Archer Daniels Midland.

Peterson has vowed to line up 35 to 40 Democratic representatives from ag-heavy states to vote against the bill on the House floor if his agenda isn't accepted-giving him something close to de facto veto power. In the AgriTalk segment, Peterson says, "I don't think it [Waxman-Markey] has the votes" to prevail on the House floor. Translation: If I don't get what I want, I'm squashing it.

The current version of Waxman-Markey contains almost no language on agriculture. (As I've written before, agriculture is exempt from any cap on greenhouse-gas emissions.) But farming projects would still be eligible for offsets through an offsets-review board that the legislation would set up within the EPA. Big Ag isn't content with that arrangement. In the coming days, the game will be to insert specific language around ag offsets into the legislation-and promote a certification process developed by Big Ag itself.

And while the Ag Committee has little formal jurisdiction over the final form of Waxman-Markey, Peterson's influence will be felt. As she did during negotiations around last year's Farm Bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has alighted on the Midwest to assure the ag industry of her fealty. "Agriculture is very important," Pelosi declared in an Iowa speech on Monday. Pelosi was scheduled to meet with Peterson in Minnesota on Tuesday-an eerie echo of a trip she made during a key point in the 2007-2008 Farm Bill debate, before signing off on a much more agribiz-friendly version of the legislation than reformers hoped for.

[On Thursday, the House Ag Committee will hold hearings on Waxman-Markey, and Grist's Kate Sheppard will be there to report.]

If the ag giants get their way, they could seriously compromise the legislation's ability to mitigate climate change. Few deny that changes in agriculture practice could be a major force for sequestering carbon, cutting fossil-fuel use, and stabilizing the climate. A paper by Rattan Lal, director of the School of the Environment and Natural Resources at Ohio State University, estimates that U.S. farmers could capture 288 million tons of carbon in their soil every year-enough to offset about about 17 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.

Other sources cite an even larger potential role for agricultural practices to mitigate climate change. Pennsylvania-based Rodale Institute reckons [PDF] that "practical organic agriculture, if practiced on the planet's 3.5 billion tillable acres, could sequester nearly 40 percent of current CO2 emissions."

To move in that direction would require a tremendous shift in practices, Lal told me in an interview: a move to farming that explicitly seeks to build organic matter in soil. That means reduced tillage, extensive cover cropping, and "as much manure and compost as possible."

Yet the agenda being pushed by Big Ag is much less about rewarding farmers for shifting practice than it is about rewarding farmers for current practices: in other words, another sop to the large agribusiness firms that dominate our food system.

Big Ag's politically engineered carbon market

Big Ag's push to control the carbon-credit market centers on a group called Novecta, which identifies itself as a "consulting company owned by the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations." Since December 2007, Novecta has been working to create a standardized process for verifying the value of ag offsets-and has recently come out with a draft proposal [PDF].

Novecta isn't shy about its affiliations with agribusiness groups. In a recent phone interview, Novecta project director Gary DeLong explained to me that the group has worked with some 70 entities in coming up with its plan. "I can name a few off the top of my head," he said. "Most of the big companies ... Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dupont."

That was a remarkable statement - he had just casually named the quartet of agrichemical giants that literally own the global market for genetically modified seeds.

Monsanto has taken a particular interest in the process. I've gotten hold of a one-page Novecta "Congressional Briefing Report" [PDF] describing a trip to Washington May 11-12. The purpose of the trip was to preview the ag carbon-trading draft for key congressional players and USDA officials. The report contains this fascinating tidbit-one that gives insight into the access to power enjoyed by companies like Monsanto:

"Mike Parrish form [sic] Monsanto allowed us to meet from 4:00 - 6:00 at the Monsanto office to put the final touches to the presentation for the Congressional briefing. He gave us background and coached us on the presentation. We want to give a big thanks to Mike and his staff for all the time and contacts to set up the briefings. It would not have happen [sic] without their efforts."

Michael Parrish is Monsanto's vice president for government affairs-that is, its chief lobbyist. Monsanto has also engaged in direct lobbying around Waxman-Markey, its first-quarter 2009 Lobbying Report [PDF] reveals. The GMO giant spent $2 million on a variety of lobbying activities, including efforts to influence the renewable fuel standard and Waxman-Markey.

In our phone interview, Novecta's Delong mentioned those Monsanto-arranged meetings in Washington. "We gave a briefing to both sides of Congress on May 12th," he told me, adding that they also presented to two USDA divisions. "They seemed very appreciative of our efforts."

Payments for 'chemical no-till'?

Why would Monsanto and other agrichem firms be so interested in controlling how ag is treated by cap-and-trade? By generating payments to farmers who use their goods, these companies burnish their bottom lines and turn climate-change legislation into a revenue stream.

A case in point is a farming practice called "no-till." In no-till systems, farmers plant directly into fields without plowing. One of the main reasons farmers plow is to control weeds. In a practice that has become known among critics as "chemical no-till," farmers idle the the plow and rely on chemical herbicides for weed control. Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds-genetically modified to withstand lashings of Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate-have greatly facilitated chemical no-till in the Midwest: farmers can spray their fields with Roundup as needed, without affecting the crops. According to the Center for Food Safety [PDF], glyphosate use jumped 15-fold between between 1994 (when GMOs were first released) and 2005, generating a windfall in Roundup sales for Monsanto. Monsanto now clears more than $1 billion per year in profits from Roundup alone.

The Novecta carbon-trading scheme would reward farmers with carbon credits for this practice. In my conversation with Novecta's Delong, he listed conventional no-till as one of three main areas for ag offsets (the others were "managed grassland" and "managed rangeland").

As a source of carbon sequestration, chemical no-till is a highly questionable practice. In a 2006 peer-reviewed paper [PDF] called "Tillage and soil carbon sequestration-what do we really know?," a group of soil scientists led by John M. Baker of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service took a hard look at conventional no-till. They report: "Long-term, continuous gas exchange measurements have also been unable to detect C gain due to reduced tillage." Translation: No-till doesn't seem to sequester carbon. Their conclusion: "Though there are other good reasons to use conservation tillage, evidence that it promotes C sequestration is not compelling." The report compelled climate expert and frequent Grist contributor Joe Romm to declare that no-till farming "does not save carbon and is not a carbon offset."

Another peer-reviewd study, this one published in the British journal Soil Use and Management in 2006, suggests that conventional no-till leads to increased emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas some 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. "In many soils, the increase in carbon sequestration by adopting no-till systems may be largely negated by associated increases in N2O emission," the authors write. "The promotion of carbon credits for the no-till system before we have better quantification of its net greenhouse gas balance is naive."

A farming practice that demonstrably does save carbon isn't mentioned in the Novecta draft: organic farming. A July 2007 article on the USDA's Agricultural Research Service site puts the case bluntly: "Organic builds soil better than no-till." According to the article, a study by USDA researcher John Teasdale "showed that organic farming built up soil better than conventional no-till because use of manure and cover crops more than offsets losses from tillage." (Interestingly, the organic crops also delivered significantly higher yields than conventional no-till.)

And Rodale's research points to extremely encouraging possibilities for sequestering carbon with organic methods. From a 2008 Rodale research paper [PDF]:

"During the 1990s, results from the Compost Utilization Trial (CUT) at Rodale Institute-a 10-year study comparing the use of composts, manures and synthetic chemical fertilizer-show that the use of composted manure with crop rotations in organic systems can result in carbon sequestration of up to 2,000 lbs/ac/year. By contrast, fields under standard tillage relying on chemical fertilizers lost almost 300 pounds of carbon per acre per year. Storing-or sequestering-up to 2,000 lbs/ac/year of carbon means that more than 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide are taken from the air and trapped in that field soil."

In a recent interview, Rodale director Tim Lasalle expressed outrage at the House Ag Committee's view of carbon offsets and told me that the committee had shown no interest in hearing Rodale's perspective.

Organic in the House?

While the agribiz giants line up to ensure that their preferred farming styles get rewarded by the climate bill, organic advocates aren't standing still. Meredith Niles, who coordinates the Cool Food Campaign for the Center for Food Safety, has drafted a letter on behalf of the National Organic Coalition that lays out a progressive and climate-friendly vision of carbon credits.

She says it's important to take a broader view of climate-change mitigation than just carbon sequestration. "Climate legislation first and foremost needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not just attempt to sequester them," she says. "The scientific evidence is clear-only organic has the proven ability to not only fundamentally reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the first place but also sequester carbon at rates higher than conventional and even no-till agriculture."

That vision faces an uphill battle. The House Ag Committee has released the line-up for its Thursday hearing on the climate bill. The list of invited speakers is as unsurprising as it is depressing. It includes no one from the organic field, but representatives from the National Corn Growers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Fertilizer Institute.

Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, will also be there. The NFU has partnered with Novecta on coming up with the ag-offset standard, and is the largest aggregator for voluntary ag carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange. Its main offset product so far? No-till. "We have registered about 4.5 million tons of offsets from no-till/seeded grasses, and about 1.8 million tons from native rangeland since we began," NFU communications director Liz Friedlander wrote in a recent email.

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina.

Wealth Management:
Farming news: Pictet fund goes after agriculture

CPI Financial, 10 June 2009:
http://www.cpifinancial.net/v2/News.aspx?v=1&aid=2558&sec=Wealth%20Management

PF's Gertjan van der Geer to manage new fund. Dubai's Genovese says agriculture as a whole, from the production and conditioning to the transportation of agricultural products, has long been ignored as an area for strategic investment."

Pictet & Co has said that its fund distribution company, Pictet Funds (PF), has launched the PF(LUX)-Agriculture fund. The job of running the fund has been given to Gertjan van der Geer, Senior Investment Manager at Pictet.

Pictet's Agriculture fund is the most recent addition to Pictet's range of thematic products, which includes the following: Water, Timber, Clean Energy, Security, Biotech, Digital Communications, Generics and Premium Brands.

"The PF(LUX)-Agriculture provides access to quoted companies that are expected to play a vital role in helping to supply food for a global population that is predicted to grow by nearly 40 per cent between 2005 and 2050 according to a December 2007 World Bank estimate," said Pictet.

Francesco Genovese, Regional Head of Business Development for Pictet Asset Management and Pictet Funds in the Middle East comments, "Though investors have long been drawn to agricultural commodities, agriculture as a whole, from the production and conditioning to the transportation of agricultural products, has long been ignored as an area for strategic investment."

Portfolio manager Gertjan van der Geer said, "Nearly 70 per cent of agricultural production gets lost from the farm to the table. Reducing this inefficiency will be crucial in meeting the demands of a growing population and expanding middle class. We believe that in order to deal with the scale of the challenge, the agricultural sector will have to invest in new technologies, processes and farming inputs."

"The PF(LUX)-Agriculture fund's investment process provides investors with a high exposure to pure agriculture, while also integrating basic aspects of resource efficiency, for example by favouring companies that produce more food with lower resource input," said a Pictet press release.

"To avoid participating in food price speculation, the fund will not invest in agricultural commodities. The fund also takes a cautious approach towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For instance, companies deriving more than 10 per cent of their turnover from this field are excluded from the portfolio. The Agriculture fund will also engage with selected companies through the Geneva-based corporate governance advocate Ethos," it added.

The new Agriculture fund will be included in Pictet's recently launched PF(LUX)-Global Megatrend Selection. The PF(LUX)-Agriculture fund is available to institutional, private banking and retail investors.

Greenpeace urges controls on food imports

WRS World Radio Switzerland, 10 June 2009:
http://worldradio.ch/wrs/news/wrsnews/greenpeace-urges-controls-on-food-imports.shtml?14437

An environmental organization is calling for stronger controls on food imported into Switzerland. Greenpeace says in testing 22 varieties of honey sold in the country, it found six products imported from America and Europe contained traces of genetically modified pollen. Genetically modified pollens are not subject to reporting, but Greenpeace says that consumers should be made aware of their presence in foods, especially given the Swiss population's distaste for genetically modified organisms. Next year, the Swiss public will vote on whether to extend the ban on GMO's in Swiss agriculture.

Environment groups: European Commission off target

Green 10 press release, 10 June 2009:
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2009/Jun10_Environment_groups_EC_off_target.html

Brussels, 10 June 2009 - The environmental record of the outgoing European Commission is worryingly off target, Friends of the Earth Europe and the 'Green 10' coalition of leading environmental organisations said today in Brussels as they published an assessment of the Barroso Commission, giving it an overall mark of 4.4/10.

In all, the 'Green 10' report examines successes and failures in 12 policy areas that impact the environment, and sets out a checklist for the next Commission.[1] The Green 10 blamed the low score on, among other things, a failure to reform agriculture and fisheries policies, and, more broadly, to propose sustainable economic policies. But there were some positive notes, notably in climate, energy and transport policy.

At a time when Europe is gripped by economic and environmental crises, the environmental groups call on the next Commission to double its efforts over the next five years and put in place policies that benefit the environment and people's health, and create sustainable economic growth and jobs.

On taking office in 2004, the Barroso Commission got off to a bad start by judging environmental objectives to be inconsistent with the overriding jobs and competitiveness agenda, the report says. But spurred by growing public and media interest in environmental issues in the second half of its term, the Commission belatedly began to strengthen legislation in the fields of climate, energy and transport, thus earning scores of 7/10, 6/10 and 6/10 respectively. The Green 10 report, however, warns that these policies - in particular the EU's 'climate and energy package' - have not delivered the results predicted in the original Commission proposals after being weakened by EU governments. Much more will need to be achieved by the incoming European Commission, say the groups.

The report also finds that the Commission has neglected the protection of nature and disregarded its importance for long-term economic sustainability and the fight against climate change. The report is critical of the Commission for too often giving in to vested interests when legislating on issues affecting agriculture and marine life. In particular, the so called 'CAP Health Check' was a missed opportunity to truly reform the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, the groups say. The Commission only scores 4/10 on agriculture.

Failure to adequately finance 'Natura 2000' sites, a network of sensitive protected areas, a poor initial proposal for the new 'Marine directive' that failed to address the pressures on the marine environment, and continued support for genetically modified organisms all contributed to another low score of 4/10 on biodiversity policy.

Although polls consistently show that citizens are concerned about the impact that the environment plays on their health, the Commission has only achieved a mark of 5/10 for its health-related policies. The positive outcome of a global mercury ban and proposals to reduce air pollution have been contrasted by internal disagreements over legislation to ban dangerous chemicals.

***

For more information, please contact:

Francesca Gater, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 2 893 1010 and +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile)

***

[1] The full report 'Off target - European Commission 2004-2009 Environmental Progress Report and Lessons for the Next Commission' can be downloaded here http://green10.typepad.com/docs/G10assessment2004-9.pdf.

The Green 10 are ten of the largest environmental organisations working at EU level. They coordinate joint responses and recommendations to EU decision-makers, to ensure that the environment is placed at the heart of policymaking. Membership of the Green 10 is more than 20 million people.

ICU raises awareness of Biosafety project and GMO at key discussions in Azerbaijan

Consumers International, 10 June 2009:
http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=99570%20&int1stParentNodeID=89655&int2ndParentNodeID=94065&int3rdParentNodeID=94065&int4thParentNodeID=94065&int5thParentNodeID=94065&int6thParentNodeID=94065&int7thParentNodeID=9406

Independent Consumers Union takes part in panels on GMO issues.

The Independent Consumers Union of Azerbaijan (ICU) has been invited to speak about their involvement in Consumers International's (CI) Biosafety project at two key meetings.

Lecture

Eyub Husseynov, Director of ICU, was officially invited to attend a lecture at the National Academy of Science of Azerbaijan given by Dr Channapatna S Prakash, Director of the Scientific Centre of Tuskegee University, Alabama, USA.

Dr Prakash is a member of the State Committee on Agricultural Technologies of the State Agricultural Department in the US.

Roundtable

The ICU was also invited by the US Embassy in Azerbaijan to participate in roundtable discussions with the participation of Dr Prakash.

GMO focus of discussions

The ICU has worked hard in Azerbaijan on promoting the issues of biosafety and genetically modified organisms (GMO). The lecture and roundtables, both on 4 June 2009, allowed ICU to have input in discussions on the subject.

Promoting biosafety

Husseynov used the two events as a platform to promote ICU recommendations on the legislative framework of Azerbaijan on the subject of GMO and the Biosafety project. The ICU proposal has been sent to the relevant state structures of the country.

It also introduced the Biosafety project to a wider audience.

Biosafety project background

The campaign is aimed at strengthening the consumer voice in discussions and resolutions of biosafety issues under the CPB and in other forums.

Consumers International (CI), with support from the European Commission's (EC) Programme on Environment in Developing Countries, is implementing a two-year Biosafety project running from January 2008 to January 2010.

Biosafety project objectives

The specific objective of the project is to build the capacity of consumer organisations in the developing world to play a leading role in ensuring effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB).

Participants

Eight countries are participating in this project:

•

Azerbaijan

•

Bolivia

•

Brazil

•

Indonesia

•

Kenya

•

Mali

•

Morocco, and

•

Peru.

Read more...

