NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • March 2009

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

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

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

"Percy Schmeiser the person that has been hailed as a hero, is nothing more than a common thief. His field wasn't contaminated, he 'contaminated' it and knew exactly what he was doing." http://www.opednews.com/Poll/Should-OpEdNews-Publish-Ar-by-Rob-Kall-090322-222.html

Here's a repsonse posted on OpEdNews. For anyone wanting to know why Percy Schmeiser is regarded as a hero, see his Right Livelihood Award (the "alternative Nobel Prize") citation here: http://www.rightlivelihood.org/schmeiser.html

Reply: Despicable claim

Bill Patterson

The claim by a Monsanto employee that Percy Schmeiser is "a common thief" is utterly despicable. Monsanto originally tried to suggest this but had to drop it -- Aaron Mitchell, the lead investigator for Monsanto, admitted in the trial court under oath that the company had no proof of anyone selling the seeds to Schmeiser. In the Supreme Court, "illegal purchase" or so-called "brown bagging" was not even mentioned once. Gene contamination from fields operated by Monsanto licensees is the only probable explanation for the GE seeds found on Schmeiser's farm. No evidence has been provided by Monsanto or anyone else to support any other logical explanation. [GMW: Seed spilt from trucks could perhaps be another point of origin... but that still hardly makes the recipient a thief!]

Lugar Food Security Bill Clears Committee

Senator Richard G. Lugar press release, 31 March 2009:
http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=310844

U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar's Global Food Security Act, S. 384, unanimously cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. Cosponsored by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), the bill seeks to improve the effectiveness and expand the reach of U.S. agriculture assistance to the developing world.

First, it creates a Special Coordinator for Global Food Security and that would be in charge of developing a food security strategy.

Second, the bill authorizes additional resources for agricultural productivity and rural development. Their plan draws from the experience of U.S. land grant colleges and the contributions they have made to U.S. agriculture. The bill creates a new program that would strengthen institutions of higher education in the areas of agriculture sciences, research, and extension programs. Investments in human capital and institutional capacity are important to developing a robust agricultural sector. It calls for increasing collaborative research on the full range of biotechnological advances including genetically modified technologies.

Third, the bill improves the U.S. emergency response to food crises by creating a separate Emergency Food Assistance Fund that can make local and regional purchases of food, where appropriate. The legislation would provide USAID with the flexibility to respond to emergencies more quickly, without supplanting other food programs such as P.L. 480.

"Roughly one billion people in the world suffer from food insecurity - they are unable to consume sufficient calories for a healthy and active life," said Lugar, the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Hunger is both a humanitarian and security challenge for the United States. The consequences of hunger are profound. Quality of life for affected families deteriorates as access to food decreases, affecting their productivity, and ultimately the economic growth of nations. Hungry children are unable to learn, and hungry adults are not productive. Hungry people are desperate people, and their hunger can breed instability in the most vulnerable regions of the world."

For more information, visit http://lugar.senate.gov/food/legislation/.

30 March 2009

Australian OGTR: DIR 093 - Limited and controlled release of wheat and barley genetically modified for altered grain starch composition

SeedQuest, 30 March 2009:
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2009/march/25648.htm

DIR 093 - Limited and controlled release of wheat and barley genetically modified for altered grain starch composition

DIR 093 - Invitation to comment on a consultation Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) for limited and controlled release of wheat and barley genetically modified for altered grain starch composition - Comments close on 12 May 2009 - posted 30 March 2009 (PDF 52 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093notificon.pdf

INVITATION TO COMMENT

CONSULTATION RARMP FOR LICENCE APPLICATION DIR 093 FROM CSIRO

Limited and Controlled Release of Genetically Modified (GM) Wheat and Barley

Australia's gene technology regulatory system is designed to protect the health and safety of people and the environment by identifying risks posed by, or as a result of, gene technology and managing those risks.

The Gene Technology Regulator is currently assessing Licence Application DIR 093 from CSIRO for a limited and controlled release to undertake research with three wheat lines and one barley line genetically modified for altered grain starch composition.

The purpose of the trial is to evaluate grain properties of the GM wheat and barley lines grown under field conditions. This would involve generating sufficient grain to make flour for laboratory evaluation of how the flour performs in foods, and to feed selected animals to determine whether altered grain properties change the nutritional value of the GM wheat and barley. Products containing GM wheat from this trial may also be consumed by a small group of volunteers as part of a carefully controlled nutritional study. Except for the nutritional studies, plant materials from the GM lines will not enter the commercial animal feed or human food supply chain. The trial is proposed to take place, under limited and controlled conditions, at one site in the ACT, on a maximum of one hectare from 2009-2012.

A consultation Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) has been prepared, which concludes that the proposed release would pose negligible risk to human health and safety or to the environment. A range of licence conditions are proposed, including measures to restrict the release to the size, location and duration requested by CSIRO.

The Regulator welcomes written submissions in order to finalise the RARMP, which will then form the basis of a decision on whether to issue the licence. The consultation RARMP and related documents can be obtained from the website http://www.ogtr.gov.au under 'What's New' or by contacting the Office. Please quote application DIR 093 in any correspondence.

Submissions should be received by close of business on 12 May 2009.

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, MDP 54, GPO BOX 9848 CANBERRA ACT 2601
Telephone: 1800 181 030 Facsimile: 02 6271 4202 E-mail: ogtr@health.gov.au

DIR 093 - Questions and Answers (PDF 19 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093qa2.pdf

DIR 093 - Consultation Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) Executive Summary (PDF 70 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093execsumcon2.pdf

DIR 093 - Consultation Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) Technical Summary (PDF 104 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093techsumcon2.pdf

DIR 093 - Full consultation Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) (PDF 841 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093rarmpcon2.pdf

DIR 093 - Licence application summary (PDF 75 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$FILE/dir093appsum.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

---

Note from GM-free Ireland:

For information about Australian resistance to GM food and farming visit the Network of Concerned Farmers website at http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/about.asp.

See also:

•

Non-GM Farmers to pay for unwanted GM contamination
24 February 2009 press release:
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2962

•

GM crops: Risks and Risk Managemente Needed
29 October 2009 referenced research document:
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/GM%20Risks%20and%20Risk%20Management.doc

•

About:

The "Network of Concerned Farmers" is an Australia wide network of conventional and organic farmers who are concerned about the economic, environmental and social impacts of genetically modified crops.

Our concerns about GM canola relate to: impact on the non-GM growers, costs and liability, contamination and loss of markets for all agricultural produce, herbicide resistance, environmental impacts, patents and corporate control of farming.

Our role is to provide independent, practical, detailed and accurate information to farmers and the broader community on all issues related to GM crops.

The Network aims to protect the rights of farmers to continue to grow and market uncontaminated crops by ensuring the GM industry is responsible for containment of their product and all associated costs and liabilities (not the non-GM grower as proposed). Until legislation adequately protects existing farmers and sustainability, we will not accept the introduction of GM crops. The NCF is nationally recognised as a credible voice on GM issues.

Our concerns about GM crops are based on:

Marketing

Australia has a clean green image which we need to preserve. Many of our export markets, and much of the domestic market does not want to buy GM crops and as growers we have both a right and a responsibility to continue to grow non GM food for our customers.

Costs and Liabilities

In order to market on the preferred non-GM market, the costs and liabilities are prohibitive. Costs are estimated at 10% of product value or conservatively $35/tonne. If it is not viable to market as non-GM, we are faced with a serious economic problem when Australia can only market a portion of our produce on the GM market

Legislation

Economics is not considered by legislation as reason for rejection of GM crops. Decisions regarding industry preparedness and coexistence plans are dominated by the GM industry themselves and plans are unacceptable and will not enable coexistence to be possible.

Contamination

Contamination is considered uncontrollable and if GM crops are introduced, the non-GM farmers are expected to keep contamination out of their crop. When unsuccesful, farmers are under risk of being sued under the Trade Practises Act for delivering a contaminated product, or under Patent Law for growing a patented crop.

Herbicide Resistance

Many of the GM crops that are been developed and that have been commercialised have been genetically engineered to be herbicide resistant. These crops will undoubtedly lead to problems of herbicide resistance and to on-farm management problems.

Environmental Risks

We are concerned that there has not been adequate testing of the environmental impact of GM crops and that due to the crossing of the species boundary (and crossing genes between kingdoms) GM crops pose risks that are not clearly understood.

Health Concerns

As farmers we are concerned about growing safe, healthy food for our customers. There is still some concern about the safety of GM foods and this is leading consumers to be cautious about eating them. We need to grow food that our customers want and that we know is safe.

Patents

The system of patents that accompanies some GM crops will undermine the independence and the rights of farmers and will create increased dependency on a small number of agribusiness corporations. In Australia there is concern regarding end-point royalties being used to collect patent royalties as there is no indication as to what level of contamination triggers royalty deduction from our payments.

Kenya: Agribusiness leaders back GM law

Africa Agriculture News, 30 March 2009:
http://www.africa-agri.com/?page_id=257

Genetically modified foods will eventually provide answers to the food security situation in Kenya, according to agribusiness leaders. Mr Michael Turner, the managing director of Actis East Africa, a private equity fund with interests in agribusiness and other sectors said GM technology will open up arid and semi arid land in Kenya to food production.

"Passing the biodiversity law was a good idea. We have to find a way of making use of more than half of the country which is arid and semi arid," he said. Kenya's food security needs have been increasing dramatically over the years, because of the growing population, failure to use farm inputs and the now the climate change which is changing rainfall patters. "We will have no excuse to ignore the technology that can increase our food output," said Agriculture Minister William Ruto, "This is our future."

Proponents of the GM food in Kenya say the country has good research capacity to enable local scientists develop GM crops that are specifically suited to the country's needs. Sidney Quantia, the coordinator of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition had said earlier that the Biosafety Bill 2008 which was assented by the President Mwai Kibaki in February does not allow labelling of foods produced from genetic modified crops.

Safeguarding Kenyans

"We are not opposed to biotechnology but we want the proposed law to have safeguards for Kenyans," he said. Genetically modified (GM) foods are the result of genetic engineering ostensibly to make them withstand harsh weather conditions or boost yields. But this genetic alternation is highly opposed by various groups who say that GM foods could result in new forms of human diseases and affect the growth of flora and fauna.

Kenya Government has strongly supported GM foods and made into law the Biosafety Bill 2008 last month. The basis of the support is that it will increase food production. The argument by the anti-GM lobby is that the country does not yet have regulatory capacity to prevent rogue researchers from bringing into Kenya contaminated GM foods.

The coalition says the law signed this year to allow for GM crops to be grown in Kenya does not allow for labelling of GM crops to help consumers make a choice. There are also specific pesticides used on GM crops. This is seen as being adverse to the predominant smallholder and poor farmers in Kenya. It is seen as a way to create ready market for GM seeds and chemical manufacturers.

However, an almost similar scenario happens when farmers plant hybrid seeds. Although they can be replanted, the yields of these seeds after replanting are less and agriculture extension officers usually encourage farmers to use new seeds every planting season.

Transgenic crops: a questionable option?

Seminar Magazine (Monthly Symposium), issue 595, March 2009. By Kavitha Kuruganti:
http://www.india-seminar.com/2009/595/595_kavitha_kuruganti.htm

STAGNATING yields, crop losses due to pests and diseases, climate change - all these and more are issues in agriculture that are being sought to be addressed using so-called cutting edge technology. Genetic modification (GM) of crops is one such technology on which vigorous research and development is taking place in India. So far, Bt. cotton is the only GM crop that has been permitted for cultivation in India. Politicians, media, bureaucrats and seed corporations have time and again proclaimed that Bt. cotton has proved to be a miracle and that this success needs to be replicated in other crops. Scores of GM crops are under development and Bt. brinjal (eggplant) is likely to be introduced as the first GM food crop in India. It is time to take a reality check on this technology and its achievements.

To understand the implications of this technology, its numerous facets need to be studied - the situation worldwide, the role of the USA and big transnational companies, the productivity and chemical use of GM crops, food safety issues involved and so on. It cannot be sufficiently stressed that each technology has differential impacts on different communities, differentiated in both a geographical and temporal manner. Agricultural technologies, more than any other technology, leave a large impact for the simple reason that they are likely to be deployed on large areas of land and thus affect millions involved directly in farming. Besides, as consumers, the safety of food is of general concern. Without a broad and comprehensive impact assessment, no decision-making can be sound with regard to this technology.

Worldwide, more than a decade after the entry of the first GM crop on a commercial basis, only around fourteen countries have introduced GM crop cultivation on any substantial scale, i.e. more than 50,000 hectares. A majority of countries around the world have not allowed GM crops in their territory. Equally, consumers engaged in a debate on GM foods have, more often than not, chosen to reject GM foods, as the experience of Europe shows.

The global GM crop scenario is dominated by only two major 'traits' - herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). In the case of the former, a gene that makes the crop immune to a particular chemical herbicide is inserted into the plant. A farmer can grow this crop and whenever weeds appear, that particular herbicide can be sprayed which kills the weed but does not harm the crop. IR, on the other hand, involves insertion of a gene that enables the plant to produce chemicals that kill certain pests which feed on it. It is claimed that this reduces the number of pesticide sprays on the crop.

At the outset, both technologies appear quite useful. However, nature thinks, acts and adapts fast. As has happened with chemical pesticides earlier, both HT and IR crops induce weeds and insects to develop resistance over time and this ultimately leads to increased use of chemicals in farming. That's the way nature behaves and no technology can help overcome this behaviour.

A close look at data underscores this principle of nature. Because of herbicide-tolerant crops, since 1996 there has been a 122-million pound increase in agri-chemical use in the USA. Weed resistance is now being reported from more than 15 million acres in the USA. While two decades of herbicide usage did not create as many resistant weeds, in the first decade of introducing GM crops that were designed to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, 30 new glyphosate-resistant weeds have been reported.

In China, a Cornell University study shows that the amount of pesticides that Bt. cotton growers were using in 2006, seven years after the official introduction of Bt. cotton into the country, was the same as the pesticide use before the advent of Bt. cotton. Simultaneously it was found that the pest ecology in cotton fields had changed and secondary pests like mirid bugs have now become a major problem.

In India, B.M. Khadi, Director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) notes that while Bt. cotton seems to have reduced the overall quantity of insecticide substantially only in some parts of the country, coupled with spectacular yield increases reported from Gujarat, the other states have been showing mixed results despite an increase in the area under Bt. cotton. He points out that the presence of secondary insect pests such as mirid bugs increased significantly in unsprayed cotton fields and simultaneously the tobacco caterpillar staged a comeback.

There are other alarming reports related to Bt. cotton cultivation in India, apart from ecological changes. There are reports of large-scale morbidity and mortality of animals after grazing on Bt. cotton fields. This is admitted by none other than the Director of the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Further, there are human health impacts in the form of allergies being reported from different states where Bt. cotton is being cultivated. Yet, despite repeated media coverage and communication with the regulators, no cognizance was taken of this disturbing phenomena in the cotton growing villages. No scientific investigations were taken up. In fact, it took considerable effort to get the regulators to even partially acknowledge that the existing biosafety testing protocols were inadequate in the case of assessing impacts on animals.

It is often claimed that GM crops increase yields and that the recent increase of cotton productivity and production in India is attributable to Bt. cotton. However, a closer look at facts shows otherwise. A report brought out by Friends of the Earth, Europe, throws up some interesting findings. After studying the yield figures of crops like cotton, soy and corn in the USA from the 1930s onwards, the report concludes that genetic engineering has at best been neutral with respect to yield. At the macro-level, the report points out that average cotton yields have stagnated since the adoption of Bt. cotton in the USA, as also in other countries like Argentina, Australia and Columbia.

More than 90% of soybean cultivated in the USA is genetically modified. If one goes by the official statistics, no claims of dramatic yield increases can be made about this largest cultivated GM crop. The 2008 yield of US soybean, the bulk of which is genetically modified, stood at 40 bushels per acre, lower than the 1994 yield of 41.4 bushels when GM soybean was yet to be introduced. This underlines the fact that yield levels are in reality governed by much more complex factors than a linear function of a single technology.

Decreased yields of GM soybean have been recorded even in field trials. A University of Nebraska study found that RR Soy varieties (RR or Roundup Ready Soy is the brand of Monsanto's GM Soy that is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate) yielded 5% less than their closest conventional relatives and 10% less than high-yielding conventional varieties. This corresponds to a loss in production of nearly 200 kilos per hectare.

This yield drag of RR Soy is also apparent from the trend of soybean yields from 1995 to 2003, the years during which GM soy adoption increased to 81% of US soybean-planted land. A 2007 study by Kansas State University, led by Barney Gordon, an agronomist, suggests that RR Soy continues to suffer from a 'yield drag'. Gordon's study finds that glyphosate applied to the GM crop is inhibiting the uptake of nutrients like manganese, essential to plant health and performance.

At the micro-level, a study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that looked at adoption of GM crops and its relation to net returns/yields, throws some light on different GM crops. The study flags a pertinent question. 'Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative', it says, suggesting that 'other considerations may be motivating farmers' - what is now called the convenience effect. Basically, when labour or time is a restriction, it might be 'convenient' to grow GM crops.

Coming to India, Gujarat is one of the most important cotton growing states. By 2007, Gujarat's share in total cotton production in India increased to 39%. This increased production is invariably attributed by biotech seed manufacturers to the runaway success of Bt. cotton in the state. This is clearly a narrow perspective and seed manufacturers are being economical with the truth.

In a letter dated 9 May 2005, the Secretary-Agriculture, Government of Gujarat, wrote to the Chairperson, GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee): 'Yes, the productivity which was 175 kg/ha in 2002-03 is touching 460 kg/ha in 2004-05. But this is not solely due to Bt. cotton hybrids as Gujarat recorded 450 in 1998-99 when there was no Bt. cotton. In our opinion, all these years were good years with low to medium boll-worm activity, hence this increase.'

The Secretary-Agriculture is pointing to an important aspect related to yield analysis with insect resistant GM crops here - that if pest incidence itself is low due to climatic and other conditions, there cannot be yield increases due to protection from crop losses through insect resistant varieties!

There is more. Through their official monitoring and evaluation report of Bt. cotton in 2006-07, the Gujarat state authorities have also revealed that 'The productivity of cotton crop also increased due to increase of irrigation facility by massive water harvesting programmes. The rainfall too has been very good during past three years. Parameters like irrigation facility, good monsoon, use of drip irrigation, low pest incidence, black soil and farmers' experience are contributing in the success of cotton crop in the state.'

Let's examine the above statement in the light of ground realities. From 2002 onwards, the increase in irrigated cotton area in Gujarat has remained steady. The area under irrigated cotton went up by a whopping 43.3% during 2000-01 to 2005-06. Any analysis of change in cotton yield at the state level in Gujarat has to note this increase. In addition, the watershed programmes of the government would also have contributed their share to yields even in the rain-fed cotton plots.

Further, as per the official figures available for Gujarat, the area under hybrid cotton has almost doubled over the last five years. A report by B.M. Khadi of the Central Institute of Cotton Research in 2007 points out that one clear impact of Bt. cotton on Indian agriculture appears to be the replacement of large areas with Bt. hybrids since the (transgenic) technology is available in India only in the form of hybrids.

Similarly, in Andhra Pradesh, hybrid cotton varieties were estimated to be on 28 per cent of cotton land in the state in 2002-03, the year of introduction of Bt. cotton. Data obtained from the department of agriculture shows that the land under such cotton varieties has come down to 1.3% by 2007-08. It is estimated that on an average 20-30% of yield enhancement can be attributed to a phenomenon called heterosis - hybrid organisms performing better than their parents.

Thus, the key reasons for yield increases are hybrids, better irrigation, and favourable weather conditions, among others. All that the Bt. gene does is impart protection against the bollworm, a pest that farmers dread a lot. Yield increase is not a single gene phenomenon and the Bt. gene has nothing to do with it. Yet one finds numerous reports in the media, fed largely on propaganda by GM seed manufacturers, publishing glowing reports on yield increases due to large-scale adoption of Bt. cotton across the country.

While there is a general view that the success of Bt. cotton is indicated by the rate of adoption of these GM seeds, this view ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is fair to contend that the desirability or success of a technology cannot be assessed by adoption alone. If that were so, chemical pesticides were adopted and used in huge quantities too.

Coming to Bt. brinjal or eggplant, which is sought to be introduced in India in a few months time, it is worth remembering that so far no GM vegetable crop which is more or less directly consumed is grown anywhere in the world with the Bt. gene in it. Though approvals have been given for Bt. tomato in the USA, there is no record of its cultivation, not even by industry propaganda bodies.

Brinjal is known for its medicinal value in different streams of health care in India. Ayurveda experts have already written to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) pointing out that the impact assessment of Bt. brinjal did not take this aspect into consideration. Further, we are the centre of origin and diversity for brinjal and nowhere in the world has a GM crop been introduced in a country of origin.