•

The Biosafety project on CI's site. http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=97582&int1stParentNodeID=89655&int2ndParentNodeID=89697

Poisoning The Planet

Resurgence No. 254 May/June 2009. By Miguel A. Altieri:
http://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article2803-Poisoning-The-Planet.html

IN 2007, GENETICALLY modified (GM) crops were grown on 114.3 million hectares worldwide. Of the twenty-three countries which grow GM crops, Argentina and Brazil are the major players in South America, though the cultivation of transgenic crops is also expanding in Bolivia and Paraguay. The biotech industry claims that GM crops have met the expectations of millions of farmers in developing countries, delivering benefits to consumers and society through more affordable food that requires less pesticides to grow and hence leads to more sustainable farming.

What corporations fail to mention is that Roundup Ready (RR) soybean accounts for 70% of all GM crops and is tolerant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, glyphosate. Much of the soybean crop is grown by large-scale farmers for biodiesel and for export as animal feed to China and Europe. The impacts of soybean expansion in South America go beyond the typical effects of monocultures heavily sprayed with herbicides, but include deforestation, soil fertility mining, food insecurity and the expulsion of small farmers, thus exacerbating rural conflicts.

The expansion of soybean farming is accompanied by massive transportation infrastructure projects that lead to the destruction of natural habitats over wide areas, well beyond the deforestation directly caused by soybean cultivation. In Brazil, soybean profits justified the improvement or construction of industrial waterways, railway lines and an extensive network of roads. These in turn have attracted logging, mining, ranching and other practices with severe impacts on biodiversity. The Rosario region on the Paraná River in Argentina has become the largest soya agro-industrial processing area in the world, with all the environmental impacts that such infrastructure entails.

Soybean occupies the largest area of any crop in Brazil (14.5 million hectares). In Argentina about 16 million hectares are devoted to soybean, and the total production is more than 40 million tonnes. In Paraguay soybeans occupy more than 25% of all agricultural land. Soya cultivation has already resulted in the deforestation of 21 million hectares of forests in Brazil, 14 million hectares in Argentina, 2 million hectares in Paraguay and 600,000 hectares in Bolivia. In response to global market pressure for biofuels, Brazil alone will likely clear an additional 60 million hectares of land in the near future to grow more soybean for biodiesel, and sugar cane for ethanol.

Soybean expansion also leads to extreme land and income disparity. In Brazil, soybean cultivation displaces eleven agricultural workers for every one who finds employment in the sector. Yearly, millions of people are displaced by soybean production, and these landless people move to the Amazon and other regions, where they clear pristine forests. In Argentina the situation is quite dramatic, as 60,000 farms went out of business while the area of GM soybean almost tripled. In one decade, the area of soybean cultivation increased by 126% at the expense of dairy, maize, wheat and fruit production. For the country, this means more imports of basic foods, creating a loss of food sovereignty, and for poor small farmers and consumers, only increased food prices and more hunger.

AS THE CULTIVATION of soybean rapidly expands, so does glyphosate use. In southern Brazil, for every kilo reduction of non-glyphosate herbicide during the period of expansion of GM soybean cultivation, the use of glyphosate increased by 7.5 kilos. In Argentina, Roundup applications reached the equivalent of an estimated 160 million litres in the 2004 growing season, and herbicide usage is expected to increase as weeds start developing resistance to Roundup.

A recent study by Brazilian researchers found thirteen weed species that have developed resistance to glyphosate. In Argentina, resistant biotypes of Johnson grass, Ipomoea species and other weeds are also emerging, creating a typical treadmill in which glyphosate generates weeds that are harder to control, in turn requiring increased amounts of other herbicides such as 2,4-D. Instead of reducing the need for agrochemicals as proponents once claimed, GM technology has increased their use.

Biotech companies claim that herbicides should not pose negative effects on humans or the environment. In practice, however, the large-scale planting of GM crops encourages aerial application of herbicides and only 1% of what is sprayed reaches the crop - the rest ends up in the soil and water. The agribusiness companies contend that glyphosate degrades rapidly in the soil, does not accumulate in ground water, has no effects on non-target organisms, and leaves no residue in foods and water or soil, yet glyphosate has been reported to be toxic to some non-target species in the soil including beneficial predators such as spiders, mites, carabid and coccinellid beetles, detritivores such as earthworms, and mycorrhizae and other microfauna, as well as to aquatic organisms including microbial communities, frogs and fish.

Research has shown that glyphosate seems to act in a similar fashion to antibiotics, altering soil biology in as yet unknown ways and causing effects such as reduction of the ability of soybeans, clover and other legumes to fix nitrogen, and the rendering of bean plants more vulnerable to disease. During the first year of glyphosate application on RR soya, a severe sudden death syndrome epidemic occurred (an infection by the fungus Fusarium solani) in several RR cultivars, resulting in reduction of the growth of beneficial soil-dwelling mycorrhizal fungi, and other changes to the microbial community.

All these effects can alter nutrient cycling and other important processes in the soil, thus reducing plant growth and health. In a study using outdoor tanks, researchers found that even when applied at concentrations that are just a third of the maximum recommended concentrations, glyphosate killed 98% of all tadpoles within three weeks and 79% of all frogs within one day.

Researchers have also shown that the reduction of weed biomass and flowering and seeding parts under herbicide-resistant crop management causes changes in insect availability with knock-on effects resulting in abundance reduction of several beetles, butterflies and bees. Counts of predacious carabid beetles that feed on weed seeds were smaller in transgenic crop fields. The number of invertebrates that are food for mammals, birds and other invertebrates were also found to be generally lower in herbicide-resistant crop fields. The absence of flowering weeds in transgenic fields can have serious consequences for pollinators but also for pests' natural enemies, which require pollen and nectar for survival; this in turn can lead to enhanced insect pest problems.

THE EXPANSION OF soybean monoculture threatens the ecological integrity and food sovereignty of countries as well as the rights of Indigenous and rural communities. This industrial agricultural model violates economic, social, cultural and environmental rights and, as it expands, its destructive methods of operation degrade the environment through deforestation, soil erosion and contamination of water bodies and push farmers out of their lands, resulting in rural migration and further impoverishment of rural populations. The soya agro-industry is actually expanding and becoming stronger through the growing markets for pro-cessed foods, industrial livestock and the production of biodiesel demanded by the North.

Rural social movements such as Via Campesina and Movimiento Socialista de Trabajadores (MST) reject corporate attempts for continual expansion of GM soya monoculture. Farmers' mobilisations have led to destruction of soybean fields and occupation of corporate facilities. For example, Syngenta Seeds' experimental research centre in Paraná was taken over by MST in March 2006 after they discovered that the company was illegally growing GM soybeans within the boundary zone of Iguazú National Park.

The expansion of agricultural biotechnology into South America is exacerbating agrarian conflicts and historic tensions over land. More mobilisation of rural movements can be expected, as the "grassroots" oppose the advance of biofuel agribusiness and GM technology. Industrial farming threatens biodiversity and native seed varieties, violating the rights of consumers and small farmers by contaminating conventional and organic crops.

If consumers in the North of the world want to continue enjoying their fair trade coffee and bananas - as well as the good, clean and fair food - from the South, they had better find ways to directly support these grassroots mobilisations, otherwise small farmers and the food they grow are in danger of genetic pollution and possible extinction.

This is an edited extract from The Slow Food Almanac 2008.

http://www.slowfood.com

Miguel A. Altieri is a lecturer in agroecology at the University of California, USA.

9 June 2009

France – National Consumer Council: A step towards "GM-free" labelling for animal products

Inf'OGM Bulletin no. 21 [France], June 2009. By Christopher Noisette:
http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article3984

[English translation provided by GM-free Ireland]

[The French Government's] National Consumer Council (CNC) has finally issued an opinion "regarding the promotion of supply chains which avoid the use of GMOs" [1]. Accordingly, on 27 May 2009, the CNC announced its position in favour of GM-free ["sans OGM"] labelling for certain products (meat, eggs, fish) produced from livestock fed without GM animal feed, to emphasise the value of this absence of GMOs.

The CNC specifies that this labelling "must remain voluntary, and should not constitute a requirement for market access. Such emphasis must not denigrate products from livestock fed with GMOs or products bearing the new claim".

The CNC also points out that similar voluntary labelling has already been implemented in Germany [2], Austria and Italy, and that the CNC - which wants "to avoid distortions of competition between countries and simplify the rules of the game for operators throughout the European territory, [...] - consequently reaffirms the need for a European harmonisation in this matter (conditions for implementation, scope, claims) in the single market."

In this opinion, the labelling does not concern all animal products. The CNC clearly specifies that "this claim applies at least to unprocessed raw materials, whether packaged or not, produced from livestock (meats, including slaughtered animals and poultry; aquatic animals; eggs). The definition of 'unprocessed products' adopted by the CNC is that of EC Regulation no. 852/2004, article 2.1 (n) on the hygiene of foodstuffs", that is to say that it excludes, for example, prepared meals as well as milk and dairy produce which are regarded as processed products.

In order to be able to carry a "GM-free" [Non-GMO] type of label, the product must come from an animal which has been fed either on plant materials for which no GMO varieties exist, or on plant materials "with an adventious presence of GMOs less than 0.9%" and this "during their entire life, at least for animals with a short life-span. Regarding animals with a long production cycle such as ruminants, the CNC favours a minimum feeding period equal to three-quarters of the animal's life-span.

This opinon will soon be transmited to the High Council of Biotechnologies, which will, turn, issue an opinion on this matter.

Notes

1. http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/conseilnationalconsommation/avis/2009/190509ogm.pdf

2. cf. Germany - official text of the law on GMOs: http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article3455

Note by GM-free Ireland

Note no 2 above is incorrect.
The German GM-free labelling law may be downloaded here:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/germany/EGGenTDurchfG_2008_05_27.pdf

8 June 2009

BioMara Raises Questions

Huliq News [USA], 8 June 2009, By Robin Gates:
http://www.huliq.com/1/81960/biomara-raises-questions

The first stakeholder meeting of the Euro 6 million BioMara project to make biofuel from marine algae takes place today (8 June 2009) at the Scottish Association for Marine Science in Oban, Scotland. Following launch of the project in April by Scotland's Energy Minister Jim Mather this is the first chance for the business community and general public to express views on the projected research.

As fossil fuel supplies dwindle the European Parliament is demanding that 10 per cent of road transport fuel be derived from renewable sources by 2020. Since turning land over to biofuel crops impacts on food production it seems an obvious step to investigate if marine algae can be farmed for conversion into fuel.

Yes, marine algae efficiently convert carbon dioxide into biomass containing exploitable oils and, yes, viewed this way the oceans do offer a vast untapped reservoir of energy. But while politicians trumpet job opportunities and carbon reductions in their urgency to meet European rules it is worth noting that the focus is to be on 'supporting biofuel production and utilisation in remote, rural communities' which translates as unspoiled outer islands largely out of the public gaze.

Vast areas of the seabed will have to be planted with the chosen alga - like conifer plantations on land, entirely artificial and subject to all the weaknesses of a single-species monoculture. Our record with terrestrial agriculture based around such highly managed systems offers no grounds for confidence that marine algal farming for energy production will not unleash ecological disaster on the oceans.

The delicate balance of life in the sea pivots upon the algae. How will the ongoing sowing and reaping of marine algae to make biodiesel impact on this? One wonders what procedures will be in place for the eventuality that an algal crop with big commercial value is attacked by pests. We are still living with the legacy of DDT used on terrestrial crops - how much worse would the fall-out be from experiments with pest control in the sea. And since it seems likely there will be Genetically Modified (GM) seaweeds with optimised oil content one wonders how the spread of such manufactured organisms will be contained in the constantly moving ocean.

Our understanding of seabed ecosystems lags way behind knowledge of the land, and what goes on there is out of sight and out of mind for most of us. Perhaps that is what makes it so attractive for political and commercial exploitation. Short of an oil slick and dead animals washing ashore we have no way of knowing when something has gone wrong.

Could the answer lie not in further gainful blundering in the sea (where we already discharge sewage, bury nuclear waste etc) but in culturing suitable algae on land? The All-Ireland launch for BioMara is scheduled for 17th June in Belfast. Further information at www.biomara.org

Robin Gates
docg8z@talktalk.net
http://thecoastalzone.blogspot.com

40 Percent Of Maine Corn 'Modified'
• Figure Is Half National Rate

wmtw.com, 8 June 2009:
http://www.wmtw.com/health/19691292/detail.html

PORTLAND, Maine -- Agriculture officials said 40 percent of Maine's field corn acreage last year was genetically modified, which is half the national rate.

According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture survey, Maine farmers last year planted about 29,000 acres of field corn, which is primarily used for livestock feed. The figure does not include sweet corn, the type that is sold at roadside stands during the summer.

Of the total, nearly 12,000 acres were genetically modified for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.

The survey marked the first time that Maine field corn farmers have been polled on their use of genetically modified varieties.

Farmers Union of Wales leader expresses GMO fears

Farmers Union of Wales (FUW) press release, 8 June 2009:
http://www.fuw.org.uk/read-press-release/items/166.html

Welsh food producers would quickly lose their competitive edge if genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were used widely in the farming industry, Farmers' Union of Wales president Gareth Vaughan said today.

Speaking after attending a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF), Mr Vaughan said: "Our industry has spent a huge amount of money marketing food such as Welsh Lamb, Welsh Beef and Welsh eggs and the produce of farmers is becoming very highly respected.

"But going down the GMO route will quickly lead to us losing that competitive edge which we have so painstakingly built up."

The ACAF was set up in June 1999 to advise on the safety and use of animal feeds and feeding practices, with particular emphasis on protecting human health and with reference to new technical developments and new feed materials.

It was established following concern about the integrity of animal feeds, particularly over the implications of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and the use of genetically modified feed ingredients.

"The genetic modification of organisms is an emotive subject around which there remain major concerns in terms of the impact the premature release of such technology into the environment will have and the significant power the technology affords major agrichemical companies over farmers.

"In the light of these and other concerns the FUW was one of the first organisations to call on the National Assembly for Wales to establish a GM-free Wales and our view since 2000 has been that GMOs should only be tested in a controlled and regulated environment.

"Following a resurgence in the debate amongst the farming community on GMOs, fuelled significantly by the global food shortages of the past two years, the FUW's milk and dairy produce committee last year instigated an internal consultation on the union's GMO policy position and, in order to inform these discussions, a well attended debate on the issue was held at which both pro and anti-GMO scientists presented evidence to members.

"The subsequent responses received from our 12 county branches made it clear that the overwhelming majority of members maintain that GMOs would not bring any significant benefits to Welsh agriculture and that their premature release into the environment could be accompanied by significant risks.

"However, one of the most significant concerns continues to be the control over GMO technologies currently held by the major agrichemical companies and the ways in which GMOs resistant to particular branded pesticides, or packaged with other tailor-made chemicals, might be used to develop monopolies and exert control over Welsh farms and farming practices."

Contact:

Farmers Union of Wales
Llys Amaeth, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3BT, UK
Ffon/Tel: (01970) 820820. Ffacs/Fax: (01970) 820821
E-bost/E-mail: press.office@fuw.org.uk
Gwe-fan/Website: http://www.fuw.org.uk

AUSTRALIA: Register of GM-Free Farms, Businesses & Councils launched

Gene Ethics Alert, June 8 2009:
http://www.geneethics.org

Gene Ethics today launches a new national register of GM-free goods, services and locations at http://www.geneethics.org . The google map is a work in progress and many more listings will be posted soon.

"Our interactive register is a public service, particularly to help shoppers find and support GM-free products and services," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps.

"The enterprises on the google map are committed to excluding anything made using Genetic Manipulation (GM) techniques from their products, services and facilities.

"GM products may include GM soy or corn imported mainly to feed animals, or Australian GM canola or cottonseed products."

"The growing number of local government areas with GM-free policies are also listed.

"We also note that most of Australia remains GM-free, including Tasmania, South Australia, the ACT and the Northern territory.

"The few GM canola growers, far outnumbered by the supporters of GM-free, will also be shown on the map.

"GM canola contamination from their farms poses unacceptable hazards to public health, our environments and markets.

"GM takes away our right to choose GM-free and most farmers and shoppers will not accept this," Mr Phelps concludes.

More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9889 1717 (H) 0449 769 066 (M) 03 9347 4500 (O)

ANH Feature: The HPV Vaccine (Gardasil) in the spotlight

Alliance for Natural Health [UK], 8 June 2009. By Dr Damien Downing MBBS MIBiol
Medical Director, Alliance for Natural Health
President, British Society for Ecological Medicine:
http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/anh-feature-the-hpv-vaccine-gardasil-in-the-spotlight

Did you know that:

•

There is no evidence that the HPV vaccine being given to your 12-year-old daughter will be effective

•

The HPV vaccine may expose children to significant risk

•

HPV vaccines are the first genetically modified (GM) vaccines and therefore present significant, unpredictable risks

•

Unethical promotion of the vaccine, along with the use of misleading claims, are commonplace

•

Are you in a position to make an informed choice to vaccinate or be vaccinated?

If the answer to any of the above is 'no', you owe it to yourself or your daughter to read on....
http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/anh-feature-the-hpv-vaccine-gardasil-in-the-spotlight

Factory Farming's Long Reach

West Politics [USA], 8 June 2009. By George Wuerthner:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/factory_farmings_long_reach1/C37/L37/

The impact of factory farming upon the American land and native biodiversity is seldom discussed, but animal protein production has a significant impact upon the Nation's land and water. The direct environmental problems like air or water pollution associated with large factory farming operations may be clear, but less obvious are the environmental impacts associated with the agricultural production of feed crops and other consequences associated with large factory farming operations.