While it is well-acknowledged in scientific literature that brinjal had originated from this country, an expert committee set up by the GEAC on Bt. brinjal brushed this fact aside and concluded otherwise! No credible evidence was offered for this stand either. It is interesting to note that the Bt. brinjal development was mainly supported by several American agencies in India.

And herein probably lies the crux of the controversy over this technology: a powerful country with the world's largest seed company headquartered there (which to this day sells more than 90% of the GM traits sold in the world), and whose agricultural economy depends on global markets, has rushed in with this technology for reasons of its own, despite evidence of associated hazards. In fact, many crops that have been subsequently approved by the US government have not been selected for cultivation by American farmers themselves. Now, getting the global markets to accept these products is a crucial battleground for countries like the USA.

It is well documented that the US regulatory regime has been opportunistically shaped through revolving doors between the industry and the regulatory bodies throwing biosafety considerations to the winds. The principle of 'substantial equivalence', i.e., GM food is to be regarded as similar to non-GM food, guides regulation in the USA and products are declared by developers as 'Generally Regarded as Safe' (GRAS) for commercialization. Any GM food that is part of the food chain in the USA is usually available in a processed form only as an ingredient. Since it is already a 'cocktail' situation at the consumption end, correlating health problems with the GM foods becomes challenging.

There is by now adequate scientific evidence from across the world about adverse health impacts expected from GM crops, including potential inter-generational effects. A recent study commissioned by the Austrian government has found time related negative reproductive effects in mice which are fed GM maize. The study, probably the first on long-term feeding study, says that the number of offspring produced reduced over generations in the case of mice fed on GM maize as compared to those fed on non-GM maize.

Recently, biosafety test data on Bt. brinjal generated by Mahyco-Monsanto was independently analysed by a leading scientist. Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the France-based CRIIGEN pointed out that Bt. brinjal had not been properly tested from the safety and environmental point of view. He further observed that in feeding trials significant differences were noted in animals fed with Bt. brinjal compared to those fed non-Bt. brinjal. He finally concluded: 'Clear significant differences were seen that raise food safety concerns and warrant further investigation. The GM Bt. brinjal cannot be considered as safe as its non GM counterpart. Indeed, it should be considered as unsuitable for human and animal consumption.'

While the GEAC has as of now put the commercial release of Bt. brinjal on hold subject to verification and analysis of Gilles Seralini's assertions, the Indian scientific community continues to live in a state of denial.

Does the world really need GM crops and foods? There is ample evidence that other options, including organic farming, will address food security and livelihood security imperatives as well, as also be viable options in an era of climate change. The International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) process has concluded that smallholder ecological farming is the best option for this planet. It is, therefore, obvious that the only conceivable reason for pushing GM crops and foods is the business opportunity it offers to seed corporations and biotech firms.

To cite an example from the ground, women farmers from all over Andhra Pradesh, supported by the Department of Rural Development, are taking the lead in implementing what is probably the world's largest state-supported ecological farming project called 'Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture'. These women have shown that pest management in farming is fairly simple to manage provided appropriate extension and other support systems are developed. This experience of non-chemical farming on a whopping one million acres proves that farming without chemicals or GM seeds is indeed possible and that it is only a matter of political will. It is here that we need to remember what the IAASTD chairperson had to say about the future of farming on this planet: 'Business as usual is not an option.'

---

Comment by GM Watch:

This is a brilliantly clear article on the whole GM scene in India, which also places GM crops in a global context. It's also incisive about the reality behind claims that Bt cotton has performed some sort of GM miracle in states like Gujarat.

It's taken from the March 2009 symposium of Seminar Magazine (www.india-seminar.com), entitled "Agrarian Transitions: a symposium on the growing distress in agriculture", which has just been made available online.

Guest edited by Bhaskar Goswami of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, in Delhi, contributors to the symposium include Bharat Dogra, Devinder Sharma, and P. Sainath, amongst others. You can find the March issue here http://www.india-seminar.com/2009/595.htm

29 March 2009

Biosafety leak feared at Kawanda research station

Sunday Monitor (Uganda), 29 March 2009. By Kikonyogo Ngatya:
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/sun_news/Biosafety_leak_feared_at_Kawanda_research_station_82252.shtml

Kampala (Uganda) -- Uganda has violated an international environment convention that prohibits the leaking of confined live Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into the environment, a Sunday Monitor investigation has uncovered.

The leak of potentially hazardous bio-waste is being blamed on careless disposal practices by scientists at the National Agricultural Research Laboratory (NARL) in Kawanda, Wakiso District. The scientists disposed of parts of GMO banana bunches that were still under investigation into the open environment contrary to international regulations.

Birds, cats, rats and other living organisms have been seen on the dumping site, feeding and exposed to the GMOs, whose risk level has still not yet been ascertained as per the requirement of the World Health Oragnisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture (FAO) recommended Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety guidelines.

The immediate risk is possible environmental contamination ą with unknown implications for Uganda's banana crop -- if one of the banana suckers was illegally moved out of the institute and planted.

The protocol to which Uganda is a signatory is part of the International Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Protocol to the CBD seeks to contribute to the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms - such as genetically engineered plants, animals, and microbes - that cross international borders.

The Biosafety protocol is also intended to avoid adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity without unnecessarily disrupting world food trade.

Sunday Monitor has reliably established that the scientists burnt the GMO banana bunches and stems in an open air pit, despite having two incinerators at the site that should ordinarily have been used as prescribed under the guidelines.

The building of the incinerators at the site was a precondition to being granted a license to undertake the research.

Sunday Monitor was told that the leakage was caused by casual labourers who now essentially conduct most of field monitoring work because the scientists are "busy attending workshops".

"There is a per diem fever here. The scientists are more interested in chasing sitting allowances than doing their work," a source noted.

Dr Ambrose Agona, the NARL head and Dr Opolot Okasaai, the Director of Crop Resources in the Ministry of Agriculture said they were shocked by the findings.

When asked whether the materials are supposed to be burnt or buried, Dr Agona said, "No, no, that's not the procedure. It is supposed to be carefully incinerated."

He said he will raise the matter with the biotechnology supervisor, Dr Andrew Kiggundu, who is directly in charge of the confinement facility.

Dr Okasaai said he was going to direct an investigation on the leakage. "Our fear is the GMO bananas getting into wrong hands," he said.

He said all live GMOs must first be researched before being released into the community.

He, however, sought to downplay the possible consequences, saying: "For vegetatively propagated plants like bananas, the threat is getting established without our knowledge. But for seed propagated crops, there would be a risk of pollen crossing into other varieties".

He said the ministry was working with the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology to strengthen the capacity of the National Biosafety Committee, whose work is to enforce and monitor biosafety standards as per international biological conventions.

Dr Kiggundu declined to comment when contacted, saying as he was attending a meeting in Kampala.

---

Comment by GM Watch:

Things seem even more shambolic than usual on the GM front in Africa at the moment - see: Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101

The particular shambles reported in the article above involves the GM banana research taking place at Kawanda National Agricultural Research laboratories in Uganda.

This research project, overseen by Dr Andrew Kiggundu, was lauded as a success in the BBC Horizon TV programme, 'Jimmy's GM food fight', last December, even though African Science News Service had already reported the project's failure the previous June!
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2003
http://africasciencenews.org/asns/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487&Itemid=2

Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa

Digital Journal, March 29 2009. By Adriana Stuijt:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101

South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds. The plants look lush and healthy from the outside. Monsanto has offered compensation.

Monsanto blames the failure of the three varieties of corn planted on these farms, in three South African provinces, on alleged 'underfertilisation processes in the laboratory". Some 280 of the 1,000 farmers who planted the three varieties of Monsanto corn this year, have reported extensive seedless corn problems.

Urgent investigation demanded

However environmental activitist Marian Mayet, director of the Africa-centre for biosecurity in Johannesburg, demands an urgent government investigation and an immediate ban on all GM-foods, blaming the crop failure on Monsanto's genetically-manipulated technology.

Willem Pelser, journalist of the Afrikaans Sunday paper Rapport, writes from Nelspruit that Monsanto has immediately offered the farmers compensation in three provinces - North West, Free State and Mpumalanga. The damage-estimates are being undertaken right now by the local farmers' cooperative, Grain-SA. Monsanto claims that 'less than 25%' of three different corn varieties were 'insufficiently fertilised in the laboratory'.

80% crop failure

However Mayet says Monsanto was grossly understating the problem. According to her own information, some farms have suffered up to 80% crop failures. The centre is strongly opposed to GM-food and biologically-manipulated technology in general.

"Monsanto says they just made a mistake in the laboratory, however we say that biotechnology is a failure. You cannot make a 'mistake' with three different varieties of corn.'

Demands urgent government investigation:

"We have been warning against GM-technology for years, we have been warning Monsanto that there will be problems,' said Mayet. She calls for an urgent government investigation and an immediate ban on all GM-foods in South Africa.

Of the 1,000 South African farmers who planted Monsanto's GM-maize this year, 280 suffered extensive crop failure, writes Rapport.

Monsanto's local spokeswoman Magda du Toit said the 'company is engaged in establishing the exact extent of the damage on the farms'. She did not want to speculate on the extent of the financial losses suffered right now.

Managing director of Monsanto in Africa, Kobus Lindeque, said however that 'less than 25% of the Monsanto-seeded farms are involved in the loss'. He says there will be 'a review of the seed-production methods of the three varieties involved in the failure, and we will made the necessary adjustments.'

He denied that the problem was caused in any way by 'bio-technology'. Instead, there had been 'insufficient fertilisation during the seed-production process'.

He also they were 'satisfied with Monsanto's handling of the case,' and said Grain-SA was 'closely involved in the claims-adjustment methodology' between the farmers and Monsanto.

Farmers told Rapport that Monsanto was 'bending over backwards to try and accommodate them in solving the problem.

"It's a very good gesture to immediately offer to compensate the farmers for losses they suffered,' said Kobus van Coller, one of the Free State farmers who discovered that his maize cobs were practically seedless this week.

"One can't see from the outside whether a plant is unseeded. One must open up the cob leaves to establish the problem,' he said. The seedless cobs show no sign of disease or any kind of fungus. They just have very few seeds, often none at all.

The South African supermarket-chain Woolworths already banned GM-foods from its shelves in 2000. However South African farmers have been producing GM-corn for years: they were among the first countries other than the United States to start using the Monsanto products.