According to the Animal Feed Manufactors' Association, one third of the world's grains are fed directly to animals. In developed countries the percentage of grains fed directly to livestock rises to 60%, with 80% of the grains in the United States fed to livestock. Since the United States is the leading producer of beef cattle in the world, it is also the top animal feed producer in the world, with more than double the acreage in animal feed production than its closest rival China. This means the majority of cropland in the United States is not growing food for direct human consumption as many presume, but is used to grow forage crops for domestic livestock, including chickens, hogs, and cattle. In fact, in the United States, domestic livestock consume 5 times as much grain as the entire American population

It takes a huge amount of grain crops to support livestock production. For instance, to produce 1 kg of beef requires 7 kg of feed grain. Though chickens are more efficient at converting grain to meat, the ratio is still two to one with 2 kg of grain required to produce 1 kg of meat According to Cornell University's David Pimentel, if the cropland currently used to grow grain fed to livestock were directed towards growing crops for human consumption, we could feed 800 million additional people or more likely provide a descent meal for those whose diet is inadequate.

In order to feed concentrated, confined animals, huge acreages of America' s best farmland have been converted into monocultures of often genetically modified crops that stretch for miles. The major feed crops are corn, soybeans, and hay/alfalfa with smaller amounts of other grains like oats, barley and even wheat. For instance, 22% of all wheat grown in the US ultimately ends up as animal feed, rather than in food products like bread or cereal consumed directly by humans.

While it's difficult to determine how much of any crop is used to feed confined animal operations as opposed to diverse small farming operations, the total impact of animal agriculture of any kind is significant. Consider these statistics.

Globally, production of livestock feed uses a third of the Earth's arable land In the United States farmland production is even more skewed towards animal feed. In 2008 American farmers, primarily in the Mid-west, planted 87 million acres to feeder corn. Part of that acreage figure was due to demand for corn created by ethanol, but the bulk of the corn acreage is used for animal feed. By comparison, farmers only planted an average of 234,000 acres across the entire country to fresh market sweet corn, the plant we consume directly for corn on the cob, and other food.

To give some comparison, Montana , the fourth largest state in the Nation is 93 million acres in size. So imagine nothing but corn stretching east and west across Montana's 550 miles and north and south by 300 miles. This is a huge area to be plowed up, and planted to an exotic grass crop that requires huge inputs of pesticides and fertilizer to sustain.

Similarly the acreage devoted to soybeans is huge. According to the USDA, some 74.5 million acres was planted to soybeans in 2008. And despite the popularity of tofu and other soy based food products, less than 2% of the soybean crop is used for production of food for direct human consumption-with most of the annual soybean crop going for animal feed.

Hay and/or alfalfa are yet another significant crop for confined livestock production, primarily dairy cows and beef cattle. In the United States, approximately 59 million acres are planted to hay/alfalfa annually. To put this in perspective, Oregon is 60 million acres in size.

Though slightly better than a row crop like corn or soybeans as wildlife habitat, hay/alfalfa fields still represent a net loss in native biodiversity and wildlife habitat. Hay/alfalfa replace native vegetation, and often require excessive amounts of fertilizers, and are cut frequently destroying even their temporal value as hiding and nesting cover for many wildlife species.

Taken together these three animal feed crops cover a minimum area over 200 million plus acres. To put these figures of animal feed cropland into perspective, the amount of land used to grow the top ten fresh vegetables in the US ( asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery, head lettuce, honeydew melons onions, sweet corn, and tomatoes) occupies about a million acres.

If you fly over or drive across Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, and other Mid-western states, you'll pass mile after mile of corn and/or soybean fields. Growing these crops has led to the near-extirpation of native plant communities like the tall grass prairie. Less than 4% of the native tall grass prairie remains and in some states like Iowa which has less than 0.1% of its original tall grass prairie left, tall grass prairie is functionally extinct. Plus "clean" farming eliminates what little natural vegetation used to remain as woodlots, fenceline strips, wetlands, and other natural areas that in the past supported native species with the agricultural matrix.

Destruction of native plant communities has had serious impacts on native biodiversity. Agriculture, including livestock production as well as crop production combined, is the number source for species endangerment in the country , and this number would be higher if you were to add in the species that are negatively impacted by exotic species, many of which increase due to habitat modification by agricultural production.

Agriculture is also the largest user of US water resources, with confined animal operations the largest per capita consumer of water. Grain fed beef production uses 100,000 gallons of water to produce every kg of food. By comparison, a similar kg of water-hungry rice uses only 2000 gallons of water, while potatoes require a mere 500 gallons. The primary mission of most western reservoirs is water storage for irrigated agriculture. Even in California which grows the bulk of the Nation's vegetables and fruits, the largest consumers of irrigation water in the state by acreage is irrigated hay/alfalfa production.

Thus the environmental impacts associated with these dams and reservoirs such as barriers to salmon migration salmon, changes in water flows and flooding, are one indirect cost of factory farming operations. Add to this the direct dewatering of rivers for hay and other forage crop production is the loss of ground water supplies by pumping, particularly of the Ogalla aquifer. It's easy to see why some argue that livestock production is the leading causes of water degradation.

Agriculture also degrades water in other more direct ways. Livestock produce 130 times the waste of the entire human population of the United States, and unlike the human waste which tend to be treated in sewage plants; most animal waste winds up on the land or in the water. Not surprisingly, livestock production is the leading cause of non-point surface water pollution accounting for 72% of the pollution in rives and 56% of the pollution in lakes.

Agriculture production is also the number one source for groundwater contamination in the Nation, with 49 states reporting high nitrates and 43 states reporting pesticide production attributed to agricultural practices.

Agricultural production is the largest source for soil erosion in the United States with current rates exceeding soil production rates by 17 times with 90% of US croplands losing soils above sustainable rates Since the majority of the nation's cropland is growing animal feed, the majority of soil erosion is a direct consequence of this production.

Another indirect consequence of factory farming is the energy used to grow and transport feed. Animal protein production uses eight times the fossil fuel energy as growing vegetables or grass fed livestock Beef production was particularly energy costly, requiring 54 times the fossil fuel equivalent of non-grain fed sources of protein.

Lest we forget, livestock are a significant contributor to global warming. The world's livestock produces 25% of the global greenhouse gases, with the waste lagoons of factory farms contributing another 5%. And according to a UN report, the global livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent - 18 percent - than transport.

Much, though not all, of these environmental impacts would be reduced or avoided altogether if factory farming and other kinds of confined animal production were eliminated. A shift to smaller, diverse farms, and a reduction, if not outright elimination of meat consumption, would both contribute to a huge reduction in environmental impacts of animal agriculture.

7 June 2009

Plantations: What Republican Rep Donald Tripp of the Middle Rio Grande has in common with Cromwell

Greenpeace Blogs, 7 June 2009. By _ne_cave___:
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/_ne_cave___/2009/06/07/plantations_what_republican_rep_donald_t

Plantations may be associated and blamed on Elizabeth I of England in the 15th-16th centuries. Certainly, she did plant things around the planet on a large scale... Religion and Money, Language or (Class), as usual, were the dividing lines used by the Queens army under the Mercenary Paliamentarian soldiers with the horror methods of CROMWELL. Elizabeth I, the Protestant, along with all that could be considered "other" than Protestant, especaially Irish Catholics, began a fight that goes on and on across the globe today. In Northern Ireland, still under threat of war, Elizabeth I ran the Gaelic or rather Catholic Irish Clans off their lands in Ireland and gave them to British and Scotish Lords and solders for re-settlement. TODAY, WE CALL THIS LAND REFORM. In principal, she put the small land holders off their lands, making them serfs or slaves to the Landlords, the Manor Houses of the Protestant faith: "People Plantation" we call them. It caused and Irish Diaspora around the globe, not unlike the African Diaspora.

Now, why would I mention this "old"event? I talk about it because it is still on-going. A politician, or merchant, or "Landlord", a King, a Queen, a corporation, even an individual has used this method to gain access to the lands of the globe for their own private interests. It has be going on in the New World, both north and south America for hundreds of years. We had the plantations of the American South, that began indurialization and not just agro-slaves, but factory slaves, the tales of Charles Dickens and later Willaim Faulkner tell of the tenant farmers, the agro cotton slaves, the chid slaves of industry in England. So, we now wonder: "HAS ALL THE HORROR OF MODERNITY AND THIS POSTMODERN AGE COME FROM ENGLAND AND AMERICA?" No, but they have certainly been the center of it all in the current financial crisis and the increase in Global Warming. The armies of those times, or enforcers, were Scotland Yard and the Black and Tans of Ireland to help the Landlords.

Amnesty International is overrun with torture and the "dissappeared" Mayans. The magazine Grain is reporting from Afghanistan and Brazil that the purpose of this war to replace "drugs" is necessary using ARSENAL/imazpayr, a reprorodution/endocrine inhiboter chemical made by BASF, the Chemcal Company and used by the Americans. The TRUTH? The use of this deadly chemical is to get land reform in Brazil and Afghanistan to have LAND REFORM and once again to get more plantations, this time the contract going to John Deere Tractors to plant thousands and thousands of acres/hectares of Geneticaly Engineered and Genetically Modified Sugar Beets and Sugar Cane to make Ethanol for cars... Biofools as Greenpeace and others have called this insanity.

So what was the purpose of non-opposed Republican State Representative Donald Tripps trips to Northern Iraland with BASF? to Israel (to appear Protestant?; to buy blood diamonds for his less than crediable jewelry making machine; to get health care for his slave workers in his jewelry shops; to buy more ARSENAL/imapzyr for his farm or to once agian poison the farm lands of the Middle Rio Grande Valley? to do more Land Reform under the aegis of "Invader Species"?) Is not Donald Tripp the invader of this land? But, in his shop of horrors, he has just become a simple thief, without jewelry, without cell phones, without internet dishes as T_Mobile and Verizon will not sell to him. He also supports the local football team and collects money for all of the phone companies and internet and cable delivery services. Is this "the greater good for the people" you so stupidly referred to in a stolen e-mail address to us, along with the information that you did not believe in "repeal of the death penalty" in New Mexico? Not in this district you said. Since when did you have the right to call for the "hangman" in "Your District Donald?" So, what people do you include in the greater good? What people Don? You and Rosie? Or did you include Gordon Herkenhoff in this? And who is your army? We know: It is Homeland Security. You use their equipment. How did a petty politician get this kind of army Don?

ERMA Shown As Failing Parliaments Intentions

Soil and Health Association press release [New Zealand], 7 June 2009:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0906/S00076.htm

The High Court has ruled against ERMA's decision to allow genetically engineered (GE) animals, after an appeal by GE Free New Zealand. The appeal success against these bizarre and open-ended applications for GE animals by Crown Research Institute AgResearch supports the feelings of most New Zealanders, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

The June 5 High Court judgement ordered that "ERMA's decision to accept the Applications as applications under s 40 of HSNO is set aside and ERMA is to take no further steps towards hearing and assessing the Applications."

Polling commissioned by Soil & Health and the animal advocacy organisation SAFE last year (1) confirmed that most New Zealanders oppose GE in animals. More than 1700 people submitted against the applications of AgResearch that potentially allowed 18 types of animal to be genetically modified with animal cell lines (including human and monkey) and E.coli and yeast, at Ruakura and other unidentified facilities. The animals included cows, goats, sheep, pigs, deer, llama, horses, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, chickens and the cell-lines from humans and monkeys.

"The AgResearch applications did not specify which GE constructs would be used, or on what animals, or where in New Zealand the GE laboratory experiments, or field trials, would take place, therefore making risk analysis by the public very difficult, and the High Court has agreed," said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

"Our poll showed twice as many New Zealanders oppose GE in animals than support it, and like GE Free NZ, Soil & Health and hundreds of submitters to the AgResearch applications, the High Court has agreed that "the applications are simply too generic to enable the risk assessment called for by the Hazardous Substance's and New Organism's Act (HSNO) to be meaningfully undertaken."

Judge Clifford had also stated, "that the information necessary for effective public input here has not been made available," and ... "To enable effective public participation, sufficient particularity is required at the application stage."

"Every ERMA approved field trial, whether plant or animal, has fallen down on its conditions. For AgResearch to be loosely applying for a veritable zoo to play with, was risky, unethical and went against New Zealand's point of difference in the world: clean green, 100% Pure and essentially GE Free," said Mr Browning.

"AgResearch's applications continued the arrogance displayed by other CRIs. Scion disregarded consent conditions originally imposed by ERMA with its GE pine tree field trial, and Plant & Food Research allowed GE brassicas to illegally flower at its Lincoln site. ERMA effectively ignored hundreds of submitters opposed to those trials and the submitters concerns were later realised with the CRIs flouting community concern and the few conditions imposed by ERMA."

"We are very pleased that ERMA's complicity with poor compliance of the HSNO Act has been showed up again by this High Court judgement. The high level of complicity with Scion last year by ERMA and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, and slow action against Plant & Food Research following its December 2008 breaches, shows that the regulatory bodies in New Zealand appear to be manipulated by the pro GE science lobbyists."

"The High Court decision noted the use of a Mr Slattery as a consultant providing advice to AgResearch on the applications and that previously he had been employed by ERMA as Applications Manager, and that his evidence did not differ greatly from that of the current Application manager. Soil & Health suspects an element of revolving door with Mr Slattery having appeared in another forum as an independent consultant and not declaring his genuine interest."

The High Court also quoted Environment Minister Nick Smith from a 1996 select committee (2) discussing ERMA's role, "Neither this Parliament nor the community should want an airy-fairy authority that will make decisions on the whim of the politics of the day. We want an authority that will base its decisions on rigour and science."

Minister of the day, Simon Upton was quoted from the same select committee notes, "So the likelihood of the authority making a mistake in terms of the facts of a particular approval is very remote. It is more likely that any mistake will be the result of inadequate or inaccurate information being provided by the application."

"Soil & Health hopes that the current Environment Minister will ensure that New Zealand follows a clean green Brand New Zealand vision that has no GE in the environment, and that regulatory authorities are robust, making decisions on rigour and science, that are also precautionary and don't allow high risk activities. AgResearch, Scion and Plant & Food Research seem hell-bent on continuing down a GE path, yet have demonstrably shown a lack of responsibility or capacity to manage," said Mr Browning.

"Science is showing repeatedly that GE is not safe and the economic risk has not been taken into account correctly by ERMA. As shown by Scion and Plant & Food, Mr Upton's vision has failed and the likelihood of the Authority making mistakes is no longer 'remote' but standard."

There are no legally operating GE field tests in New Zealand currently with Plant & Food's previously approved GE alliums on hold while the investigation of the failed GE brassica trial continues, and AgResearch's GE cattle are unable to be experimented on as the trial consent has expired and now their next applications have been shown to be seriously wanting.

ERMA has indicated to Soil & Health that the penalty for Plant & Food's serious breach is unlikely to be as severe as we would hope for.

"The consistent mess from the GE community and risks to our clean green image should ensure that Plant & Food do not proceed with any GE field trials. Euthanasia of AgResearch's current GE herd and elimination of all GE field tests will be better for New Zealand's environmental and economic future," says Mr Browning.

Health Care Reform: Scrap GMOs

I Report [USA], 7 June 2009:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-267750

In his latest weekly address, President Obama says health care reform must no longer mean "reform that throws good money after bad habits".

An usually wide array of interest groups that have lined up against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) hope President Obama's commitment to eradicating health care reform bad habits extends to the nation's de facto investment in genetically modified crops which have been linked to 65 health risks and long-term health care costs.

With a growing body of new scientific evidence behind them, experts say that any acceptance of the safety of GMOs flies in the face of modern scientific methods. They point out the handful of original safety studies on file primarily come from GMO patent holders.

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM Foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body," said Dr. Amy Dean, a Board Member of AAEM. "With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM Foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health."

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) is reaching out to the medical community, their members and independent scientists in an effort to collect case studies to assess health effects that can be ascribed to the consumption of Genetically Modified (GM) foods. The organization plans to begin epidemiological research as well to examine how GM foods impact human health.

AAEM's President, Dr. Jennifer Armstrong says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects [of eating foods with GMOs] in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions."

The White House staff now grows organic vegetables in a much-publicized garden for the First Family. A lesser-known fact is the former president and Mrs. Bush insisted on an organic diet at the same time the administration pushed international trade in biotech foods.

Germany recently announced that it will become the sixth EU country to ban the cultivation of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) maize MON810 while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approvals of GM products and GM seeds continues unabated.

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

GMOs are the result of laboratory processes, which artificially insert foreign genes into the DNA of food crops or animals. Those genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.

Physicians say GM Milk does not do the body good

The respected Nobel prize winning nonprofit, Physicians for Social Responsibility, is working hard to stop the use of the GMO dairy hormone rBGH. They have concluded, based on overwhelming scientific evidence, that there are health dangers linked to use of rBGH for humans and cows. Among them are:

•

Milk from rBGH-treated cows has much higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. IGF-1 levels in milk from treated cows with rBGH can be up to 10 times higher. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below 50 years old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer. IGF-1 is implicated in lung and colon cancer.