The South African government does not require any labelling of GM-foods. Corn is the main staple food for South Africa's 48-million people.

The three maize varieties which failed to produce seeds were designed with a built-in resistance to weed-killers, and manipulated to increase yields per hectare, Rapport writes [in Afrikaans].

http://jv.news24.com/Rapport/Suid-Afrika/0,,752-2460_2493233,00.html

Agricultural chemical industry shudders at organic White House garden

New York Gardening Examiner, March 29 2009. By Marc Montefusco:
http://tiny.cc/yAS9r

[picture caption for a basket of vegetables: Don't try this at home!]

Here's an interesting twist in what appeared to be a piece of all-around good news: when officials at the Mid America Croplife Association discovered that the new White House kitchen garden was to be managed organically, they sent a letter to First Lady Michelle Obama asking her to consider managing the garden "conventionally." At first glance, the letter itself (available here, along with the original breaking of this story) doesn't seem particularly insidious, just a call to appreciate the importance of American agriculture. But a more careful reading reveals the subtext: don't encourage Americans to grow their own food, because it's not practical, and don't encourage them to think that organic food is somehow superior to "conventional" agricultural products.

This passage, for example, seems to militate against the idea that individual families can realistically raise even a portion of their own food:

If Americans were still required to farm to support their family's basic food and fiber needs, would the U.S. have been leaders in the advancement of science, communication, education, medicine, transportation and the arts?

And this sentence shifts the blame for poor nutritional values and tainted food to the retailers and home cooks:

Much of the food considered not wholesome or tasty is the result of how it is stored or prepared rather than how it is grown.

There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of some non-organic farming methods, especially programs based on IPM (Integrated Pest Management) and on advanced ecologically sound soil management practices. It's also true that you would be hard-pressed, from a purely nutritional standpoint, to assert the inherent superiority of organically-grown food. But the authors of this letter are not conscientious farmers facing the reality of uncertain weather, evolving pests, rampant disease, and fluctuating markets. The authors of this letter make and distribute agricultural chemicals (it's a requirement for MACA membership) and they include representatives from companies with names like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, BASF Corporation, and Bayer CropScience, some of the giants of modern pesticides, herbicides, and genetically modified crops.

The real smoking gun, however, is not to be found in the letter itself, but rather in an email sent round to MACA members. Someone passed this email, and the original letter, on to individuals who have embraced the cause of safe food and sustainable agriculture, and they published it. Here's the money quote:

Did you hear the news? The White House is planning to have an "organic" garden on the grounds to provide fresh fruits and vegetables for the Obama's [sic] and their guests. While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made Janet Braun, CropLife Ambassador Coordinator and I shudder.

Shudder? The idea that our First Lady is modeling independence and environmental responsibility makes these people shudder? I'm inclined to give large portions of the green industry a break ą it's a tough calling, no matter what side of it you're on, and we all depend on its products ą but the industry needs to get on board with the new realities of life on earth. Sustainability, responsibility, and well being for all: these are the ideals of the Obama administration, and I think they need to be the ideals of the green industry as well.

Postscript:

Just to add insult to injury, by the way, the original letter is addressed to "Mrs. Barack Obama." Forget about that strong, independent role as First Lady, Michelle. To a reactionary industry, your real role is defined by your relationship to your husband.

---

Note from GM Watch:

Jeffrey Smith recently noted that although the Obamas are the first to officially have an organic White House garden, the Bush family also had an organic kitchen policy. http://tiny.cc/FtdQg

"Even at Monsanto, many in-the-know employees won't consume the company's own GM creations... And one former Monsanto scientist told me that his colleagues, who were safety testing milk from cows injected with the company's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, decided to stop drinking milk -- unless it was organic." http://tiny.cc/FtdQg

Smith's article attracted the following comment:

"Don't eat what I eat...

Monsanto's CEO, Hugh Grant, admitted in an interview that he bought organic food. Tony Blair when Prime Minister claimed he fed his children GE foods but this seems to have been a lie. His wife Cherie subsequently admitted she made a point of feeding their children organic food, which seeks to exclude all GE content.

And after the melamine contaminated milk scandal broke in China, Associated Press reported that China's political leaders ate all organic, with care being taken to source GE-free rice (China's rice has become GE contaminated although GE rice has never been approved for cultivation) - see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26874854/

So any ill effects from GE foods are not going to hurt the pro-GE elite." http://tiny.cc/FtdQg

Activism in the Time of Cholera
• Anti-GMO groups keep the poor from getting help.

Wall Street Journal (Europe), 29 March 2009. By Henry I. Miller:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123835814411966967.html

The cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe has sickened more than 100,000 and killed at least 4,500, with more cases reported daily. The disease remains all too lethal elsewhere, too, having killed about 120,000 people in 2007, according to the World Health Organization. But thanks to a simple innovation, those kinds of statistics could soon be a relic of the past, like deaths from smallpox and polio -- if not for the interference of a few influential politicians and activist groups.

Cholera is a diarrheal disease caused by contamination of food and water by feces. For those of us who live in industrialized countries, diarrhea is little more than a nuisance, most often involving some discomfort and bloating. But in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America and Asia with poor access to health care, clean water and other resources, diarrhea is the No. 2 infectious killer of children under the age of five, accounting for two million deaths a year.

Since the 1960s, the standard of care for childhood diarrhea in the developing world has been a glucose-based, high-sodium liquid that is administered orally and is known as a "rehydration solution." This low-tech product was revolutionary. It has saved millions of lives and reduced the need for costly -- and often unavailable -- hospital stays and sterile intravenous fluids. However, this product has done nothing to lessen the severity or duration of the condition, which over time leads to malnutrition, anemia and other chronic health risks.

The answer may be an affordable innovation that combines high and low technology. It consists of adding two human proteins, lactoferrin and lysozyme, which are produced inexpensively in genetically modified (GM) rice plants, to rice-based oral rehydration solution. Studies performed in Peru show that when this is done, the duration of children's illness is cut from more than five days to three and two-thirds. The rate of recurrence also falls. This advance could save many of those who are dying in Zimbabwe and elsewhere.

What made this approach feasible was a private company's invention of a method to produce human lactoferrin and lysozyme in gene-spliced rice, a process dubbed "biopharming." This is an inexpensive way to create the proteins necessary to fortify millions of liters of rehydration solution.

Sounds like a great success, right? Not yet; maybe not ever. The company has been trying for more than six years to get the product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has raised no real safety concerns but has dithered over the appropriate regulatory route for approving the product. Because a panel of experts has already deemed the proteins safe, the best guess is that internal FDA politics and lobbying by NGOs and the company's competitors are causing the delays.

Virtually every biotech breakthrough brings the antitechnology, antibusiness fabulists out of the woodwork, and this one is no exception. One radical biotech opponent, Hope Shand, remonstrated, "The chance this will contaminate traditionally grown crops is great. This is a very risky business."

Nonsense. Rice is self-pollinating, so interbreeding with other rice varieties is virtually impossible. But even in the worst case, "contaminate traditionally grown crops" with what? With two human proteins normally present in tears, breast milk and saliva? The only contamination here is of public discourse, from the lies and misrepresentations of antibiotech activists.

Another miraculous product made with gene-splicing techniques, and which has also had to endure the slings and arrows of wrong-headed activists and regulators, is "Golden Rice." This collection of new rice varieties is enriched by the introduction of genes that produce beta-carotene, which the body can convert into vitamin A.

Vitamin A deficiency is epidemic among poor people in the tropics whose diet is dominated by rice (which contains neither beta-carotene nor vitamin A) or similar foods. World-wide, 200 million to 300 million children of preschool age are at risk of vitamin A deficiency, which increases susceptibility to infections such as measles and diarrheal diseases and is the leading cause of childhood blindness in developing countries. About 500,000 children become blind due to vitamin A deficiency each year, and 70% of them die within a year.

The concept is simple: Although beta-carotene is not normally found in the seeds of rice plants because of the absence of two enzymes needed to make the substance, rice plants do make it in the green portions of the plant. When GM techniques are used to introduce the two missing genes, the rice grains become capable of producing and accumulating large amounts of beta-carotene.

Like the protein additives to the rehydration solution, Golden Rice is being blocked from the market by regulatory delays -- both by unscientific, draconian requirements concocted by United Nations agencies and by regulators in several Asian countries.

Despite their vast potential to benefit humanity, and negligible likelihood of harm to human health or the environment, the gene-spliced rice varieties remain in regulatory limbo with no end in sight. Activists have spread wild tales of gene-spliced crops causing illness and baldness, and of giving rise to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. There is absolutely no evidence for such claims.

In contrast to GM plants, those constructed with older, less precise techniques for genetic improvement are subject to no government scrutiny or requirements -- or opposition from activists. As a result, companies are systematically discouraged from adopting the best technologies, and when feasible prefer to use older, inferior techniques to achieve the desired result.

In an April 2008 editorial in the journal Science, Nina Fedoroff, a plant geneticist who serves as senior scientific adviser to the U.S. secretary of state, wrote: "A new green revolution demands a global commitment to creating a modern agricultural infrastructure everywhere, adequate investment in training and modern laboratory facilities, and progress toward simplified regulatory approaches that are responsive to accumulating evidence of safety." The story of GM rice makes it clear that we do not yet have the will and the wisdom to make that happen.

Dr. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, headed the FDA's Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Henry Miller is a key figure in the network of right-wing pro-biotech lobby groups in the USA. See his Lobby Watch profile at http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=84.

According to Lobby Watch, the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute as "a well funded front for corporations that attacks environmental, health and safety regulations." Its sponsors include Dow Chemicals and Monsanto: http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=30

The Hoover Institutution promotes "limited government" and "market-based solutions to public policy problems". Members of Hoover's "board of overseers" have included the chairman of grain multinational Archer Daniels Midland, Dwayne Andreas, Texas oilman Robert Bass, David Packard of military and electronics giant Hewlett-Packard, former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Mellon oil heir and ultraconservative philanthropist Richard M. Scaife, and free-market guru and former U.S. Treasury Secretary William E. Simon: http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=57.

Scientists and NGOs who warn about the dangers of GM food and farming have been accused of being "radical", "anti-science" and "antitechnology, antibusiness fabulists" before. Blaming them for thousands of Cholera deaths in Zimbabwe is a new departure.