•

Milk from cows injected with rBGH also has lowered nutritional value, increased antibiotics and more pus from infected udders. Cows given rBGH experience higher rates of mastitis, a painful udder infection. When treated with antibiotics that are also used for people, these antibiotics that end up in the milk, air, soil and water, resulting in increased antibiotic resistance in humans, a major health problem.

GM animals for food

The expected approval of patented GM salmon that mature at double the rate of any of the 137 natural salmon species on earth, poses unwanted environmental challenges to multiple eco-systems fish and game experts say. They say if approved, GM salmon crossbreeding is inevitable.

Brian Fransen, a Weyerhaeuser fish biologist, found that young salmon feed on salmon eggs from salmon carcasses, especially in winter when other nutrients are scarce. This cycle means that any GM Salmon released, by intention or mistake, pose a threat to natural salmon species.

Many forest animals including bear, deer and elk feed directly on salmon or salmon carcasses, and thus can bring GM salmon DNA further into the natural landscape.

As the law stands now, consumers who purchase GM salmon will have not the benefit of labeling.

America's right to know

While polls show that 9 out of 10 Americans want GM Foods labeled, the FDA unlike food safety regulators in most industrialized countries around the world requires no labeling of GM Foods.

The Natural Food Industry is serious about halting contamination from genetically engineered crops and plans to have a new third party verified Non-GMO Seal on Non-GMO products before the end of the year.

The experiments [on GM Foods] simply haven't been done and we now have become the guinea pigs," said Canadian geneticist David Suzuki. "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."

Over 40 of the top 100 dairies have dropped some or all of their GM products due to consumer rejection, retailers like Dannon and Yoplait that have spurned rBGH in yogurt; and Whole Foods and Trader Joes house brands have eliminated the use of GMOs.

Failure to Yield

A widely acclaimed long-term study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Failure to Yield [http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html], reveals that the biotech's promise of "feeding the world" by replacing naturally bred crops with patented GM Crops is false. An independent review of all the facts shows GM Crops have not produced higher yields.

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

Consumer spending power can force change

The No GMO Challenge [http://www.realfoodmedia.com/] co-sponsored by the Institute for Responsible Technology and RealFoodMedia.com is a consumer-led movement to end consumer demand for genetically modified organisms.

Organizers of the No GMO Challenge hope U.S. shoppers will flex their considerable spending power to buy Non-GMO products. They offer a free non-GMO shopping guide for consumers to download.

Similar to the successful Eat Local Challenge, the No GMO Challenge is a way to organize, educate and build awareness around the issue of genetically modified food.

The Challenge is a rolling challenge so consumers may continue to organize, educate and build awareness about the dangers of GMOs in the food supply throughout the year.

Links

http://www.whitehouse.gov
http://www.aaemonline.org
http://www.psr.org
http://www.responsibletechnology.org
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
http://www.ucsusa.org
http://www.realfoodmedia.com

Studies

Different RoundUp Formulations Lead to Embryonic, Umbilical cord and Placental Cell Death and Are Poorly Assessed (France)
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2554

Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety (Austria)
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2469

Is Bt cotton: causing human allergies and reproductive problems and deaths of animals (India)
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2468

GM Corns Disturbs Immune System in Young and Old Mice (Italy)
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2470

Syngenta says world food crisis not over
• Russia can play role in alleviating food shortages
• Selective intervention, free trade will boost security
• Biotechnology to play role in the long term
• Corn ethanol needed during transition to non-food biofuels

Reuters, 7 June 2009. By Amie Ferris-Rotman:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8545590

ST PETERSBURG - Russia can play a crucial role in alleviating a food crisis that still presents a serious challenge to the world, a senior executive from leading agrochemicals company Syngenta AG said on Sunday. Syngenta Chief Operating Officer John Atkin told Reuters in an interview selective intervention and more free trade would be key to improving global food security, and biotechnology could play a big role in farming in the long term.

"I don't think it (the food crisis) has ended. It's been somewhat pushed off the headlines by the economic crisis, but if you look at the fundamentals, the issues are still the same," he said on the sidelines of the World Grain Forum.

"We need 50 percent more by 2030 or to double food production by 2050. The challenge is still there. Although the economic crisis has affected a lot of things, it hasn't had much effect on demand."

Asked what role Russia could play, Atkin said: "It is particularly exciting because they've got 47 million hectares of cereals here ... only about 10 percent of the cereal land is farmed intensively, so the potential to do more is great."

Atkin said a globally coordinated system of food storage would also help alleviate shortages, if it was done well.

"Equally important, and more important for the longer term, is helping (developing countries) to produce their own food," he said.

"Here is the recipe: reducing barriers to trade, selective use of intervention when it is necessary, in the way that Russia did, public investment in agriculture to help farmers do the right thing (and) help them grow better crops," Atkin said.

"There are millions and millions of farmers in the world ... And they respond to gentle stimulus, slightly higher prices. There's not a lot of need for broad and direct intervention here."

Biotechnology for long term Russia, which plans to increase grain production by 50 percent within 10 to 15 years, had no immediate need for genetically modified crops to boost production, Atkin said. "As far as yields are concerned, they can reach their targets without biotechnology," he said. "Longer term, I think biotechnology could play a role ... we regret the fact that its development is somewhat slow outside the Americas."

Syngenta has around 350 employees in Russia as well as small operations in Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and is focusing on organic expansion rather than acquiring local competitors in the region.

"We are strongly developing here," Atkin said. "We're growing through bringing our technology here, adapting it in the right way, hiring local people."

He said Syngenta continued to invest in biofuels, despite widespread criticism of the sector for exploiting resources that would be otherwise used for food cultivation.

"Bioethanol produced from sugar cane is a force for the good," he said. "Brazil has plenty of water. They can produce the sugar cane. It isn't competing with food."

The United States, however, is not yet ready to completely drop the production of ethanol from corn, as new technologies using sustainable biomass feedstock and waste materials are not yet capable of replacing it, he said.

"We need bioethanol from corn because it's the first step," he said. In the meantime, he said, Syngenta is investing in both corn bioethanol and cellulosic techniques. (Writing by Robin Paxton and Conor Humphries; Editing by David Holmes)

WA markets affected by GM canola

Gene Ethics Media Alert [Australia], Sunday June 7:
http://www.geneethics.org/

Genetically Manipulated canola will likely impact sales in Japan WA state official says. GM canola will cost farmers dearly, with lost markets in Asia and Europe.

"The WA government ignored the advice of its own officials and other evidence that export markets would be harmed, when it lifted its GM crop ban," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps.

"WA should rejoin the SA, ACT and Tasmanian bans on commercial GM canola.

"This would protect the integrity of its clean, green brand and increase sales of the state's top quality GM-free foods around the world, at premium prices.

"Lost access to markets due to GM canola is a disaster waiting to happen.

"WA, NSW and Victoria should nurture their farmers' independence from the GM giants, by banning failed and dangerous GM technology that offers nothing to farmers or shoppers.

"We call for the whole of Australia to again be GM-free, with bans on GM crops," Mr Phelps concludes.

Comment: 03 9889 1717 (H) 0449 769 066 (M) 03 9347 4500 (O)

Email claims Japanese GM concerns

ABC [Australia], 7 June 2009:http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/07/2591540.htm

Email correspondence has revealed WA's trade commissioner to Japan has serious concerns about the production and sale of genetically modified crops to Japan.

The emails, obtained under freedom of information laws, were written in January and discuss the Premier's visit to Japan in February.

One of the emails, written by Craig Peacock, the WA trade commissioner to Japan says, there is a strong concern the new government is ignoring the concerns of a major customer base.

It goes on to say the concerns will eventually have a negative impact on all facets of Japan-WA agribusiness.

The State Opposition's Mark McGowan (T: 08 9592 7422 F: 08 9592 1683 E: mark.mcgowan@mp.wa.gov.au) says the government needs to re-instate the moratorium on GM crops.

"Japan is our number one trading partner in terms of agricultural and fisheries products, more than $840 million a year of trade that we send to Japan," he said.

Minister denies trade with Japan threatened by GM canola

WA Today [Australia], June 7 2009:
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/minister-denies-trade-with-japan-threatened-by-gm-canola-20090607-bzof.html

Western Australia's $800 million agri-business trade is not at risk from trials of genetically modified canola despite opposition claims, WA Agriculture Minister Terry Redman says.

Emails from WA's trade office in Japan reveal agri-business trade with Japan could be at risk if genetically-modified crops are introduced in the state, the WA opposition says.

The emails were obtained by opposition trade minister Mark McGowan through a freedom of information request.

In one of the three emails, WA's Tokyo trade office commissioner Craig Peacock warned a colleague of the need for damage control if GM crops were introduced in WA.

"I must stress how strongly the Japanese feel about this and the impression is that the new government is ignoring or taking lightly the concerns of a major customer base," Mr Peacock wrote.

"This is not the voice of a crank group of zealots; it is in the press and on TV.

"If this continues it will eventually have a negative impact on all facets of Japan-WA agribusiness. It is that serious."

GM canola trials are underway in WA under the Liberal-National government.

Mr Redman signed an exemption order to allow the trials after the Greens and Labor combined to block the move in the state's upper house earlier this year.

He says only a small amount of WA canola is exported to Japan and most of it does not receive a premium.

"Japan currently imports over two million tonnes of canola from Canada, which is GM canola," Mr Redman told AAP.

"If you look at Western Australia, we grow just short of a million tonnes a year and we export into Japan somewhere between 150,000 tonnes and 200,000 tonnes.

"We're not seeing any measure of significant price difference between the GM and non-GM canola going into Japan."

About 10 per cent of the canola exported to Japan from WA went into a specific niche, non-GM market, Mr Redman said.

"I'm expecting we will be able to maintain that," he said.

Opposition agriculture spokesman Mick Murray said WA's agriculture, fibre and fisheries exports to Japan were worth $814 million.

"Mr Peacock is an experienced, well-respected trade representative," Mr Murray said.

"His warnings are clear and direct and should be ringing alam bells throughout the farming community."

AgResearch loses bid to expand GM animal research

Radio New Zealand, 7 June 2009:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/06/07/1245b5811d2c

The lobby group GE-Free New Zealand has won a legal challenge to an AgResearch application to expand its research into genetically modified animals.

The Crown Research Institute had applied to the Environmental Risk Management Authority to continue research into genetically modifying cows to include human proteins in their milk.

It also wanted to broaden its investigations to include a range of animals, with the aim of producing pharmaceuticals and other products that might have health benefits and commercial applications.

But a High Court Judge agreed with GE Free NZ that the application lacked essential information required under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and said ERMA erred by receiving the application in the first place.

GM animal applications invalid - appeal upheld

GE Free NZ, 7 June 2009:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0906/S00077.html

In a precedent setting case, the High Court has upheld the appeal by GE Free NZ in Food and Environment against ERMA and AgResearch.

After 12 weeks of deliberation, Justice Clifford found that ERMA erred in receiving the applications from AgResearch and has declared them invalid. The decision sets aside the decisions by ERMA to proceed with the applications. ERMA is to take no further steps toward hearing and assessing the applications.

In October 2008 GE Free NZ went to the High Court to appeal a decision by ERMA NZ to notify four applications submitted by AgResearch that ranged from importing genetically engineered embryo's created overseas, to field trialing and commercial production of pharmaceuticals in milk, development of animals to model disease and virtually 'anything else' that would be of commercial interest.

"It is fantastic news that our concerns about the broad and indefinite nature of these applications have been upheld." says Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free NZ in food and environment. "The cruelty and unregulated exploitation of animals for unsound GM research is not acceptable to New Zealanders."

The decision instructs ERMA to immediately halt processing the applications made by AgResearch who sought the right to modify nine species of animals, for an unlimited period, for commercial ventures anywhere in New Zealand.

"This was not the 'case by case' regulation of ethical research that government promised the public, following the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, but a wholesale rush to commercialisation that would likely devastate New Zealand's export and tourism image," says Jon Carapiet spokesperson for GE Free NZ in food and environment.

The plans directly contradict the recommendations of the Royal Commission to not use food animals as bioreactors. Given the potential to damage rather than develop the economy and to dramatically increase the incidence of unethical treatment of animals, the decision is cause for AgResearch to comprehensively rethink how it serves its mission to 'create sustainable wealth for the New Zealand pastoral and biotechnology sectors'. Neither AgResearch nor overseas investors must be allowed limitless scope to exploit New Zealand as a GE play ground and threaten the very core of the New Zealand Brand.

"There is an urgent need for Government to direct Crown Research Institutes, like AgResearch, to comply with a Biotechnology Strategy that does not include genetic modification, but one that builds on our existing reputation and supports clean, natural and sustainable production," says Jon Carapiet.

"In developing the country's approach to gene technology, it is vital we learn from the history of Mad Cow Disease, Foot and Mouth, Swine Flu, animal deformity through cloning, the failure and bankruptcy of previous GE-animal commercial ventures, and the public distaste for extreme animal cruelty."

"This is a precedent-setting case and an amazing win for the public of New Zealand that protects our farmers and exporters," says Claire Bleakley. "We would like to thank all who supported and helped us in the process of the case."

GE-Free wins court battle over AgResearch

Stuff.co.nz, 7 June 2009:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2480229/Ge-Free-wins-court-battle-over-Agresearch

AgResearch says it is disappointed GE-Free New Zealand has won a court battle to restrict applications to import genetically engineered (GE) material and livestock.

The High Court at Wellington ruled on Friday that the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) had erred in receiving applications for determination under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

"I think the error is such that Erma cannot continue to treat the applications as if they were valid," Justice Denis Clifford said.

He ordered that any decisions to accept applications be set aside and that Erma stop hearing and assessing any further applications.

GE-Free had taken both Erma and AgResearch to court in March.

AgResearch last year made four applications for the laboratory testing of human and monkey cell lines and smaller species of GE laboratory animals, and the development of GE cows, buffalo, sheep, pigs, goats, llamas, alpacas, deer and horses.

It wanted the livestock to produce antigens, biopharmaceuticals, enzymes, hormones and other products with possible health benefits and commercial applications.

AgResearch said it was making a "suite" of applications to obtain all the possible approvals it might need for research, and animal breeding to target production of high-value proteins in milk.

Today, general manager science and technology Jimmy Suttie said the ruling prevented AgResearch from undertaking transgenic animal research effectively.

"We are challenged by this procedural issue as we will now lose valuable time in advancing our research and opportunities to capitalise on it."

However, he said AgResearch would revise its applications to Erma and submit alternatives.

"We believe this is necessary to secure for New Zealand the opportunity to do this type of research and provide options for the pastoral industry."

GE-Free spokesman Jon Carapiet hailed the High Court decision as one of the most significant decisions relating to GE in the last decade.

The public and farmers were against the "wholesale approach to genetic engineering of animals", he said.

Mr Carapiet said the Royal Commission into GE in 2001, and subsequent governments, did not want an "anything, anywhere, anytime, go free and multiply" approach to GE research, but a case by case, careful assessment of the risks and opportunities.

Few GE applications on their own would stand up and AgResearch's suite proposal would have avoided that scrutiny, he said.

The decision would force the applicants and Erma to more fully analyse what they would do with an organism and how they would do it, he said.

"It should force AgResearch to really rethink what it is doing in terms of investing money in genetic engineering versus other areas.

The Soil and Health association said the decision was "a victory for New Zealanders" and showed Erma was failing Parliament's intentions.

"Every Erma approved field trial, whether plant or animal, has fallen down on its conditions. For AgResearch to be loosely applying for a veritable zoo to play with, was risky, unethical and went against New Zealand's point of difference in the world: clean green, 100 per cent pure and essentially GE Free," said spokesman Steffan Browning.

Erma general manager of new organisms Libby Harrison said the government agency would not comment until it had had time to read and consider the High Court decision.

In the meantime, all work on processing AgResearch applications had stopped.

"We have no other similar applications in process at present."

Dispersal of Transgenes through Maize Seed Systems in Mexico

PLoS ONE 4(5): e5734. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005734
Dyer GA, Serratos-Hernández JA, Perales HR, Gepts P, Piñeyro-Nelson A, et al. (2009)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005734

Abstract

Objectives: Current models of transgene dispersal focus on gene flow via pollen while neglecting flow in centers of crop origin and diversity. We analyze the dispersal of maize transgenes via seeds in Mexico, the crop's cradle.

Methods: We use immunoassays (ELISA) to screen for the activity of recombinant proteins in a seed stocks. We estimate critical parameters of seed population dynamics using household survey estimates with analytical results to examine presumed sources and mechanisms of dispersal.

Results: Recombinant proteins Cry1Ab/Ac and CP4/EPSPS were found in 3.1% and 1.8% of most abundant in southeast Mexico but also present in the west-central region. Diffusion of seed United States might explain the frequency and distribution of transgenes in west-central Mexico but not in the southeast.

Conclusions: Understanding the potential for transgene survival and dispersal should help design diffusion of germplasm into local seed stocks. Further research is needed on the interactions seed systems and grain markets in centers of crop origin and diversification.