Miller claims his proposed GM rice with human genes could not possibly contaminate the food chain "because rice is self-pollinating". Bayer CropScience made the same claim about its "LibertyLink" GM rice before releasing it for field trials in the USA in 1999-2001. The result? The unapproved GM rice contaminated food supplies in 15 EU countries, Russia, Japan and the Middle East without detection until 2006, leading to a collapse of the $1 billion US rice export industry, a virtual shut down of US rice exports to the EU, and massive economic losses for contaminated farmers and food exporters in the USA.

Another GM rice contamination incident, following the discovery that BASF's supposedly non-GM Clearfield131 rice was contaminated with unknown GM genes, caused the US Department of Agriculture to ban all planting of this rice in 2007.

Apropos of Miller's claim that Golden rice is a solution to vitamin A deficiency, see "The Golden Rice Scandal Unfolds" at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/goldenRiceScandal.php

Planting cyber seeds

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 29 March 2009. By Jeffrey Tomich:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/9E5C776C165AC855862575860080C3FC?OpenDocument

Earlier this month, a blogger named Brad fired a virtual salvo at Jeffrey Smith, the author of "Seeds of Deception" and one of the most vocal crusaders against genetically modified foods.

In a 600-word post, Brad questioned the credibility of an online petition on Smith's website, urging the administration of President Barack Obama to require labeling of biotech foods. He called the petition "sheer political theater" and prodded the activist for purportedly being a yogic flying instructor.

More than 30 comments followed in the next few weeks. On one level, the exchange was just another online debate about GMOs. But this one was notable because of who initiated and hosted it: Monsanto Co.

For years, environmental and food activists have made good use of YouTube video and Facebook to skewer Monsanto in the blogosphere. Now, the biotech giant is turning the tables.

The company's blog, Monsanto According to Monsanto, made its debut Feb. 10, and it is the company's latest tool to engage critics on hot-button issues such as food labeling. The title spoofs a documentary by French journalist Marie-Monique Robin that has been viewed more than 47,000 times on YouTube.

Beside the blog, Monsanto has hired a full-time social media specialist, Kathleen Manning. It has almost 600 followers on the Web-based short messaging system Twitter, started a YouTube channel and launched a Facebook page. The company is also developing a version of its website for cell phones and Blackberries and is creating MonsantoTV.

Glynn Young, a Monsanto manager in his second stint with the company, is heading the effort. Before rejoining the company in 2004, Young, 57, worked for St. Louis Public Schools, where he had a trial by fire in crisis management earlier this decade after the district slashed its budget, cut staff and closed schools.

Monsanto's presence on the Web has evolved during the last few years. But only last year did the company decide to delve into social media as it witnessed the upheaval of traditional media and realized that its existing outreach vehicle - news releases - wasn't enough.

"We asked ourselves, 'Is this a space we should be participating in?' The answer was 'yes,'" Young said.

While some consumer companies have used blogs and Twitter to promote their products, Monsanto views social media as a forum to discuss key issues with critics, investors and customers.

"There was this big conversation going on (on the Internet), and we weren't a part of it," said John Combest, a manager in public affairs at Monsanto and one of the bloggers.

There was one particular instance that opened the company's eyes to the power of social media. It happened at last summer's Farm Progress Show in Boone, Iowa, when the company learned, much to its surprise, that some Wall Street analysts had been following an agronomist's blog that chronicled the progress of Monsanto's "Golden Acre" plot, which showcases some of its crops under development.

But just Google the company's name and it quickly becomes obvious that blogs and social media haven't been kind to Monsanto, based in Creve Coeur.

Monsanto has been in the cross hairs of social activists for decades, going back to its days as a maker of Agent Orange and PCBs. That didn't change with the company's new focus on biotech and agriculture.

A decade ago, activists expressed themselves by torching fields of genetically modified crops and throwing tofu cream pies at Monsanto's chairman. These days, activists are challenging the company through the use of YouTube videos and countless blogs that demonize GMOs.

Facebook, the social networking site, is full of anti-Monsanto groups, including one, Millions Against Monsanto, with more than 22,000 members. Another group's avatar depicts CEO Hugh Grant with a handful of soybeans. Below the words: "No Food Shall Be Grown That We Don't Own." It seems there's a way to revile the company in any language.

Nora Ganim Barnes has studied corporate use of social media at the Center for Marketing Research at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, and urges companies to not let online criticism go unchallenged.

"We advise companies to listen to what's being said about them in social media and get into social media to reply," she said.

One example of a company that effectively did that is PC maker Dell Corp. Dell-bashing escalated a few years ago, giving rise to the term "Dell Hell." When the company finally started its own blog, it became the forum of choice for critics.

Monsanto similarly appears to be trying to steer discussion about critical issues to its blog so it's easier to influence the debate, Barnes said.

"Now they're controlling the posts, they're answering the questions, they're directing them to different places within Monsanto and maybe another site," she said. "They've taken control of the situation."

The company and its critics agreed on one thing: Food is an emotional issue. Knowing that, Monsanto hopes using social media will help put a human face on the company and connect with people who might perceive it as a monolith trying to dominate global agriculture.

Bonnie Azab Powell, a food politics journalist in California and co-founder and editor of The Ethicurian (www.ethicurean.com), a three-year-old blog about food, sees that as a challenge.

"I admire their effort and I'm sure they have a lot of money to spend," she said. But "the hostility toward the company is very real, and it's not going to be corrected by investing heavily in social media."

There are six dedicated bloggers at Monsanto. But any employee is allowed - even encouraged - to participate. A frequent contributor is Daniel Goldstein, a pediatrician who works as Monsanto's senior scientist in residence.

The "official" bloggers go by their first names and are represented by personalized South Park avatars. That decision, Young said, "engendered a lot of discussion at levels above me."

Comments on the blog (blog.monsantoblog.com) are patrolled and answered, but they'll be permitted to stand unless they contain profanity or personal attacks. That's true even if they criticize the company, Young said.

"As long as it's trying to engage in a civil way, that's fine," he said. "But we're not going to let unsubstantiated vitriol go unchallenged."

Bloggers also watch what is said about the company on other agriculture and biotech-themed blogs, such as Biofortified.org.

Just last week, Monsanto made a splash at OpEdNews.com. The company cross-posted three of its blog posts on the liberal website. Also last week, the site's editor and publisher, Robb Kall, posted a poll for readers asking them if the company should be allowed to cross-post its blog entries.

"One could argue that getting them into a conversation is a good thing," he wrote. "Or one can argue that they have billions to promote their message and OEN should not help them sell their propaganda." As of Friday, 420 readers had responded; 236 of them voted against letting Monsanto post articles on the site.

To be sure, Monsanto acknowledges it is still feeling its way around in the world of Web 2.0. "It's a sea change for us," Young said. "We're kind of going at this in baby steps."

In the end, the company knows it might not win over its critics. But it will continue to engage them.

"We're not asking people to love us," Young said. "And we don't mind critics, but we'd like more informed critics."

---

Note from GM Watch:

Before becoming Monsanto's current Director, Issues & Employee/Electronic Communications, Glynn Young was Monsanto's Director, Environmental Communications (June 2004 - February 2007), responsible for communications related to environmental legacy issues and the Solutia bankruptcy. http://www.linkedin.com/in/glynnyoung

28 March 2009

World News Exposed: Europe's GM-Hype in Times of Food and Fuel Crisis

Axis of Logic, 28 March 2009. By Claire Robinson:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_29989.shtml

Pro-GM brigade at large in the food and fuel crisis

The pro-GM brigade has been losing no time in exploiting the current global food and fuel crisis and the high price of animal feed to promote GM as the solution in the mainstream media. An offensive was launched on the European Union (EU) to relax its policy on GM imports and cultivation. At present only one GM crop, a GM maize, is approved for cultivation in Europe. The European Commission department of agriculture has joined forces with the biotech industry and the animal feed industry in claiming that it is the EU's GM policy that is harming Europe's livestock industry.

Leading the charge of the pro-GM brigade in Europe is Britain, in its role as chief ally of the largest GM exporter the United States. The UK Independent reported that [1], "Ministers are preparing to open the way for genetically modified crops to be grown in Britain on the grounds that they could help combat the global food crisis." The main source quoted in the article is environment minister Phil Woolas. The night before promoting the GM agenda, the article said, Woolas held talks with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a biotech industry PR group representing Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Pioneer (DuPont), and Syngenta. This industry lobby group is run by Lexington Communications, a PR agency intimately connected to the New Labour government [2]. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has fallen in line, calling on the EU to relax its rules on importing GM animal feed in order to cut spiralling food prices [3]. In addition, a new report by the UK Cabinet Office on the food and feed crises focuses almost exclusively on the role of the EU's GMO regulations in creating delays for GM feed crop approvals [4].

Critics say that such scaremongering is a cynical attempt to force the EU to drop its "zero tolerance" approach to GM and GM-contaminated imports. Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said at UK's National Farmers Union (NFU) conference [5], "I think the debate about higher prices and being able to meet the demand of people in the world for food is a perfect opportunity to make the case [for GMO crops]... We may have a window of opportunity here and I would encourage you to exploit that."

President of European Commission at the heart of EU's pro-GM lobby

Industry lobbyists hoping to convince Europe to go down the GM route face an uphill battle, at least, as far as democracy prevails. Most EU member states and their elected representatives in the EU Parliament remain sceptical of GM crops. Votes by ministers from the member states on applications for their import or cultivation regularly oppose GM applications, but not with a sufficient majority to finally block the approval. The technical name for this type of majority decision in Eurospeak is an 'unqualified majority'. In such cases, the decision reverts to the unelected European Commission.

The Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, is at the heart of the EU's pro-GM lobby. Reports have emerged that Barroso is trying to get member states to agree on GMOs behind closed doors, so that there are no more unqualified majorities [6]. Barroso is also trying to find a way to lift Europe's "zero tolerance" policy and smooth the way for the entry of GMOs into Europe [7, 8]. The Commission has already announced that a decision on animal feed imports and EU GM approvals and laws will be reached this summer. A group of MEPs on the agriculture and environment, public health and food safety committees has written a letter to Barroso expressing concern at [9] "reports that the Commission is deliberately trying to find ways to avoid a co-decision process, thus excluding MEPs, the elected representatives of European citizens, from any decisions on this issue."

The pro-GM lobby, including influential people within the European Commission, claims that Europe must open the doors to GMOs in order to solve the food and feed crisis; but there is little basis to the claim.

No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis

Most of the EU's animal feed comes from Brazil and Argentina, which are careful to grow only those varieties of feed, both GM and non-GM, that are approved in the EU, so as not to harm their export markets [10]. An article in the Financial Times quotes a Brazilian diplomatic source saying, "We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy." The article goes on to say that neither Argentina nor Brazil share the "apocalyptic" scenario currently being put forward by the biotech and livestock industries and intensive farmers [11].