6 June 2009

Global corporates endangering food security: Minister

The Hindu [India], 6 June 2009:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/06/stories/2009060661000300.htm

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [Kerala]: Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran has stressed the need for the State to create a bulwark against monopoly trends in agriculture that pose a serious threat to food security.

He was delivering the inaugural address at the World Environment Day celebrations organised by the Soil Survey Organisation here on Friday. Mr. Ratnakaran accused multinational corporates of promoting 'food terror' through GM (Genetically Modified) crops. "Corporate agenda should not be allowed to dictate agricultural practices and dietary habits," he said.

Mr. Ratnakaran said sustainable agriculture was a natural defence against greedy corporates. He stressed the need to promote organic farming and protect natural resources.

He said the government was planning to create a State-wide network of 100 neighbourhood groups ('naattukoottams') to encourage sustainable agriculture and protect trees, waterbodies and fields. The 'nattukoottams' would involve farmers and local people, mostly from rural areas.

"The groups will have periodic meetings to discuss means to promote agriculture. The government will enlist the services of agriculture experts to provide technical support. The groups would also have an action plan and a monitoring mechanism." Incentive scheme

State Planning Board vice-chairman Prabhat Patnaik said an appropriate incentive scheme for farmers was imperative if Kerala was to achieve food security. He said Kerala had to reverse the diversion of land from food crop production to cultivation of cash crops if the State was to achieve food security.

Farming: 100 village councils planned

Express News Service [India], 6 June 2009:
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Farming:+100+village+councils+planned&artid=E9|6lOYS7oQ=&SectionID=lMx/b5mt1kU=&MainSectionID=wIcBMLGbUJI=&SectionName=tm2kh5uDhixGlQvAG42A/07OVZOOEmts&SEO=

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [Kerala]: A hundred village councils (Naattukkoottam) will be formed this year to raise awareness on proper farming methods and the threats posed by genetically modified (GM) crops, Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran said on Friday.

This is part of an action plan of the State Government against GM crops, the Minister said. He was delivering an Environment Day message at the district-level distribution of soil health cards organised here by the Agriculture and Soil Survey Departments.

The Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) and the Agriculture Department will provide technical expertise to the village councils, which will be made up of farmers.

Special programmes to strengthen the resolve to protect the ecosystem and fight GM crops will be planned on the birth anniversaries of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Swami Vivekananda on October 2, November 14 and January 12 respectively.

Law Minister M. Vijayakumar urged panchayats to take active measures against indiscriminate sand mining and quarrying. The government's laws and regulations alone are not sufficient to effectively protect nature. The participation of the public is equally important, he said.

Planning Board Vice-Chairman Prabhat Patnaik, delivering the keynote address, said that the climate change phenomenon will have a negative impact on the food security of India in general, and Kerala in particular. Kerala should take urgent steps to revert to food grain cultivation, and also adopt an efficient soil management mechanism, he said.

Vijayakumar inaugurated the distribution of soil health cards to farmers of the Kollayil panchayat in the district. The cards contain details of the soil - such as acidity, water retention capability, soil texture and mineral content - in the lands of individual farmers which will immensely help farming.

V. Sivankutty MLA presided over the function.

Additional Chief Secretary K. Jayakumar delivered the introductory address. Agriculture Director Tinku Biswal, former director R. Haley and Soil Survey Department Additional Director P.N. Premachandran spoke.

Apple trees destroyed

FarmingUK, 6 June 2009:
http://www.farminguk.com/news/Apple-trees-destroyed16399.asp

Two hundred and seventy apple trees on a trial site owned by the Institute for Breeding Research on Horticultural and Fruit Crops of the Julius K¸hn Institute (JKI) in Dresden-Pillnitz were destroyed by unknown intruders. Most of the trees were genetically modified plants being grown in tubs in a special safety tent under field-like conditions. It is the first time that protesters have destroyed plants that were not being grown in the field.

According to a press release by the JKI, the tent fabric was cut open and all of the trees, which were about seven years old, were either snapped by hand or cut with pruning shears above the graft. The institute estimates the cost of the damage to be around EUR 700 000. Around ten years of research work has been destroyed.

The institute in Pillnitz - previously the Institute of Fruit Breeding of the Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (BAZ) - has been working on the development of transgenic apple trees since 1997. One of the key areas of research is methods of controlling apple scab, apple powdery mildew and fire blight. Following the rejection in 2003 of a planned release trial with genetically modified apple trees, research work can now only take place on a reduced scale in closed tents corresponding to safety level 1.

Saxony's Minister of Agriculture and the Environment, Frank Kupfer, who visited the site to see the damage for himself, was shocked by the vandalism: "What happened in Pillnitz was simply criminal."

The JKI has reported an offence by unknown perpetrators.

5 June 2009

DIR 093 - Limited and controlled release of wheat and barley genetically modified for altered grain starch composition

SeedQuest.com, 5 June 2009:
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2009/june/26427.htm

NOTIFICATION OF DECISION

ISSUE OF LICENCE DIR 093 TO CSIRO FOR A LIMITED AND CONTROLLED RELEASE OF GM WHEAT AND BARLEY

The Gene Technology Regulator has made a decision to issue a licence in respect of application DIR 093 from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The applicant has received approval for the limited and controlled release of 3 wheat lines and 1 barley line genetically modified for altered grain starch composition. The release is expected to take place at one site in the ACT on a maximum area of 1 ha between July 2009 and June 2012. None of the GM wheat or barley plants will be permitted to enter the commercial human food or animal feed supply chain. However, some products made from the GM wheat or barley may be fed to rats and pigs in controlled laboratory experiments, and some products from the GM wheat may be used as part of a carefully controlled nutritional study in humans.

The decision to issue the licence was made after extensive consultation on the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) with the public, State and Territory governments, Australian Government agencies, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, as required by the Gene Technology Act 2000 and corresponding State and Territory laws.

Issues relating to the health and safety of people and the protection of the environment raised during the consultation process on this application were considered in finalising the RARMP and in making the decision to issue the licence.

The Executive Summary, Technical Summary and complete finalised RARMP, together with a set of Questions and Answers on this decision and a copy of the licence, can be obtained on-line from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator's website or requested via the contacts detailed below.

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator MDP 54
GPO Box 9848
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Telephone: 1800 181 030
Facsimile: 02 6271 4202
http://www.ogtr.gov.au

DIR 093 - Notification of decision to issue a licence on application - posted 5 June 2009 (PDF 44 KB) http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093notific.pdf

DIR 093 - Questions and Answers (PDF 17 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093qa3.pdf

DIR 093 - Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) Executive Summary (PDF 59 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093execsum.pdf

DIR 093 - Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) Technical Summary (PDF 82 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093techsum.pdf

DIR 093 - Full Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) for limited and controlled release of wheat and barley genetically modified for altered grain starch composition (PDF 663 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093rarmp.pdf

DIR 093 - Licence application summary (PDF 75 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093appsum.pdf

DIR 093 - GM Wheat and Barley Licence Conditions (PDF 157 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093lic.pdf

Reference material

Risk Analysis Framework for Licence Applications to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator 2007
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/riskassessments-1

Related documents

The Biology of Triticum aestivum L. em Thell. (Bread Wheat) (2008 version)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/riskassessments-1#biology

The Biology of Hordeum vulgare L. (Barley) (2008 version)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/riskassessments-1#biology

A Sizable Step Towards a Real Commitment to Farmers' Rights at the FAO?

ETC Group press release, 5 June 2009:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=754

TUNIS -- After four days of difficult negotiations among 121 governments at a UN Food and Agricultural Organization Treaty meeting on the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture held in Tunisia, a Canadian effort to block progress was overturned. At midnight on Thursday, Brazil read an amended resolution on farmers' rights to a tired plenary, shifting the prevailing tension amongst delegates into relief and enthusiasm. Following corridor negotiations, in which Europe, Latin America and Africa confronted Canada's effort to derail the implementation of farmers' rights, governments agreed to:

•

encourage member countries to review all measures affecting farmers' rights and remove any barriers preventing farmers from saving, exchanging or selling seed;

•

involve farmers fully in national and/or regional workshops on the implementation of farmers' rights and to report back on the implementation of farmers' rights at the next meeting of the seed treaty in about 18 months. The plenary resolution broke from conventional UN diplomatic practices by calling for the full involvement of farmers' organizations in every aspect of the Treaty.

Angola, Brazil, Ecuador, The Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland deserve special thanks for championing farmers' critical role in the conservation and enhancement of plant genetic resources. Honduran farmer, Don Luis Pacheco, summarized the importance of the Treaty when he said: "Conserving plant genetic diversity is essential to our ability to adjust agriculture to the new threats of climate change. If we don't get the global system for seed conservation right at this meeting in Tunisia, the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at the end of this year can't succeed."

As Wilhelmina Pelegrina, Executive Director of SEARICE - a civil society organization that has long lobbied for farmers' rights, who has tracked the negotiations closely, put it: "Although short on firm commitments, and dependent on financing, the resolution is a sizeable step forward in the decades-long struggle to recognize and implement farmers' rights at the FAO."

Critical to this growing commitment to farmers' rights during this third meeting of the Governing Body were the many interventions made by representatives of farmers' organizations, such as the world's largest peasants' organization, la Via Campesina. These spokespersons not only emphasized the central role that small farmers play in the conservation of agricultural biodiversity, but also made concrete proposals about the rights and support these farmers, farm communities, indigenous peoples' organizations and pastoralists require. Not the least of these rights are access to national and international gene bank materials and the right to financial support for on-farm biodiversity conservation.

"We did not get everything we needed at this meeting, but at least we now have the opportunity to begin reviewing legislation that has been so harmful to farmers' rights in many countries. The Canadian team here played dirty tricks and were repeatedly obstructionist during the whole process," said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group. "Thankfully, the multilateral process and pressure from civil society was able to bring them back into line."

The International Treaty on Plant and Genetic Resource's emphasis on national sovereignty over the conservation of plant genetic resources and farmer's rights is also of concern. National seeds laws can, for example, prevent farmers from saving, exchanging, and selling their seeds. And as Jorge Stanley, a member of a Panamanian indigenous youth organization and spokesperson for the International Planning Committee on food sovereignty told the plenary earlier in the day: "'Consent' and 'benefit sharing' for farmers who are the key custodians of our genetic crop heritage, maintaining thousands of local varieties of plants within their territories, are not respected in patent laws that allow, for example, farmers' varieties to be pirated".

While the farmer and civil society organizations present are encouraged by this development, discussions and decisions to date fall short of the support required to make the Treaty work. The funding objective of $116 million USD is the bare minimum to sustain it and contributions remain voluntary. Civil society is determined to monitor developments closely and will return to their national homelands with plans to promote the implementation of farmers' rights. "We will be back", said Brazilian farmer, Soniamara Maranho, of La Via Campesina.

For more information:

Pat Mooney in Tunis at +1 613 291 9793

Diana Bronson in Montreal: diana@etcgroup.org; + 1 514 273 6661 or cell 1 514 629 9236

Silvia Ribeiro in Mexico City + 52 55 5563 2664

GMO wheat acceptance hinges on public benefit
• European consumer support for GMO a decade away
• Public must benefit to support GMO, not just farmers

Reuters, 5 June 2009. By Rod Nickel:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0529934520090605

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan [Canada] - Winning over wary consumers in Europe and elsewhere to genetically modified wheat hinges on scientists finding a direct benefit to the public, not just to farmers or seed companies, experts in wheat breeding and genetics said.

Europeans, considered among the staunchest opponents of food created with genetically modified organisms (GMO), are at least a decade from accepting biotech food, said Meinolf Lindhauer from Germany's Max Rubner federal research institute of nutrition and food.

"The majority of consumers in many European countries, not in all, do not accept GMO at all," he said while attending the International Wheat Quality conference in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

The only way for GMO wheat proponents to be heard above the arguments of anti-GMO groups is to demonstrate biotechnology could give consumers a "convincing advantage," he said.

One way might be modifying wheat so it could be eaten by people with celiac disease, a serious digestive condition caused by eating the protein gluten, he said.

In the long run, genetically modified wheat will be necessary to keep pace with corn and soybeans, said Robert Henry, director of the Centre for Plant Conservation Genetics in Lismore, Australia.

"In terms of the profitability for farmers to grow wheat versus maize, wheat has been left behind," he said. "My concern is that wheat is a very important food crop and at some point we need to correct that and produce more wheat."

Consumers support genetic modification to improve health, such as the production of drugs, but resistance is fixed on GMO food, Henry said.

"If the consumer perceives that the benefit is just for the producer or worse still, just for some big company that's making a profit out of it, why would they want to adopt it? They really need to be convinced there's some benefit for the environment from a point of view of their own health."

The sustainability of agriculture, considering growing per capita food consumption and limited arable land, will be central to the GMO wheat debate, Henry said.

The Canadian Wheat Board, one of the world's largest wheat marketers, has said it won't support GMO wheat unless it gains acceptance among world markets such as Europe and Japan. [ID:nN15274622]

Farm groups in the top wheat-exporting countries of Canada, the United States and Australia jointly called last month for commercial development of GMO wheat. Other farm and environment groups issued an opposing statement. [ID:nN14504499] [ID:nN01479359]

In 2004, Monsanto Co (MON.N) withdrew its application for a herbicide-resistant GMO wheat in the face of protest from U.S. wheat buyers and marketers such as the Canadian Wheat Board.

European consumers, especially those in Germany, Austria and France, are more likely to believe anti-GMO activist groups than scientists, Lindhauer said. Consumers and farmers in Australia are more open to genetically modified wheat than Europeans, but more wary than North Americans, Henry said.

In India, one of the developing countries driving higher food demand, farmers would support a GMO wheat modified to resist disease, said Harcharan Singh Dhaliwal of the Indian Institute of Technology in Uttarakhand, India. But Dhaliwal said consumers are harder to convince.

"(GMO wheat) would be the last choice," he said.

The public doesn't understand how fine the line is between widely accepted plant-breeding techniques and genetic modification, Henry said. GMO refers to DNA tinkering that scientists perform outside the cell, before putting the modified DNA back inside, he said. Rearranging DNA within the cell describes traditional plant-breeding, he said.

(Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Local, not global, is the key to a sustainable food supply
•We can find a way to address environmental and production concerns, says Ian Woodhurst

The Guardian [UK], 5 June 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/response-sustainable-food-supply

Your leader column discussed the warning by the government's chief scientist, Professor Sir John Beddington, of a "perfect storm" that will create a global food supply crisis. In it, you asserted that the Campaign to Protect Rural England's "Vision for the Countryside 2026" had "little to say about the new demand for food production" (The countryside: turf wars, 15 May).

Protecting our capacity to produce food is undoubtedly wise. But, given England's land area, how intensively it is used and its ecological limitations, how much can we contribute to global food production even by maximising the use of technology? We also question whether globalisation of food supplies is the answer, given that food riots broke out when oil prices soared, food exports dried up and national reserves dwindled.

Our campaign fears that food security could be used by agri-business as an opportunity to justify the widespread and uncontrolled use of pesticides, fertilisers and GM technology. This would undoubtedly compromise the "hard-won gains in sustainability" made during the "golden age of conservation" over the past 20 years.

You pointed out that the "debate that is beginning" on future reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and that "could shape our countryside for a generation", is "largely unobserved". Perhaps this is because it is difficult for most of us to comprehend how significantly the complexities of European farm payment rules influence farmer's decisions on what people eat and how the countryside is managed.

Although the CAP has changed, its faults remain numerous. Payments are unfairly divided both between countries and farmers, and have minimal environmental conditions. The CAP needs further reform - but if payments fell too much or disappeared completely, many farmers who do good things for the environment could go out of business.

Your leader states that "rural policy is once again creating a division between farmers who think productivity has to regain its traditional pre-eminence and the environmentalists who are determined that ... sustainability must not be compromised". As CPRE's Vision makes clear, there are two ways to avoid this.

The first is a major reform of agricultural policy at the European level. The CAP should become an environmental and social policy rewarding farmers for their landscape management. Impoverished budgets for green farming schemes should be matched to the true value of all the countryside provides. Second, we need to encourage the growth of networks of local food producers, processors and suppliers to feed rural and urban communities and sustain the rural economy.

We know there are harsh realties to face in transforming the way our land is farmed and our food produced. Food supplies may never be completely local. Environmentally sustainable commercial farming will have a part to play. But CPRE will continue "valiantly" working towards achieving our vision. That is what visions are all about.

Ian Woodhurst is senior rural policy officer of the Campaign to Protect Rural England IanW@cpre.org.uk

Gene by Gene

New York Times (editorial), 5 June 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05fri4.html?_r=1&src=twr

Over the years, scientists have developed many strains of genetically modified mice, many of which incorporate human versions of similar mouse genes. But there is something different in a recent experiment performed at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Scientists there have created a strain of mouse that contains the human variant of a gene, called FOXP2, associated with several critical tasks, including the human capacity for language.

What makes this different is how fundamentally human - and unmouse-like - language really is. Something essential to us, something defining in our species, has been implanted in a rodent.

FOXP2 happens to work pretty well in mice. Those with the new gene in place do in fact communicate differently with each other, by using slightly lower-pitched ultrasonic whistles. The nerve cells they grow in one region of the brain are also more complex than those in unaltered mice. These may sound like modest results, but they are striking. They help clarify the function of FOXP2, and, in doing so, they help scientists better understand what constellation of genes produces the capacity for language in humans and, thus, how we differ from our nearest primate relative, the chimpanzee.