Such scaremongering ignores the well-known fact that GM crops have at best, variable impacts on yields and are therefore not a solution to the food crisis, as was confirmed by the recent IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) report on the future of agriculture [12].

More importantly, it ignores the fact that the major cause of the food and feed crisis is not European GM policy, but the rush to biofuels. Even the World Bank has now confirmed what NGOs have been saying ever since the notion of a food crisis was first mooted, that the Bush-subsidised ethanol boom (with the EU's agrofuel boom following in its wake) is by far the single most important factor in creating the food crisis that is driving 100m people worldwide below the poverty line. The report, which has not been published but was leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper, says biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3 percent to food-price rises. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush [13].

The irony is that exactly the same people who created this disaster by promoting the rush into agrofuels are now promoting a rush for GMOs as the solution. It is this hype that the European Commission and British politicians appear to be swallowing, without being honest about the vested interests at stake.

Monsanto does a complete about-turn on GMOs being needed to feed the world

And here's another irony. The truth about GMOs as the solution to the global food crisis is not coming from politicians but from industry itself. Previously, in the face of growing global opposition, Monsanto has long proclaimed that GM crops are vital for feeding a hungry world, while critics countered that the food is there and that distribution is the key to tackling hunger. But as opposition to biofuels is rising in Europe and even in the US on the grounds that they are not a solution to climate change and are contributing to the food crisis, Monsanto is now keen to defend the biofuels gravy-train that sent food prices sky-rocketing, and the company's spin has suddenly gone into complete reverse.

The ethanol boom may be pushing millions towards starvation and hundreds of millions deeper into poverty, but, says Monsanto's chief technology officer Rob Fraley [14], "From a production perspective, we have abundance [of food]". Fraley now says the "challenges" are in distribution and access to food because of wealth distribution, in other words, poverty.

Fraley made his pitch at the launch of a new multi-million dollar lobby group for ethanol, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, that Monsanto has helped set up. There could be no clearer demonstration that Monsanto's concern has never been feeding the hungry; its leading role in the ethanol lobby shows that the hungry can happily starve, just so long as it's good for the company's bottom line.

Given that industry has revealed the truth behind its biofuels agenda, is it too much to ask of Europe's politicians that they should be equally honest about the vested interests behind the hyping of GM crops?

Claire Robinson is an editor of GMWatch http://www.gmwatch.org/.

References

1. "GM crops needed in Britain, says minister" Andrew Grice, The Independent, 19 June 2008 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gm-crops-needed-in-britain-says-minister-849991.html; also "Controversy as Minister met lobbyists hours before 'shift in policy' over GM foods", Jonathan Petre, Daily Mail, 21 June 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028373/Controversy-Minister-met-lobbyists-hours-shift-policy-GM-foods.html

2. Profile of Michael Craven, Lobbywatch http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=139

3. "Brown pushes EU to allow more modified animal feeds" Andrew Grice, The Independent, 20 June 2008 http://http//www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brown-pushes-eu-to-allow-more-modified-animal-feeds-851020.html

4. "Food matters Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century" The UK Cabinet Office http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/food_policy.aspx

5. "Food Supply Fears Heighten UK Debate On GMO Crops" Nigel Hunt, 20 February 2008 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47053/story.htm

6. Personal email from Friends of the Earth Europe, 9 July 2008

7. "Farmers praise GM crops in EU study" Vanessa Mock, The Independent, 30 June 2008 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/farmers-praise-gm-crops-in-eu-study-856907.html

8. "EU GMO legislation and animal feed imports to the EU" http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal_feed/MEPletter_to_Commission_on_zerotolerance_25June08.pdf undated letter from Members of the European Parliament committees on agriculture and environment, public health and food safety, to Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission and Androulla Vassiliou, commissioner for health

9. "EU GMO legislation and animal feed imports to the EU" http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal_feed/MEPletter_to_Commission_on_zerotolerance_25June08.pdf undated letter from Members of the European Parliament committees on agriculture and environment, public health and food safety, to Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission and Androulla Vassiliou, commissioner for health

10. "GMO approval procedure and zero tolerance regime and the economic consequences thereof" Media Briefing, Friends of the Earth Europe, 17 December 2007 http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/2007/FoEE_GMO_Livestock_171207.pdf; also see "Animal feed crisis and EU GMO laws - is there a link?" Campaigner's Briefing, Friends of the Earth Europe, July 2008 http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/ZERO_TOLERANCE_Campaigner_briefing_FINAL.pdf

11. "Fresh battle looms over bio-crops in Europe" Andrew Bounds, Financial Times, 25 June, 2008 http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/ZERO_TOLERANCE_Campaigner_briefing_FINAL.pdf, cited in "Animal feed crisis and EU GMO laws - is there a link?"

12. A briefing on the IAASTD report http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/special_IAASTD_brieifing.pdf

13. "Secret report: Biofuel caused Food Crisis", Aditya Chakrabortty, The Guardian, 4 July 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

14. "Agribusiness alliance sharpens food-versus-fuel debate: ADM, Monsanto and others argue ethanol subsidies should stay", Dow Jones Newswires, 25 July 2008 http://www.nwrage.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2302

Anything but the truth
• Elizabeth Lowry on a novel that challenges the reader's notions of scientific objectivity

The Guardian (UK), 28 March 2009. By Elisabeth Lowry:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/28/intuition-allegra-goodman-review

Appearing in the wake of recent scientific scandals such as the exposure in 2006 of the Korean researcher Hwang Woo-Suk's fraudulent claim to have cloned human stem cells, this provocative novel, longlisted for the Orange prize, poses some intriguing questions about scientific misconduct.

No scientist would disagree that outright fraud is beyond the pale. But what about trimming the results of experiments so that they support a desired conclusion? What about discounting observations that fail to tie in with a specific theory? To the layman, science might seem, by definition, to be a hard and fast thing, dealing only in right or wrong answers. Inside the lab, however, the process of scientific enquiry is necessarily vulnerable to a degree of subjectivity that can, in some instances, call the whole enterprise into question.

Goodman does a bravura job of opening up the closed world of the research laboratory, and of humanising the ostensibly impersonal pursuit of scientific truth. Intuition is set in a small, underfunded Boston research institute in the mid-1980s, where a ramshackle team of postdoctoral fellows, overseen by their directors, Sandy Glass and Marion Mendelssohn, have been trying unsuccessfully to formulate a cure for cancer.

The lab is jolted out of its gentle torpor when post-doc Cliff's experiments with a genetically modified virus that has been bred to attack cancer cells suddenly appear to yield positive results. Several tumour-ridden mice in one of Cliff's colonies go into remission after being injected with his serum, and the lab's resources are immediately diverted towards achieving the gold standard of scientific corroboration: replication.

The team's excitement at the potential implications of Cliff's discovery seems to be justified when he begins to rerun his experiments and is able to demonstrate a dramatic 60% remission rate. Even Marion, who is by nature sceptical and conservative, is persuaded against her better instincts by the charismatic and self-promoting Sandy to agree to a publicity drive. A research paper is rushed into print in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, followed by a successful bid for a grant. People magazine sends a reporter to the lab to write a feature on the astonishing breakthrough. Whereas Cliff's career has previously threatened to putter away into mediocrity, he now finds himself the star of the hour.

The only person who is not thrilled with Cliff's success is his ex-girlfriend and fellow researcher, Robin. Already resentful of the peremptory way in which her own research has been sidelined by the lab in the rush to bolster Cliff's work, she becomes increasingly suspicious when her attempts to reproduce his results end in failure. She is further alarmed when she discovers a set of scribbled notes indicating that Cliff's data might not have been as clear-cut as he suggested. Robin's concerns are dismissed by an internal review board, however. Embittered, she lodges a charge of fraud with the National Institutes of Health, prompting a media furore and a congressional investigation that threatens the future of the entire institute.

Absorbing as the scientific plot of Intuition is, the real strength of the book lies in its nuanced dissection of human motives. Is Cliff culpable at all; and if so, is he guilty of deliberate fraud, or merely of sloppy methodology thanks to his determination to get the desired results? Has he, in other words, allowed his scientific intuition to run away with him? The sense of principle driving Robin, as an enquiry that putatively begins as a search for the facts is rapidly contaminated by personal venom, begins to seem equally muddied by impulse. If false claims have been made by the lab, then nearly everyone is implicated in some way: Sandy, by playing on Marion's ambition in order to get her to forgo the usual controls; Marion, by allowing herself to be beguiled by a publicity machine that has nothing to do with science; even - or especially - Marion's husband, Jacob, whose unacknowledged jealousy of Sandy's professional relationship with his wife prompts him to encourage Robin's misgivings. In each case, objectivity and subjectivity are so hopelessly scrambled that the notion that an ultimate truth can ever be distinguished in the mess of human behaviour is thrown into doubt.

But Goodman is too shrewd to leave the book's crucial question unresolved. When what really happened in the course of Cliff's investigations is quietly revealed in the novel's last few pages, we realise that the answer has always been implicit, even if skilfully obscured. Intuition is a deft experiment in narrative occlusion; and in this experiment, at least, all the evidence finally stacks up. Goodman has succeeded in conveying both the quasi-religious intensity of the lab, its idealism in the pursuit of knowledge, and the inconvenient human flaws that undermine this idealism - of which, ironically, the very hunger for answers is itself perhaps the most dangerous.

Elizabeth Lowry's The Bellini Madonna is published by Quercus.

27 March 2009

The Questionable Authority:
• CO2, Freeman Dyson, Magic Trees, the NY Times, and a Piece of Pencil Lead the Size of New Mexico

Science Blogs, 27 March 2009. By Mike Mumford:
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/03/co2_freeman_dyson_magic_trees.php

The New York Times has recently taken some flack as the result of Nicholas Dawidoff's New York Times Magazine profile of Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson. Times science blogger Andrew Revkin has also received some less than favorable reviews of a post he wrote about the article. The bulk of the criticism revolves around the treatment given to Dyson's views on climate change, and is well warranted.

Neither Dawidoff nor Revkin apparently thought it necessary or desirable to subject any of Dyson's views or proposals to any sort of reality check. This is at least somewhat strange. Dyson's views are aggressively opposed to the strong scientific consensus on the issue, and yet he has not been very involved in research in the field. At the same time, some of the ideas that he proposes for climate change mitigation are outlandish, to say the least.

There are times when the perspective of someone outside a particular field can come up with an insight into a problem that has baffled those who have worked on the issue for years, and Dyson's clearly a pretty bright guy. Luis Alvarez's work on the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction is a fantastic example of this, and it's clearly important to keep that possibility in mind. It's also important to remember that, just like every inventor who gets laughed at is not a Fulton, the distinguished scientist from the other field is not always going to be right.

When the distinguished scientist in question is suggesting specific ideas, it's not always all that hard to do a quick back-of-the-envelope check to see just how feasible - or not - the idea is. That's certainly the case with Dyson's Magic Trees.

I'm referring, of course, to Dyson's idea that sometime in the next few decades, we will "almost certainly" have genetically engineered "carbon eating" trees within the next 50 years. These trees will suck up the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and global warming (which Dyson thinks is an overstated problem to begin with) will be solved - once we've replaced 1/4 of the world's trees with the carbon-eating variety.

Just on the surface, that idea looks to be just plain nuts. It's the kind of thing that works well in sci-fi novels, not in reality. But let's give it a chance for just a minute or two, and take a (semi-)serious look at it.

We'll set aside the fact that we don't currently know how to create a biological process to convert carbon into a form that's not readily usable by other life forms. We'll also set aside the difficulties involved in getting numerous species of trees to accept some sort of genetic modification that will get them to use that process. We'll also ignore the logistical issues involved in getting that modification spread into 25% of the trees living on the planet.

Instead, let's just look at how much inert carbon these trees will have to somehow output. In 2007, humans released an estimated 8.47 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. (Note: that's the mass of the carbon, not the mass of the carbon dioxide.) That figure has been rising, and I'm just looking for round numbers, so I'm going to say that the last 10 years of output works out to around 80 gigatons.

If we're looking for a way to store the carbon that's not going to be readily degraded back into carbon dioxide, the best way is probably going to be to store it in as close a form to pure carbon as possible. Even giving out an enormous amount of the benefit of the doubt, I'm not prepared to say that we're ever going to be able to make diamonds grow on trees, so that basically leaves graphite - the stuff that we call lead when it's in a pencil. Graphite has a density that ranges from 2.09 to 2.23 grams per cubic centimeter, but for simplicity I'll round that up to 2.25.

80 gigatons = 8.0 * 10^10 metric tones.
& With a density of 2.25, that should work out to about 3.5*10^10 cubic meters.

If I'm doing the volume conversions correctly - and I'm fairly sure I did, since the first one's easy - that works out to a 1 meter thick block of graphite that covers an area of 3.55*10^10 square meters, which works out to a bit more than 35,500 square kilometers, or a 10 centimeter thick chunk that covers 355,000 square kilometers.

In terms that are easier to grasp than numbers alone, that's a 10 centimeter thick sheet of graphite that's large enough to cover the entire state of New Mexico, with enough left over to cover Delaware and Maryland, and probably still supply the world with pencil lead for a few decades. And that's just from the last decade of emissions.

We really do burn a lot of carbon-based fossil fuels, don't we?

And that's in a solid block form. It's pretty clear that you're not going to get a lot of vegetation growth on top of a block of solid graphite, and unless we're really, really, really good at genetic engineering 50 years from now, the trees probably won't be able to walk away and plant themselves somewhere else. They'd have to produce the graphite in a form that could mix into the surrounding soil without winding up in such high concentrations that it kills things off. That kind of rules out the single, 10 cm thick block thing. As a 1 cm block of graphite, you're talking about more than twice the area of Texas, and you still won't be able to grow anything on it.

I haven't got to the whole issue of how to figure out what adding that much inert carbon to the soil will do to the ecosystem, or what happens when the trees suck the carbon down to pre-industrial levels - how do you stop it before the level drops too far?

No matter how much slack you cut Dyson, the Magic Trees idea is simply insane. Yet, for reasons beyond understanding, the New York Times seems to have decided to treat it as a serious suggestion from a serious person.

---

Note from GM Watch:

Mike Mumford's amazed that the New York Times covered Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson's idea that magic GM trees could fix global warming so uncritically, but a research study of the UK media's GM coverage by Prof Guy Cook showed that speculative claims of GM solutions to apparently intractable problems were lapped up uncritically on a regular basis, and that held even for publications with a sceptical editorial line on GM.

U.S. needs more new exports for Doha deal: Vilsack

The US Daily (via Reuters), 27 March 2009. By Doug Palmer:
http://www.theusdaily.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=699209&type=home

WASHINGTON - The United States cannot support a proposed world trade deal to cut the spending cap on U.S. farm subsidies until developing countries make better offers to open their markets to U.S. farm exports, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Friday.

"What I do know is the administration is very concerned about all aspects of the Doha discussion," Vilsack told Reuters in an interview.

"What the United States is being asked to do has been quite succinctly, and with some degree of specificity, laid out in the framework ... There's less clarity and less predictability in what developing nations are being asked to do in market access," Vilsack said.

The long-running Doha round of world trade talks was launched in November 2001 with the goal of helping poor countries prosper through trade.

Negotiators came close to a deal last year and many countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America are eager to finish the talks based on a set of texts proposed by World Trade Organization negotiating chairmen in December.

But U.S. farm and business groups say those texts require too many politically painful farm subsidy and manufacturing tariff cuts for the United States without enough new export opportunities to make the deal acceptable.

The December text would cap annual U.S. spending on trade-distorting farm subsidies at $14.5 billion, down from $48.2 billion now allowed under existing WTO rules.

Biotech barriers a concern

Vilsack, who met this week with WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, said it was "impossible" for him to say whether that was an acceptable number until the United States has a concrete idea of what it would gain.

"$14 billion could be a great number if the market access is x. It could be a horrible number if the market access is y." Vilsack said.

The United States also is concerned that many markets around the world remained close to genetically modified crops and other biotechnology products, Vilsack said he told Lamy.

On another topic, the Obama administration is working to address safety concerns that prompted Congress to ban poultry imports from China, Vilsack said.

Beijing has responded to Congress' action by threatening to bring a case at the WTO.

"We're trying to provide as much information about what we have done, and what we think ought to be done, to assure (U.S. lawmakers) that there's a equivalency of safety precautions and so forth taking place in China," Vilsack said.

"This is a trading partner we want to make sure we keep a relationship with," he said.

The Obama administration hopes to strike a deal with European Union to resolve a longstanding dispute over EU barriers to U.S. beef from cattle raised with artificial growth hormones, but those talks are "complex," Vilsack said.

It also is evaluating a dairy industry request to once again subsidize dairy exports, but other action the U.S. Agriculture Department has taken recently to support dairy prices may be enough, Vilsack said.

(Reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by David Gregorio)

New Democrats press Harper to reassess GMO regulations
• Government should stop relying on industry self regulation

New Democrats Party (Canada), 27 March 2009:
http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-press-harper-to-reassess-gmo-regulations

OTTAWA - New Democrat Leader Jack Layton and Agriculture Critic Alex Atamanenko are calling on the Prime Minister to reassess government regulations around genetically modified foods. At issue are concerns regarding the advisability of relying on the biotech industry's own science to determine the way in which genetically modified food are regulated in Canada.

In a letter sent to Harper, Layton points to an independent study by French scientists who, after studying the effects of the most common Roundup formulations on human cells, found that when the individual compounds were used in mixtures they became deadly.

"These respected scientists have raised the alarm that current regulations are built around single compounds and do not take this phenomenon into account," said Layton. "Given the increased use and presence of Roundup in the food chain we must take these findings seriously."

"The fundamentals on which the economic and regulatory foundation has been built to govern this powerful technology are systematically being questioned by the scientific community," noted Atamanenko. "For instance it was once believed that genes operate independently of each other in predictable and controllable ways. Scientists now say that because genes interact in such a complex network they have no idea how things will turn out."

Atamanenko and Layton also urged the government to rescind the impending approvals for GM Sugar Beets and Alfalfa given the obvious lack of understanding about the technology in the scientific community including its safety.

GMOs Banned from Delaware Wildlife Refuge

Red Green and Blue, 27 March 2009. By Kay Sexton:
http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/27/gmos-banned-from-delaware-wildlife-refuge/

The US Fish & Wildlife Service has been told by a Federal Court that it must stop planting genetically modified crops at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge on the west shore of the Delaware Bay. There are more than eighty other national wildlife refuges growing genetically modified crops and this landmark ruling may be used to prevent them continuing the research plantings.

Bush appointee overruled refuge manager

The case was brought by a consortium of organisations: the Delaware Audubon Society, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Food Safety and claimed that the Fish & Wildlife Service had entered into Cooperative Farming Agreements with private parties illegally, meaning that the hundreds of acres that had been ploughed and planted had not had the necessary environmental review before change of use and that the Service had abrogated its stated policy which prohibits planting of genetically modified or genetically engineered crops. The consortium filed the suit when it emerged, in 2006, that a Bush administration appointee had reversed the decision of the Refuge Manager, insisting that the genetically modified crops should be allowed. During the period since then, the Fish & Wildlife Service has actually altered the policy wording to allow greater planting of genetically engineered crops on any of its refuges.

Seed company funding supports refuge infrastructure

An assertion in the suit was that 'Genetically modified crops serve no legitimate refuge purpose and have no business being grown there' and highlights a greater debate being fought out every year between refuge managers and seed companies.

While farming within wildlife refuges can often damage the protection of wildlife and the native plant species that the refuge system was established to protect, funding for refuges is limited and finding enough money to pay for the salaries necessary to protect and conserve fragile habitats or rare species can be a headache. Seed companies can pay very well for the right to farm crops on refuge land, and their money helps pay for vehicles, salaries and equipment.

In the Delaware case, the judge decided that '... it is undisputed that farming with genetically modified crops at Prime Hook poses significant environmental risks.' This means that no more agriculture of any kind can be undertaken on the refuge until the proposed farming has been checked for compatibility with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act have been carried out.

GM foods awareness on politicians is difficult

Express Buzz (India), 27 March 2009:
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=GM+foods+awareness+on+politicians+is+difficult&artid=veqj9vU|cYs=&SectionID=mvKkT3vj5ZA=&MainSectionID=fyV9T2jIa4A=&SectionName=nUFeEOBkuKw=&SEO=

BHUBANESWAR: In his usual best, ace Bollywood director and producer Mahesh Bhatt today said issues never remain permanently with the politicians as they can 'sway sides where lies money'.

Bhatt, who was here to attend the screening of his documentary on hazards of GM foods, also admitted that even generating awareness among the legislators on such a serious topic like genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has become 'very difficult'.

The Bollywood personality, who earlier came to Orissa following the 1999 super cyclone and the recent communal tension in Kandhamal, said his documentary 'Poison on the Platter', directed by Ajay Kanchan, was basically 'to press the panic button' in society so that everyone including the politicians take note of the negative impact of GM foods and crops during the election time.

"Fear serves as a basic emotional tool and without it a person would become somewhat pathological. But as the 'fear factors' of the GM varieties are overlooked or made to be treated as 'non-existent' by the efforts of the companies and marketing bodies concerned, the politicians have a greater role to play," he said.

As to why Bollywood sirens are failing to make a mark in politics, Bhatt said J. Jayalalithaa is very much successful in it. "I have no discrimination based on language. Never discriminate between Tamil, Telugu, Oriya and Bengali as for the film industry every actor is a part of the nation," he said.

On his possible campaigning for any political party or 'front', the film-maker said as a Bollywood personality he does have a 'role beyond box-office' and for that cause he started campaigning against the GM food, but he never thinks that he can join any political party or campaign for it. For a possible project in Oriya or relating to Orissa, he said though some ideas were discussed with actor-director Nandita Das sometime back, currently there is no such plan, adding, however, if the film-makers would come forward, then he is ready to help.

Consumers unsure of benefits of new food technologies - study

Food Navigator.com, 27 March 2009. By Jane Byrne:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Publications/Food-Beverage-Nutrition/FoodProductionDaily.com/Quality-Safety/Consumers-unsure-of-benefits-of-new-food-technologies-study/?c=4UZvOL3vyw3BZ%2FkiUZcNjg%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

GM food and animal cloning are the emerging food technologies that give rise to most concerns due to the fact that they represent the greatest departure from what are perceived to be 'natural' or 'traditional' foods, claims a report from the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA).

And consumer response to new food technologies such as nanotechnology, irradiation and novel food processes including pulsed light techniques and high pressure processing are frequently driven by emotions rather than facts, claims a newly published review of existing literature from the UK food safety agency.

The aim of the review, said FSA, was to assess research published online since 1999 from the UK and beyond in order to evaluate public opinion on the technologies, the factors that shape consumer views in this regard and how those views affect food choices.

Limited scope

However, the food safety body noted gaps in the available research, concluding that while a large body of evidence is available on public attitudes to GM foods, evidence of consumer perception of the other technologies is a lot more limited.

Based on the data collated, the findings show that consumers, in general, are wary when they are not sure about the benefits and risks of an application.

However the report also found that "food technologies tended not to be a burning issue for the vast majority of people and often did not generate strong opinions."

Meanwhile, the technology with the lowest level of consumer understanding was irradiation, claims the review.

"Given a lack of knowledge about emerging food technologies, people seem to rely on their pre-existing knowledge and values to form judgements about the technologies they are questioned on," stated the author.

Trust factor

The review also highlighted that the media, government and industry tend to be the least trusted sources of information about emerging food technologies, with consumers particularly sceptical about the motives of big business.

"Trust in these institutions does vary according to location. US consumers, for example, have higher levels of trust in their regulator than European consumers," claims the review.

In addition, the study concludes that women and older people have been found to have the highest levels of concern about emerging processing techniques, but the report stressed that personality characteristics such as attitudes towards technology in general, attitudes towards health and nutrition and cultural values are better predictors of attitudes than demographic characteristics.

Purchasing decisions

The findings also show that attitudes towards novel food processes interact with other considerations such as price and taste when people make food purchasing decisions - while price, for example, may be the top priority for one person, for someone else concern over a processing method may overcome cost considerations.

"At the same time, attitudes towards a processing method have been shown to influence people's expectations of whether or not they will like the taste of a product processed using that method," concludes the study.

Recommendations

The agency said the findings will help to shape the direction of its work with government departments and the European Commission in relation to assessing new information and potential hazards associated with the future use of these technologies in the food sector.

According to FSA, a yearly or six monthly tracker survey on public attitudes to these technologies should be implemented to gauge how consumer reaction might change over time.

In addition, as many of the studies the agency looked at were based on small samples from quite narrow populations and tended not to combine qualitative and quantitative research, the safety body said that further testing should be carried out with nationally representative populations, with the results of this then combined with new qualitative research.

It also called for new field experiments to further research in the area of consumer purchasing behaviour.

The FSA review can be downloaded here http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/emergingfoodtech.pdf.

Vatican GM study week a PR stunt

Catholic News, 27 March 2009:
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=12645

In a supposedly Catholic context, the absence from the Study Week of long time Catholic commentators on the dangers inherent in GM foods is of note. As always in this type of public relations, the plight of the poor and hungry is trotted out as the major concern. This is a deception. The charter of every biotech company demands that its first task is to make a profit for shareholders.

Sadly, the Study Week booklet opens with a photo of Pope Benedict XVI with arms out stretched to the poor, seeming to embrace GM. However, even Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has changed his previous stance on the possible benefits of GMOs. He said that responsibility for the world food crisis is in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people (L'Osservatore Romano January 1 2009).

Many farmers and environmentalists in Australia have campaigned for years on economic and labelling issues to do with the commercialisation of GM crops. Wanting the truth, they have supported comparative studies proposed by the Western Australian Government but rejected by the biotech companies. They have asked for public assessment of the supposed scientific evidence presented by the biotech companies to government regulatory authorities. Now pro-GM voices are ducking for cover in the light of the outcomes of National Variety Trials showing that GM canola yields less than non-GM counterparts (Stock and Land 22 January 2009). Sadly, these campaigners have received little support from the churches. The Columban DVD Unjust Genes has been a lonely voice. - Fr Charles Rue, St Columban's Mission Society E-News.

[See full article below]

Vatican Academy to help save GM Foods

St. Columbans Mission Society, Australia and New Zealand Region, 27 March 2009. By Fr Charles Rue:
http://www.columban.org.au/opinion-vatican-academy-to-help-save-gm-foods.html

A Study Week to be held at the Vatican in May 2009 entitled 'Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development' is apparently a public relations exercise by biotech companies.

A tactic to receive Vatican endorsement for Genetically Modified Organism (GMOs) failed on 24 September 2004 when the US Embassy to the Holy See and the Pontifical Academy of Science co-hosted an event but the effort has re-emerged. The biotech companies see the Vatican as a target to be 'white-anted', this time during the Study Week to destroy processes of regulations for the breeding, testing and labelling of transgenic foods.

In an Introduction to the booklet outlining the topics and speakers for the Study Week, Prof. Ingo Potrykus, Chairman of the Swiss based Humanitarian Golden Rice Board and Network, stated, 'Changing societal attitudes, including the regulatory processes involved, is extremely important if we are to save biotechnology'. This statement is both blatant and alarming.

Prof. Potrykus returns several times to the topic of dismantling the regulatory system for transgenic food production and consumption. He blames it for impeding the spread of potential benefits to be gained from adopting biotechnology in agriculture. He judges regulation processes to be bureaucratic and unwarranted by science, and introduces a new phrase in the attack on regulations - driven by 'extreme precaution'.

Prof. Potrykus admits that this particular Study Week is not a standard 'science' meeting. He claims that opposition to biotechnology in agriculture is usually ideological, however, it is obvious from his introduction that the Study Week is ideologically biased towards advancing the dominance of agriculture by Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). This Study Week will not be an unbiased assessment of health and bio-diversity aspects of GMOs, or sustainability of agricultural systems.

The pro-GM line up of speakers at the Study Week is revealing. It appears that every speaker is a proponent of GM crops, sometimes militantly so, as is the case of Dr. Peter Raven and Dr. C.S. Prakesh.

In a supposedly Catholic context, the absence from the Study Week of long time Catholic commentators on the dangers inherent in GM foods is of note. Also absent are representatives from peak Catholic bodies like Caritas International, and Catholic development agencies, such as CAFOD in Britain.

As always in this type of public relations, the plight of the poor and hungry is trotted out as the major concern of the Study Week and Biotech industry. This is a deception. The charter of every biotech company demands that its first task is to make a profit for shareholders, Biotech company executives are not friends of the poor.

Sadly, the Study Week booklet opens with a photo of Pope Benedict XVI with arms out stretched to the poor, seeming to embrace GM. However, even Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has changed his previous stance on the possible benefits of GMOs. He said that responsibility for the world food crisis is in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people (L'Osservatore Romano 1 Jan 2009).

Many farmers and environmentalists in Australia have campaigned for years on economic and labelling issues to do with the commercialisation of GM crops. Wanting the truth, they have supported comparative studies proposed by the Western Australian Government but rejected by the biotech companies. They have asked for public assessment of the supposed scientific evidence presented by the biotech companies to government regulatory authorities. Now pro-GM voices are ducking for cover in the light of the outcomes of National Variety Trials showing that GM canola yields less than non-GM counterparts (Stock and Land 22 Jan. 2009). Sadly, these campaigners have received little support from the Churches. The Columban DVD Unjust Genes has been a lonely voice.

Real solutions to sustainable development and feeding the world in a time of declining oil production and rapid climate change do exist. For example, in 2008 the United Nation agencies United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published 'Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa'. The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) in April 2008 published similar alternatives.

Fr Charles Rue is the Coordinator of Columban Justice Peace Integrity and Creation (JPIC) charlesrue@columban.org.au

Download:

Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study Week
Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development
15-19 May 2009
Casina Pio IV
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/booklet_transgenic_09.pdf

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences Continues Foolhardy Biotechnology Advocacy

Columban Missionaries, 27 March 2009 (first published 19 February 2009). David Andrews, CSC:
http://www.columban.com/biotechnolocy_advocacy.html

On January 2 2009, Carol Glatz of the Catholic News Service, reported from Vatican City that Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said the scandal of hunger in the world continues to be of concern. Famine and lack of nutrition are to be blamed on the poor distribution of plentiful foodstuffs.

The responsibility for the food crisis "is in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people," said Cardinal Martino. A more just system of distribution and not the manufacturing of genetically modified foods is the key to addressing the problem, he said. "If one wants to pursue GMOs (genetically modified organisms) one can freely do so, but without hiding that it's a way to make more profits," he said.

Utilizing genetically modified foods calls for "prudence" because genetically modifying organisms can increase yields in some instances, he said, but people must not abuse their power to be able to manipulate nature. This certainly is a move to a more cautious view of GMOs on the part of the Vatican. In earlier statements GMOs were given a "yellow light", meaning to go with caution. It is clearly a restatement of long term Vatican policy that distribution and social justice are major concerns of the Holy See's food and farm policies rather than the