What takes some getting used to is the idea of exploring what humanness really is - how complex and how little understood - by transplanting our genetic signatures, gene by gene, into other species. And there is another question hovering over this experiment: Just how alien to themselves do these transgenic mice become? To that question, scientists are bound to find no answers, until, perhaps, mice can speak for themselves.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Back in 1918, Mary Shelley's premonitory novel, "Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus" provided a distant early warning signal on the peril of playing God. Less than a century later, a generation of "genetic engineers" backed by transnational corporate funding are unleashing hundreds of living GMOs that can never be recalled from the global ecosystem into which they are being released. Shelley's mad scientist was punished by the monster of his own creation. Today's genetic engineers are punishing us all, and countless future generations, who will pay the price for their hubris with poisoned food, new viruses, incurable diseases, and unpredictable genetic mutations.

Today's mad scientists should heed the words of the great biological philospher Gregory Bateson (author of Steps to an Ecology of Mind and Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity).

Observing that the Earth's biosphere (including Humankind) is a self-organising system, Bateson remarked that "no part of (such a) cybernetic system can have unilateral control over the whole or any other part."

This cybernetic law holds true not only for "genetic engineers" but also for all human attempts to control nature as well as for any individuals, social groups, organisations, corporations and governments which - for whatever reason - would like to change the behaviour of others. As Bateson said:

"The myth of power, is of course, a very powerful myth; and probably most people in this world more or less believe in it... But it is still epistemological lunacy and leads inevitably to all sorts of disaster... If we continue to operate in terms of a Cartesian dualism of mind versus matter, we shall probably also come to see the world in terms of God versus man; Èlite versus people; chosen race versus others; nation versus nation and man versus environment. It is doubtful whether a species having both an advanced technology and this strange way of looking at the world can endure...

The whole of our thinking about what we are and what other people are has got to be restructured. This is not funny, and I do not know how long we have to do it in. If we continue to operate on the premises that were fashionable during the Pre-Cybernetic era, and which were especially underlined during the Industrial Revolution, which seemed to validate the Darwinian unit of survival, we may have twenty or thirty years before the logical reductio ad absurdum of our old positions destroys us. Nobody knows how long we have, under the present system, before some disaster strikes us, more serious than the destruction of any group of nations. The most important task today is, perhaps, to learn to think in the new way."

Bateson puts it in a nutshell:

"To want control is the pathology! Not that the person can get control, because of course you never do... Man is only a part of larger systems, and the part can never control the whole.

'GM food slipping into India'

Hindustan Times, 5 June 2009. By Zia Haq:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=d7919ef6-7021-4dbc-b80b-2f8be04a2898&Headline=%E2%80%98GM+food+slipping+into+India%E2%80%99

India's affluent middle-class could be munching through imported genetically modified (GM) food despite a ban, mainly because a written undertaking from importers is enough to pass these off as non-GM food.

A consignment of Pepsico-owned Doritos brand of premium chips was detained in Mumbai by the directorate-general of foreign trade (DGFT) in January, something that has come to light after the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the apex regulatory body governing GM policies, made this public.

The GEAC functions under the Environment Ministry.

Doritos Chips, generally sold by upscale stores, was found to contain two varieties of GM corn by Greenpeace India at Hamburg's Genescan Lab last May during a random test of samples collected from south Delhi. A packet sells for anything between Rs 250-Rs300.

The World Health Organisation defines GM food as those developed from "genetically modified organisms (GMOs)... in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally".

The consignment was detained on suspicion of containing GM food at Mumbai's Nhava Sheva Port and was later released by the GEAC after a written undertaking from the importer, M/S K.K. Enterprises, "subject to the condition that if it is later found to contain genetically modified material, the importer is liable for prosecution under the law".

Asked if an undertaking was enough, Supreme Court observer in the GEAC, P.M. Bhargava, said: "If you ask a thief if he has stolen anything, will he admit it? I am sure GM foods are making their way into India because there is hardly any real regulatory mechanism."

Taiwan, where the chips were manufactured, allows a "threshold of 0.5 per cent of GM products", which means, any product that contains no more than 0.5 per cent of GM ingredients will be labelled non-GM.

Taiwan, therefore, will not label Dorito Chips as GM food. Experts say India's permissible limit of 0.01, lowest in the world, but anything can slip through as the country does not have any labelling laws.

The GEAC, while freeing the consignment, ordered that a few random samples be kept for testing "if necessary", according to information posted on its website "This could mean that testing of the samples may not be mandatory," a Greenpeace spokesperson said.

However, GEAC member Rajini Warrier, in an email response to HT, omitted the words "if necessary". "The customs officials have been advised to retain two packets of each flavour for verification by an appropriate laboratory," she stated.

Bhargava said he was not sure when these will be tested and where.

4 June 2009

Biotech FAIL:
Bad Science, Worse Faith and Superweeds

The Huffington Post [USA], 4 June 2009. By Leslie Hatfield:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-hatfield/biotech-fail-bad-science_b_211601.html

If you yawned your way through science class back in school, you're not alone. American students have lagged in the science department for years, with fourth and eighth graders recently placing eleventh among international peers. While this is often framed in terms of an inability to compete in the global marketplace, it has another insidious effect: ignorance when it comes to scientific issues that have great social and environmental impacts, leaving us vulnerable to questionable science. What if, while we were sleeping through class, a well-meaning but ethically compromised teacher received funding to conduct dangerous experiments in our presence, feed us the results, and dump the toxic byproducts in the river next to the school?

That's kind of the state of industrial agriculture, according to a new paper, "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science" (full text available for download here) published in this month's issue of The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, and our future food supply is on the line, not to mention our health. The sharp-witted Bonnie Powell of The Ethicurean blogged about the report yesterday.

Even Bonnie's post is a little dense for a lay person, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the three terrifying "red flags" of GMO foods identified by Lotter's paper, which she breaks into digestible bullets and that I'll chew up a little more for you:

•

the introduction of "novel proteins created by accident in transgenic foods" (leading to food allergies and toxicity, and nearly impossible for consumers to guard against because GM foods aren't labeled in this country)

•

"the horizontal transfer of transgenes to other organisms" (the animal equivilant of cross-pollination of GM seeds, which Powell points out has not been studied in the long term)

•

environmental side effects including breeding insects and other organisms with greater resistance to pesticides, new superweeds, and contaminated soil and water

So what's the benefit? Monsanto, by far the world's leading proponent of GMOs, is currently spending millions to convince consumers that they are the only way to feed the world's growing population. The company repeatedly returns to its holy grail, the so-called Green Revolution, which supposedly solved hunger in India. But in fact, just last year, the farce of the Green Revolution was severely criticized by scientists and experts from 57 other countries. More from Bonnie:

And in April 2008, as Lotter writes, 400 agricultural scientists and experts in 57 nations signed a United Nations-sponsored document known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. The IAASTD's final report criticized the "Green Revolution" style of capital-intensive, high-environmental impact, technology- and yield-centered approach of agriculture and recommended that developing nations base their future food production around local and regionally derived sustainable and agro-ecological strategies. Not GMOs.

As we followed here with interest, Monsanto and Syngenta -- the two biotechnology-industry representatives in the IAASTD discussions, who were initially enthusiastic about convening a food production strategy agreement for developing countries -- took their balls and went home in January 2008, when it was clear that nobody at the IASSTD was interested in playing their game anymore. The United States, Canada, and Australia did not sign the agreement.

And yet, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack continues to push the biotech agenda abroad and in the U.S. Senate, with a proposed Global Food Security Bill that would mandate GMO research funds as part of foreign food aid. Such requirements could trap farmers in the Global South in a system of dependence on multinational corporations for seeds they might otherwise have saved, and force them to buy chemicals year after year that strip their soil of minerals and pollute their water.

The second half of Lotter's study, Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity, chronicles the questionable circumstances under which GMO technology was given the green light. He details the effects of "the large-scale restructuring of university science programs in the past 25 years from a model based on non-proprietary science for the 'public good' to the 'academic capitalism' model." He goes on to describe how dependence on corporate dollars corrupted science to do its bidding with "deficient scientific protocols, bias, and possible fraud in industry-sponsored and industry-conducted research; increasing politically and commercially driven manipulation of science within federal regulatory bodies such as the FDA; and bias in the peer-review process, tolerance by the scientific community of biotechnology industry manipulation of the information environment, and of biased treatment and harassment of non-compliant scientists."

The fact that so many of our government agency employees have worked for the very corporations they are now supposed to regulate, in the areas they govern and that so many officials have received campaign donations from these same corporations could account for their tendency to rely on this dubious research, but perhaps the reason so many of them continue to ride this precarious bandwagon is that they're not so great at science, either. Genetic modification is hard to wrap your head around.

One would think, however, that the big-brained folks at the Gates Foundation would have no problem understanding the science behind biotech and the potential problems with it, but if the government and academics are on the bandwagon and Monsanto is behind the wheel, Gates is definitely pitching in for gas with grants to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). What gives? Lotter and Powell both allude, in terms of America's acceptance of this dubiously tested technology, to our belief, as a culture, in science and innovation, and who stands for innovation more than Gates?

But bearing in mind that we are talking about our ecology, our health and our global food supply -- not really the kind of stuff we want to leave to chance -- we would likely do well to follow the example of our European counterparts, who, as Powell points out, have "tended to operate according to the precautionary principle essentially expressed as 'better safe than sorry.'"

In the end, Lotter says that he's not exclusively anti-GMOs, and whether this stance is meant to temper the rocking of the academic boat (a doctor of agroecology, Lotter has taught for years within the system he's bucking, and is not on a tenure track) or a genuine desire to call back only the most grievously dangerous of these technologies, it makes sense not to throw out the baby with the proverbial bathwater. But I would encourage consumers (and Gates, and government agencies) to err on the side of caution as well, and to entertain the idea that real innovation in the food and agriculture world may not be the stuff of spliced genes, petrochemicals and intellectual property but rather a better understanding of the nature of soil and weather and time-tested methods of food production, like compost and worms.

Originally published on The Green Fork.

Glyphosate: public health vs profit in Argentina

Environmental Health News, June 4 2009. By Negin P. Martin, Ph. D.:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/glyphosate-public-health-vs-profit-in-argentina

Argentina's herbicide controversy pits health against the economy, but a Financial Times article fails to capture the issue's global importance.

A May 29th article published in the Financial Times covers the controversy surrounding a petition in front of Argentina's Supreme Court to ban the use of the herbicide glyphosate because of health concerns.

Reporters Jude Webber and Hal Weitzman give an excellent account of the financial impact that this ban would impose on Argentina's economy. The writers adequately balanced the article by providing the health concerns of the herbicide raised by a recent study conducted in Argentina.

The petition to ban the chemical was filed after scientists reported that glyphosate causes genetic alterations that especially affect the nervous system and results in malformed heads and skulls in amphibians.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46516

Lead author Andres Carrasco directs the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School. He is surprisingly referred to as Mr. Carrasco throughout the article instead of Dr. Carrasco.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in Argentina and the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup products. Its ban would result in restructuring of agricultural practices. Since Argentina relies heavily on agricultural exports to support its economy, this restructuring could have dramatic fiscal consequences.

Although the article aimed to report the developments in Argentina, the health concerns of residual glyphosate and other inert ingredients in Roundup formulations are widespread throughout the world. These chemicals can find their way into waterways and water and food supplies.

For example, French scientists, Drs. Seralini and Benacour, have published a number of scientific papers about the harmful effects of Roundup and its ingredients on human embryonic and placental cells.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

A Swedish scientific team lead by Dr. Akerman published an epidemiological study disclosing that exposure to glyphosate is a risk factor for developing Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120748798/abstract

Dr. Busbee - an American scientist - demonstrated alterations in estrogen-regulated genes after exposure to dilute concentrations of glyphosate.
http://het.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/26/9/747

Mr. Webber and Mr. Weitzman would have provided additional insight into their glyphosate controversy by mentioning that concerns about glyphosate extend beyond Argentina and amphibians.

OCA Advisor Jill Richardson Deconstructs Monsanto's Propaganda

Monsanto Gives Food Inc Two Thumbs Down

Organic Consumers Association / La Vida Locavore, 4 June 2009. By Jill Richardson:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18172.cfm

Monsanto has launched a website response to the upcoming documentary Food, Inc. I was fortunate enough to see an advance screening of the film, which I felt was very reasonable and accurate in its portrayal of the facts. Monsanto disagrees. They say:

Food, Inc. is a one-sided, biased film that the creators claim will "lift the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that's been hidden from the American consumer." Unfortunately, Food, Inc. is counter-productive to the serious dialogue surrounding the critical topic of our nation's food supply.

Throughout this film, Food, Inc.:

• Demonizes American farmers and the agriculture system responsible for feeding over 300 million people in the United States.

• Presents an unrealistic view of how to feed a growing nation while ignoring the practical demands of the American consumer and the fundamental needs of consumers around the world.

• Disregards the fact that multiple agriculture systems should - and do - coexist.

This is Monsanto propaganda at its best.

Here are some of the things I've heard from the biotech industry as a whole and - in some cases - from Monsanto specifically:

Organics and GMOs can exist side by side, or even together.

The idea that organics and GMOs can work together (i.e. cultivate GM seeds with organic methods) is ridiculous. Setting aside the fact that GMOs are not permitted within USDA organic standards, currently the commercial GM seeds are designed for two purposes. First, so you can spray unlimited amounts of herbicide on the crops to kill the weeds without hurting the crops. Since the herbicide isn't permitted in organic farming, that kind of kills the need for those GM seeds. The other kind of GM seeds manufacture their own pesticide - Bt - which I believe is permitted in organics. But the goal behind sustainable agriculture is not creating a sterile environment where no bugs can live. You WANT the bugs, you WANT biodiversity. You'll get some of the bad bugs along with the good ones, but killing them all is antithetical to organic practices.

How about the idea that organics and GMOs can exist side by side as two separate but equal agricultural systems? Again, I do not agree. Remember that GMOs are created for an unsustainable system of agriculture in which soil life is eradicated and its functions are replaced with technology. The very definition of the word "unsustainable" is that it cannot be sustained. You cannot do it forever. At a certain point, you run out of topsoil or water or oil or you throw the climate so badly out of whack that your plants can no longer thrive. Sooner or later, if we do not choose to abandon unsustainable agricultural practices, the planet will force us to do so and it will be far more catastrophic.

We need more food to feed a growing population.

What we need first and foremost is a better distribution system for our food. We already produce more than enough food for everybody in the world to eat. We produce so much food that we put food in our cars as ethanol, and we use food to make plastic.

Organics can't feed the world (or if you want to feed the world with organics you'll have to cut down the forests)

Going on the idea that we need more food to feed a growing population is the idea that organics can't produce that much food. If you want more food, you need to either produce higher yields on the same agricultural land in production today, or increase the amount of land used in agriculture (i.e. cut down forests). But remember that we have enough food, so this is actually not a problem. And yields from biotech are actually not that great according to a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists ("Failure to Yield").

I believe I've heard that the comparison between conventional and organic differs depending on where in the world you are, but one long-running experiment in Pennsylvania by the Rodale Institute using corn and soy found that organic methods (under two systems of organic management) have higher yields than conventional in most years after the first five.

The movie demonizes the farmers that feed 300 million+ people in America.

Can I invite Monsanto to have a guided tour of any family medicine clinic in the U.S. - particularly clinics that see high percentages of disadvantaged minority patients? Ask the doctors what their top reasons for visit and diagnoses are for their patients. Yes, we are being fed but we are being fed crap that makes us very sick. And I don't think the movie demonizes the farmers at all. It shows that the farmers and the consumers are victims of the same system. In fact, the movie demonizes corporations.

Food Inc is wrong to say the US produces too much corn and subsidizes overproduction.

Again, I'll have to disagree with Monsanto. It's nice of Monsanto to point out that the U.S. is the largest corn exporter in the world but that does not negate the accusation that we produce too much corn. Food, Inc. calls out the corn that isn't exported for contributing to a food supply of unhealthy, cheap food. The converse problem of this unhealthy, cheap corn-based food is that healthy foods are (by comparison) expensive and consumers select against them when shopping, particularly those on a tight budget.

Monsanto didn't invent patenting seeds.

Congratulations, Monsanto. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to patent seeds or that you don't do it. You do. And I believe that Monsanto is the most aggressive of any company in legally pursuing farmers who violate their patents by saving seeds.

Monsanto sues or threatens to sue hundreds of farmers a year for saving seeds.

I don't think anybody can disprove this. Monsanto said they've sued only 138 farmers in the last decade, and less than a dozen cases went through a full trial. But from what I hear, Monsanto frequently approaches farmers, accusing them of saving seeds, and offers them an agreement to sign with certain terms and conditions including a gag order. By signing such an agreement, the farmer will avoid going to court. Is this true or not? Hard to say... all the farmers who would know about it have signed gag orders if it is!

The agriculture industry does not try to place their friends in high ranking government positions.

So says Monsanto. Well, I don't know what their role is in TRYING to place employees in high ranking government positions, but whether they try or not, it happens. And it's a problem. It wouldn't be any more or less of a problem if the ag industry was specifically lobbying for it or not.

Monsanto is not the sole supplier of seeds in the ag industry.

This is true. I don't recall the movie claiming that Monsanto WAS the sole supplier of seeds. However, they do sell the vast majority of GMO seeds, and a very high percentage of several crops are GMOs (corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugarbeets). Monsanto has competitors in the seed business, but it has a significant market share whether you are looking at GMO seeds only or all seeds.

Food, Inc claims our food supply is controlled by corporate farms.

Bull. They claim it is controlled by corporations. There's a very big difference. Nearly all American farms are family farms if you look at USDA statistics (as Monsanto points out). It's not the farmers or the ownership of the farms that is the issue. It's the corporations that sell crop inputs (pesticides, fertilizer, seeds), process foods (ADM, Conagra), control the meatpacking industry (Tyson, JBS Swift, Smithfield), and manufacture the foods people eat (General Mills, Kraft, Kellogg, McDonalds, Coca-Cola). These are the corporations the movie says control our food supply. Because they do.

Mexico to start experimental planting of GMO corn

Terra / Invertia [Argentina], 4 June 2009:
http://ar.invertia.com/noticias/noticia.aspx?idNoticia=200906042224_RTI_1244154268nN04240723&idtel=

MEXICO CITY - Mexico, considered the birthplace of corn, is reviewing more than two dozen requests to begin experimental planting of genetically modified crops, the agriculture ministry said on Thursday.

Since publishing regulations in March last year to allow select plantings, the government has received 25 requests from farmers and companies interested in the GMO seeds.

"The permits are in the process of being reviewed," agriculture ministry official Enrique Sanchez told reporters.

Sanchez said that four of the requests are near the final stages and once they are approved by the environment ministry planting could start at the beginning of the fall harvest season in September.

He said U.S. biotech food producer Monsanto Co is one of the companies who have applied for a permit to begin planting.

The experimental plots could cover up to 500 acres (200 hectares) in the northern states of Sonora, Tamaulipas and Chihuahua, as well as Sinaloa and Jalisco in western Mexico.

Supporters of GMO food, whose DNA is altered to be resistant to pests, say they boost yields. More than 70 percent of U.S. corn is genetically modified.

But farmers in Mexico's rural south, where corn has been grown for thousands of years, worry GMO corn will cross-pollinate with native species and alter their genetic content.

Corn was first planted in Mexico some 9,000 years ago and the country is now home to more than 10,000 varieties. The grain was adopted by Spanish conquistadors in the early 1500s and eventually spread to the rest of the world.

Under the current rules, GMO corn seeds are not allowed into certain parts of the country that are determined to be "centers of origin" for genetically unique corn strains found only in Mexico. (Reporting by Adriana Barrera; Editing by David Gregorio)

Mexico's Agriculture Minister Backs Genetically Modified Corn

AgricultureOnline.com, 4 June 2009. By Antony Harrup of Dow Jones Newswires:
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/futuresource/FutureSourceStoryIndex.jhtml?storyType=&storyId=156100516

MEXICO CITY (Dow Jones)--Mexican Agriculture Minister Alberto Cardenas said Thursday the use of genetically modified corn will help the country to increase production and reduce grains imports in the future.

The government is studying requests for a number of experimental plantings of genetically modified corn in the coming autumn-winter season, although authorities haven't said when they think commercial production could start.

"Mexico imports close to 22 million tons a year of grains, and we don't want to condemn ourselves to continue doing it every year," Cardenas said at a press conference. "Technology can help us to increase productivity, but can also make us more competitive."

The subject of genetically modified corn has been controversial in Mexico, where some groups are concerned the country's native corn strains could be contaminated by modified seeds.

Cardenas said there is strong interest in using genetically modified seeds in the north of the country. Other states, he said, will undoubtedly be excluded from growing the crops.

The minister said Mexico has had success with genetically modified cotton seeds, which it has been using for eight to 10 years, saving water and herbicides and increasing production to six from four bales per hectare.

Enrique Sanchez Cruz, head of the ministry's sanitation service, said the government has 25 applications for experimental corn on 190 hectares. The proposed corn is of types already approved for consumption in other countries, he said.

Cardenas said Mexico is on track to produce more than 26 million tons of corn this year, up from 25 million tons in 2008. Corn yields have increased to around 3.2 tons per hectare from 2.8 tons at the end 2006, and the government is aiming to raise that to 4 tons per hectare.

"Every year at least, we expect to be growing by more than 1 million tons," he said.

EPP Congress: Austria Welcomes EPP Congress 2009

The Pig Site, 4 June 2009:
http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/21245/epp-congress-austria-welcomes-epp-congress-2009

AUSTRIA - The Austrian branch of the European Pig Producers (EPP) Association is hosting this year's annual congress in the charming city of Graz. Jackie Linden reports from the opening day of the meeting for ThePigSite.

Around 350 delegates from 14 different countries gathered in the Congress Centre in the city of Graz today for the opening of the EPP Congress 2009. The theme of the meeting is 'Pig meat: the future is about to begin'.

EPP president, Per Bach Laursen, welcomed the delegates. He said he was looking forward to learning more about the strategies of the Austrian pig industry regarding health, feed and marketing.

Referring to the tough challenges facing Europe's pig producers today from lower-cost and less regulated imports, Mr Laursen emphasised the importance of meetings like the EPP Congress to meet colleagues from other countries and learn from each other's experiences.

President of the Austrian Pig Producers Association, VOS, Walter Lederhilger, sees the most important priorities for the European Union as the creation of strategies for animal welfare, local production and over feed ingredients. On the latter point, he said, a strategy over genetically modified (GM) feed ingredients is urgently needed as supplies of non-GM soy are becoming hard to source and more expensive.

Networks need to be established at all levels across the industry, Mr Lederhilger, adding that the EPP Congress is a vital platform, which will help to make the pig industry in Austria and across Europe more competitive.

The president of the Agricultural Chamber of Austria, Gerhard Wlodkowski, opened his presentation that he was previously a pig farmer near the Slovenian border. He said he hoped that the European Parliamentary election in the coming days will strengthen the representation of farming in general in the Parliament and improve the agricultural budget.

Agriculture remains an important industry in the EU, Mr Wlodkowski stressed, because it employs significant numbers of people both directly on farms and in the food industry, which depends on it.

Four other presentations made on the opening day of the EPP Congress - all about the Austrian pig industry - will be reported later on ThePigSite.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

Just one example among many industries and a wake-up call for soy meal suppliers and importers: The European Pig Producers experience difficulties in procuring non-GM soy meal. This should remind the commodity industry in both Europe and the production countries of Brazil and India of its duty to do a good job of delivering the material that is needed.

There are still many logistics chains that are not fit for segregated non-GMO supply of soy meal. What it takes is a chain of sound Identity Preservation (IP) systems - and how to set these up can be learnt from specialized consultancies.

Activist cautious as Agent Orange experts testify at US Congress

Thanh Nien Daily News [Vietnam], June 4 2009. Reported by An Dien and Jon Dillingham :
http://www.thanhniennews.com/features/?catid=10&newsid=49474

[image caption: A visitor to the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City looks at pictures revealing the devastating effects of Agent Orange]

As Vietnamese Agent Orange activists take their struggle for justice to the floor of the United States congress, a British advocate campaigning on their behalf can't be sure of the US's intentions.

The hearings on Thursday (US time) are the second time testimony on the issue is brought before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment.

But as the US Supreme Court earlier this year rejected a lawsuit filed by Vietnamese victims of the defoliant seeking compensation from the companies that manufactured the chemical, Agent Orange activist Len Aldis, who has been advocating for restitutions and aid for over 20 years, has more questions than answers.

Noting via email that US court settlements have entitled US veterans to millions of dollars in compensation for their exposure to the toxic substance, Aldis pointed out the hypocrisy on the issue:

"When the US Veterans won their out of court settlement in 1984 the Judge was Judge Jack Weinstein. The Vietnamese lawsuit that lost in 2005, the judge was Judge Jack Weinstein," he said. "Why did he rule against the Vietnamese? They were suing the same chemical companies. The Vietnamese victims have the same illnesses and disabilities."

He also pointed out that part of the problem was that the major chemical companies the suits were filed against, Dow Chemical and Monsanto among others, were often feeders for the government and vice-versa.

"Monsanto is notorious for this; it is called the Revolving Door," he said. "Justice Clarence Thomas, who sat in on the AO lawsuit, worked for two years as a lawyer for Monsanto."

Aldis, the Secretary of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society, said the hearing provided an ideal opportunity for the congress to listen to the witnesses and actual victims to see how Agent Orange has affected them long after the war ended.

But despite US$3 million recently given to Agent Orange clean up efforts by the Obama administration, Aldis cannot be sure justice will be served by the hearings.

"If no change is made, no condemnation of the use of Agent Orange, no call for immediate compensation to the victims and their families, no call for the chemical companies such as Monsanto and Dow to be charged with war crimes, then the hearings will have solved nothing.

"The Vietnamese victims will continue to suffer and die. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but the victims have waited for over 40 years for justice. It is an insult for the chairman of the committee to ask the victims to be patient."

Drop in the bucket

Aldis said the US$3 million recently approved by the US government to assist Agent Orange cleanup in Vietnam would do "very, very little."

It has been estimated that the cleanup of the Da Nang site in central Vietnam will cost $17 million, Aldis said, adding that Da Nang is just one of several affected sites.

International agencies have recognized at least 25 so-called "hot-spots" contaminated with Agent Orange.

"It is an insult to make such an offer when millions of dollars have been paid - and rightly so - to US Veterans and their families for the illnesses caused by Agent Orange," Aldis said.

Brutal legacy

Agent Orange, named after the color of the stripe on barrels in which the defoliant sprayed by American forces during the Vietnam War was stored, contains tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (known as TCDD), one of the most poisonous chemicals ever made by man.

Agent Orange has caused reproductive problems, birth defects, cancer and other diseases in affected people on both sides of the war.

Between 1961 and 1971, the US Army sprayed some 80 million liters of the defoliant, containing 366 kilograms of the highly toxic dioxin, over 30,000 sq. miles of southern Vietnam.

By the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, nearly 4.8 million Vietnamese people had been exposed to Agent Orange, causing 400,000 deaths.

Millions more have suffered devastating long-term health effects, including cancer and genetic defects.

Recently, the International Peoples' Tribunal of Conscience, which held a hearing on May 15-16 in Paris, ruled that those who manufactured Agent Orange and the government that allowed its use were guilty of ecocide and must fully compensate the victims of Agent Orange and their families.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers, which initiated the tribunal, is also set to discuss Agent Orange issues at its 17th congress in Hanoi on May 6-10.

Ugly cover-up

The hearing this week will be presided over by Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, the subcommittee chairman.

At the testimony in March last year, Faleomavaega quoted a 1983 New York Times article which said that in 1965, "scientists from four rival chemical companies attended a closed meeting at the Dow Chemical Company's headquarters. The subject was the health hazards of dioxin," according to Faleomavaega.

"Dow Chemical did not want its finding about [the health hazards of] dioxin to be made known, fearing a 'congressional investigation,'" said the chairman, citing the Times article.

The representative elaborated on the health effects that frightened Dow by citing Studies conducted in Vietnam by Hatfield Consultants:

Nearly 30 years after the war, dioxin remains in "alarmingly high concentrations in soils, foods, human blood, and human breast milk in adults and children," especially near former United States military installations.

"While research clearly shows that Agent Orange was much more hazardous than anyone would admit, the US and Vietnamese victims have not been adequately compensated, and Vietnam has not been cleaned up," said Faleomavaega.

But it was the irony and hypocrisy, often ridden with greed, that the representative said pained him so.

"Ironically, Dow Chemical Company is now doing business in Vietnam but refuses to help the victims of Agent Orange."

He continued by citing the kind of money the US wastes instead of righting wrongs like Agent Orange.

"If we can afford constructing a $900 million Embassy in Baghdad, I am sure somewhere along the line we could find more than $3 million to help the victims, these people who were exposed to this terrible agent."

He said America had a "moral responsibility" on the issue.

"We [the US] are the ones that utilized this dangerous and deadly substance against the Vietnamese people."

He said Dow Chemical Company "and every other chemical company involved ought to step to the plate and do what is right by the victims of Agent Orange," just as tobacco manufacturers have begun to own up to their false claims that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

"While war is ugly, so are the cover-ups," he said.

All talk

At the hearing last year, Scot Marciel, the then Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs under the US Department of State, defended the US against Faleomavaega's call for moral responsibility.

He said the US had no legal liability for the use of Agent Orange.

"The United States use of herbicides during the Vietnam War for the purposes of defoliating military bases, transportation corridors, and other crucial territory, and destroying enemy crops, therefore did not contravene the ban on poisons," he said.

But Faleomavaega was unimpressed by the argument.

He said he wanted to share with the secretary a word his Hawaiian cousins once taught him: "Waha."

"'Waha' means all talk but no substance," he said.

The representative from American Samoa said he wished Marciel had "the experience of going through those hospitals and seeing deformed children, not adults, children, totally innocent."

Tainted milk

Excerpts from last year's congressional testimony of Dr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong:

Journals such as Chemosphere in the UK, the Journal of the American Public Health Association, and documents of the Annual International Dioxin Conference have established a link between Agent Orange/dioxin and cancerous abnormal pregnancy outcomes, such as miscarriages, fetal death, and uteral neonatal death, birth defects, et cetera.

In 1983, during the first International Conference on the Long-term Consequences of Herbicides and Defoliants Used in Vietnam During Wartime on Nature and Human Health held in Ho Chi Minh City, scientists from 22 countries, including the United States, recognized that the incidence of five categories of birth defects is abnormally high in Vietnam, as compared with the other countries in the region and in the world.

In 1970, the breast milk of mothers living in sprayed areas analyzed by biochemists in the U.S. had more than 1,500 grams of dioxin, thousands of times higher than that in the United States, Japan, Canada, and the standard level allowed by WHO.

Breast milk analyses done by laboratories in Canada and Germany still show a very high level of dioxin. Because of this, victims are increasingly millions of innocent, newborn babies, breast fed by their exposed mothers. The half-life of dioxin in the human body is much longer than in the environment, so dioxin may exert its effects over many generations of Vietnamese people.

---

Take action

Sign the Justice for Victims of Agent Orange petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Monsanto/petition.html

3 June 2009

The Failure of Science:
New paper makes a damning case against genetically modified food crops

The Ethicurean, 3 June 2009. By Bonnie Azab Powell.:
http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/06/03/lotter-gmopaper/

"Doom and gloomers." That's what my father used to call people who talked about global warming not as chance to work on their tans, but as something that ought to be keeping humankind up at night. He'd toss the newspaper aside, or change the subject at dinner. He still does, in fact. Fortunately much of America – or at least the people we elected to run it – has accepted that climate change is not only a real and present threat, but that it's imperative we revisit some of the assumptions that got us into this mess.

Alas, public debate about the safety of growing and eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remains stalled at where climate change was circa 1993, back when Al Gore published "Earth in the Balance" to a deafening silence. Americans tend to dismiss serious discussions about the risks of GMOs with a "doom and gloomers" shrug. They're here, they're queer, get over it.

This is a mistake. It's one that Europeans, the Japanese, and plenty of other industrialized and developing nations have avoided. As with climate change, the longer American citizens refuse to learn about this issue, the hotter the water we frogs are sitting in gets. Writes technology reporter Denise Caruso in her excellent book, "Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet" [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615135536?ie=UTF8&tag=theethi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0615135536]: As long as scientists can justifiably "declare that we, the innumerate public, lack the mental capacity to understand what they, the experts, do...there can be no common ground for understanding between those who create risk and we who must bear it." And if the current economic meltdown, caused by financial instruments too complex for any mere mortals other than hedge fund managers to understand, has taught us anything, it's that an ignorant public is begging to get shafted.

A paper just published May 25 in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Society of Agriculture and Food [http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/vol16(1)-09/vol16-1.html] gives people the tools with which to grasp the science behind transgenic food crops, what questions we should be asking, and a potential path out of this mess. In it Don Lotter, a UC-Davis trained scientist, makes a persuasive case that the transgenic seed industry is built on fundamentally flawed science, and that companies like Monsanto have used their vast market power to reshape university research, manipulate public opinion, and coerce regulatory agencies into reckless acceptance of risky technologies. And that scientists have looked the other way while they did so.

"The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science" paper ought to be required reading for any American citizen who didn't sign the consent form about the risks of the "largest diet experiment in history," as he calls it. That includes you, me, your kids, every member of Congress, and every researcher who still believes in independent science.

Whistleblow your house down

Lotter has a Ph.D. in agroecology from the University of California, Davis, and a master of professional studies in international agricultural and rural development from Cornell University. At various times he has taught environmental science, soil science, plant science, entomology, and vegetable crop production for Santa Monica College, Imperial Valley College, and UC Davis. He is not tenure track and said in a phone interview last night that this paper certainly "wasn't going to help my chances of getting a job" (for reasons that will become clear in a bit). He was recently a visiting scholar in the department of plant pathology at Colegio Postgraduados in Chapingo, Mexico. His research on organic agriculture has been published in the Journal of Alternative Agriculture and the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture.

"The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science"is published in two parts that take up 37 of the Journal of Society of Agriculture and Food's 68 pages. Part one, "The Development of a Flawed Enterprise" [http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/vol16(1)-09/articles/lotter1.pdf] covers some territory familiar to those who've read recent books on GMOs such as "Intervention" or environmental journalist Claire Hope Cummings' "Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds" [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807085812?ie=UTF8&tag=theethi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0807085812]. In it, Lotter does an excellent job of briskly walking readers through the growth of the transgenic crops industry and pointing out the critical junctures at which regulatory agencies grabbed the nearest handy rubber stamp. He also explains, in clear, jargon-free language, the science by which transgenic crops are created, and the specific red flags identified by the handful of existing independent studies. In summary, the three most serious concerns about biotech food, feed, and fiber crops are:

•

The novel proteins created by accident in transgenic foods and their occasional documented effects on human health (allergies, toxicity), which we can't monitor properly due to the lack of labeling of GMO foods.

•

The horizontal transfer of transgenes to other organisms, such as the bacteria in mammals' stomachs, which we were assured couldn't happen. (Might this be behind the rise in Crohn's disease? We'll never know, because as Lotter documents, GMO foods have barely been tested in their food state on mammals, and not over any long-term.)

•

Ecological side effects, such as the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and growing pest resistance to the plant-impregnated insecticide Bacillus thurengiensis, along with Bt crops' negative effects on soil organisms such as earthworms and on aquatic ecosystems.

This sounds like a dry helping of doom and gloom, but it doesn't read that way. Lotter salts the paper with statements such as "This is a story of how a grand scientific vision, plant transgenics, a science that its developers believed would vastly improve the world food supply while at the same time generating huge profits, blinded many of those scientist-developers to the increasingly serious flaws in the basic model, mechanics, and end-products of the enterprise." And later: "This early industry pressure and science community compliance for a premature green light for transgenic crops is now coming back to bite the industry and the science community, and bite them very seriously."

You don't tend to see such verbal swashbuckling in peer-reviewed journals, and in fact the International Journal of Society of Agriculture & Food published Lotter's paper as a "work in progress." Such submissions, it carefully disclaims on its website, "are non-refereed and unedited and are aimed at presenting results from work not yet ready for publication while stimulating discussion and debate on current topics of interest to agri-food researchers." And yet, as the PDF of the article indicates, and Lotter confirmed, his paper was reviewed for a solid year before it was accepted for publication.

One can only presume that the IJSAF reviewers reluctant to sign off formally on publishing "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science" were caught up in the very web of industry and peer pressure that Lotter indicts in part two, titled "Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity" [http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/vol16(1)-09/articles/lotter2.pdf].

This is where it gets really interesting, from a sociological standpoint: Lotter discusses the large-scale morphing of university science programs in the past 25 years from a model that focused on conducting non-proprietary science for the "public good" – Robert Merton's CUDoS model (communalism, universality, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism) – to one of "academic capitalism," in which research professors freely partnered with industry to further the "knowledge economy." This transition has had many ripple effects: university dependence on private industry funding means that proprietary technologies have overtaken collaborative science. Power follows the money: expert scientific bodies on transgenics now tend to be staffed by pro-industry scientists with personal financial interests in the outcome of transgenics. And of course, as it always does, power corrupts: industry-sponsored and industry-conducted research has been found to have "deficient scientific protocols, bias, and possible fraud," writes Lotter.

Meanwhile, the discriminatory treatment and outright harassment of university researchers and government scientists who have dared to question the party line on biotech sends a clear signal to young faculty. The message, writes Lotter, is "Don't challenge the transgenics paradigm if you want tenure."

Lotter did his postdoc work on organic crop systems at the Rodale Institute, but when it comes to the future of agriculture, he claims not to be reflexively "pro-organic." He writes in the paper that he "does not believe that future food production should be limited to organic methods as defined by current certification protocols." Instead, he proposes that agro-ecological engineering – including high-tech monitoring of pests, soil and plant nutrient status, weed and other research-based parameters – serve as the foundation for crop systems, "on top of which can be put chemical and biotechnological modalities" such as moderate, carefully timed amounts of synthetic nitrogen and the selective use of herbicides.

Nor is the paper wholeheartedly anti-transgenic. Lotter argues that if we weed out the problem areas of "food, feed, and fiber crop transgenics," then transgenic bacterial and pharmaceutical crops (in which a single compound is isolated could continue to be developed). I have some concerns with his assertion that creating new bacteria is inherently safer than manipulating higher plants and animals, as well as with his belief that pharmaceuticals grown in food crops can ever be bio-contained indoors and their waste agricultural products disposed of safely. But as Lotter goes so far as to admit in the paper, his goal is to reassure biotech scientists that his "calls for the rolling back of food transgenics therefore should not be seen as a threat to the entire industry" – that the years they have invested in the field are still valuable.

Why? "Because we need them," he told me. "We have to divide and conquer, to get at least a few scientists to question what's happened here." The only way the United States is going to be able to roll back transgenic food, feed (for meat animals), and fiber crops is through policy changes, and there won't be any policy changes as long as scientists are afraid to break ranks and say that the Emperor Monsanto et al. has no clothes.

Elsewhere in the world, plenty of scientists are willing to go on record opposing current GMOs. Much of the best research into their potential side effects on human and ecological health has been conducted in Europe. And in April 2008, as Lotter writes, 400 agricultural scientists and experts in 57 nations signed a United Nations-sponsored document known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. The IAASTD's final report criticized the "Green Revolution" style of capital-intensive, high-environmental impact, technology- and yield-centered approach of agriculture and recommended that developing nations base their future food production around local and regionally derived sustainable and agro-ecological strategies. Not GMOs.

As we followed here with interest, Monsanto and Syngenta – the two biotechnology-industry representatives in the IAASTD discussions, who were initially enthusiastic about convening a food production strategy agreement for developing countries – took their balls and went home in January 2008, when it was clear that nobody at the IASSTD was interested in playing their game anymore. The United States, Canada, and Australia did not sign the agreement.

America's ag philosophy as mullet: GMO business in the front, organic party in the back

Today, we have a Secretary of Agriculture who continues the longstanding tradition of pushing U.S. biotech interests abroad, but who's broken with all precedent to plant an organic garden at his department's Washington, DC headquarters, just like his boss's wife did at the White House. GMO food is a huge trade issue, and it's been a long time since the USDA was the People's Department, as Lincoln called it, instead of the Multinational Corporations' Department. (Monsanto owns some 90% of transgenic traits in use around the world. As of 2006, soy, corn, canola, and cotton accounted for nearly 100% of the world's 80 million hectares of transgenic crops, nearly all of which used to be grown in the U.S., Canada, Argentina, and Brazil, but China is now hard at work.) And recent rumors suggest that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon be soon coming out with the administration's international development objectives, and that those objectives will be include alleviating world hunger – through, you guessed it, transgenic technology.

Legislation codifying this philosophy will likely follow, unless by some miracle American consumers wake up and start protesting – or U.S. scientists start admitting that not only have GMO food crops never been adequately tested before being unleashed on unsuspecting consumers and the environment, but they don't even do what Monsanto loves to claim they do: increase yields. (Read the summary of the report [http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/04/16/ucs-report/] "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops," by plant pathology and molecular biology Ph.D Doug Gurian-Sherman, posted by Ethicurean's Elanor in April.) The biggest achievement to date of RoundupReady and BT tolerant crops, alleged Denise Caruso in "Intervention," has been less labor for farmers.

And yet the trope that only biotech can feed the world persists. Lotter has an interesting section in part two of the paper about how well the biotech industry has controlled the "information environment" for transgenic crops. Media reporting has overwhelmingly depended on pro-transgenics university scientists, he claims, and both the media and the public have been easily manipulated by industry's "not-so-subtle targeting of [our] predisposition to guilt. The message that 'biotechnology is needed to feed a hungry world' has come to the forefront as a strategy in the promotion of transgenics."

One need look no further than Monsanto's current ad campaign [http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/sustainable-ag/advertisements.asp] to see this strategy in action. However, I would argue that something beyond than media bias and an apathetic public are behind the rise of transgenic crops in America, Canada, and Australia. Americans possess a deeply rooted, patriotic confidence in our country's technology efforts in general – we put a man on the moon, we developed the personal computers that revolutionized civilization, etc. – a sort of "technological utopianism," as Lotter calls it in a slightly different context. Ever since the debacle of mad-cow disease in the early 1990s, European scientific development, by contrast, has tended to operate according to the precautionary principle essentially expressed as "better safe than sorry." More Americans seem to believe that the government is steadfastly looking out for us, at least on a health and safety level, than do citizens of other countries, with longer histories and concomitantly longer memories.

We are paying a high price currently for our naivete about a highly complex industry and our blind trust that somewhere, government regulatory agencies were keeping a watchful eye over things. It's well past time for American citizens and policymakers to get over our dislike of "doom and gloom" topics and educate ourselves about the imperfect science behind the creation and propagation of the vast majority of the commodity foods in this country – and grasp how little we know about what this technology could be doing to our bodies, farm animals, and the microorganisms in our soil and water. Then, and only then, can those that have unleashed these risks on humankind and their human lab rats have an informed public discussion about how we are going to put Pandora back in the box, instead of continuing to push GMOs on the rest of the world.

Canadian National Farmers Union Concerned about GM Wheat

Organic Consumers Association [USA], 3 June 2009:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18157.cfm

GM wheat would come with huge costs for farmers according to the National Farmers Union.

The NFU, along with similar organizations from Australia and the US, have released a statement voicing their opposition to the commercialization of genetically modified wheat.

Vice-president Terry Boehm explains they believe it would mean increased trouble with herbicide-resistant volunteer weeds, higher seed costs for producers and a drop in the number of international customers.

The NFU is voicing its opinion in reaction to a separate statement issued several weeks ago by several farm groups, including the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the Grain Growers of Canada, calling for the release of GM wheat.

Genetically modified crops get the Vatican's blessing

New Scientist, 3 June 2009:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227114.200-genetically-modified-crops-get-the-vaticans-blessing.html

THE Vatican seldom approves of scientists meddling with God's creation. So the decision of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to back oft-demonised genetically modified crops as an answer to world hunger and poverty may come as a surprise.

GM crops were heartily endorsed at a week-long seminar held by the academy in mid-May. Participants agreed that the crops offer food safety and security, better health and environmental sustainability. That verdict is not shared by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, a global UN-backed think tank that last year rejected GM as a solution to hunger.

Some say the seminar excluded dissenters within the church who fear that GM technology allows multinationals to control agriculture at the expense of the poor. But participants deny bias: they also concluded that regulations are too strict, so only big companies can afford to get GM crops approved, whereas non-profit organisations that want to help the poor cannot.

---

Comment from Dr Brian John:

This is an utterly dishonest piece, and should never have appeared in a supposedly reputable science journal. The Pontifical Academy is not the Vatican. This pro-GM meeting was set up by a group of well-known GM zealots with the express object of influencing Vatican policy on GM crops and foods. It was a disgrace -- nobody was invited who might have anything contrary to say, and it was nothing other than a propaganda exercise from the very beginning. So for New Scientist magazine to portray it as indicative of the Vatican's blessing is nothing short of grotesque.

Note from GM Watch:

The funniest line here is "participants deny bias"!!!

As Prof David Miller of SpinWatch commented at the time of the event:

"Objectivity is the last thing anyone should expect from these 'experts'. One of the participants, Eric Sachs, is a Monsanto employee. Another, Robert Paarlberg, is an advisor to Monsanto's CEO, and Peter Raven and Roger Beachy head up institutions that have benefited from Monsanto's corporate largesse to the tune of many millions of dollars. Yet another speaker, C.S. Prakash, runs the AgBioWorld campaign, which has been used as a vehicle by Monsanto and its PR people for propaganda attacks on the company's critics. This event is just the kind of charade by vested interests that SpinProfiles was set up to challenge." http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/46-gm-industry/5283-spinwatch-condemns-vatican-gm-event-as-a-charade-by-vested-interests

Delayed planting schedules increase drift danger

The Clarksdale Press Register [Mississippi, USA], 3 June 2009. By Andy Ross, staff writer:
http://www.pressregister.com/articles/2009/06/03/news/doc4a269372d359e089417847.txt

Blue skies may have finally emerged over Coahoma County in recent days, yet this Spring, and its seemingly non-stop series of rainstorms, has not been especially kind to Delta farmers or their planting schedules.

In such situations, where mother nature is oblivious to mounting workloads and pressure to get crops in the ground, just one by-product is a temptation for rushed, irresponsible crop spraying.

When herbicides and pesticides are dispersed amidst high winds, for example, the subsequent drift damage to off-target crops, trees and gardens can be significant.

This danger is most notably apparant with the widely used herbicide Roundup.

"When you get in situations where we are now, where a lot of people are behind and you have to get weed control out, you hear a lot more about it," said Coahoma County Extension Service Director Don Respess recently in reference to complaints of Roundup drift damage.

Roundup is weed killer composed of glyphosate and manufactured by the St. Louis-based agro-chemical company Monsanto.

With Monsanto's development in the mid 1990's of genetically modified seeds resistant to Roundup, or Roundup Ready seed, the weed killer has become one of the world's most widely used herbicide, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Here in the Mississippi Delta - as with other areas of the U.S. conducive to large scale farming practices - Roundup Ready seed is planted by the vast majority of soybean, cotton and corn growers.

For those who farm these genetically modified crops, the fact Roundup is dropped over the landscape in such magnanimous quantities is no large matter. For others, however, the chemicals prevalence is not so harmless.

Rice and wheat growers, especially the former, are at risk due to the fact Roundup Ready rice and wheat has yet to emerge on the market.

Anyone who has grown a vegetable garden in the country, or witnessed a cluster of trees alive one day and withering towards death the next, also knows the destructive potential of the herbicide.

Then there are those rare farmers who still farm with conventional, non-genetically modified seeds.

Warner Wadlington of Quitman County planted almost five hundred acres of conventional soybeans two years ago but has since returned to Roundup Ready. Also a rice grower, Wadlington says drift damage is aways a concern but something he has been able to mitigate by keeping in communication with cropdusters and neighboring farmers.

"You have to be really particular with Roundup, but we grow rice so we know we have to be careful anyway," he said.

Regardless of the risk for drift injury, Wadlington says there is a growing interest among some to return to conventional growing. A primary reason, according to Wadlington, is dissatisfaction with the market dominance and pricing policies of Monsanto.

"I think some people are turning to conventional, non-GMO seed because they are hating the way Monsanto is treating us," Wadlington said. "They keep raising the technical fee and the prices of seed in particular. Monsanto is not your friend they are your dealer. They are the big company and they run it like a big company and it is hard for us to get used to it sometimes."

Quitman County Extension Service Director Mack Young estimates 98 percent of corn, soybean and cotton growers in his county plant Roundup Ready. Young echoes the importance of staying in communication with other farms and agriculture pilots.

"People will plant Roundup Ready a lot of the time just for piece of mind," Young said. "It is sort of a defensive move when they know their neighbor is planting it and their own chances of getting smoked are pretty good. People are a little more cautious than they used to be though. If a guy plants non GMO crops and if he has a brain, he will go and tell his neighbor about it."

Bob Howard, owner of Howard Flying Service, says crop dust pilots like himself are often unfairly singled out as the culprits of drift damage. Howard points out many farmers apply herbicides and pesticides from ground rigs, which if done in high winds, is also susceptible to cause drift injury.

The risk of dusting an off-target field with Roundup is something Howard says is always in the back of his mind when working.

"If everything was Roundup Ready it would be the greatest thing in the world," Howard said. "If they would all go to Roundup Ready or all go back to conventional farming it would sure be a lot easier on us."

No matter how much communication takes place between farmers and pilots, one irresponsible application of herbicide in high winds can injure or kill susceptible crops for longer distances than many realize.

John Campbell is head of the regulatory division of the Mississippi Bureau of Plant Industry which oversees crop spraying practices throughout the state. When drift damage is reported from Roundup or any other agricultural chemical, it is Campbell's office who is responsible for investigating and attempting to determine the source.

Campbell says effective measures have been in place for years to reduce drift damage, the most important being a restriction on both arial and ground spraying when wind speeds exceed 10 miles per hour.

He admits planting conditions this Spring have increased the risk of drift, but insists the problem has gotten much better in recent years due to growing awareness among sprayers, and the work of those in his agency.

"This is definitely one of those years we could see a high number of drift cases but it has not been like that so far," Campbell said. "Our inspectors are out there riding and looking to see if anyone is spraying when they are not supposed to be."

According to reports from Campbell, his office sees somewhere around 40 drift cases each year from Roundup and other agricultural chemicals. He says 90 percent of the cases come from the Delta.

In 2006, 112 cases were reported, nine of which took place in Coahoma County. In 2007, 35 complaints were made, one being in Coahoma County. The following year 56 cases of drift injury were reported, 15 being in Coahoma County.

So far this year seven cases have been reported statewide.

WWF defends position on Round Table on Responsible Soy

FoodNavigator.com, 3 June 2009. By Caroline Scott-Thomas: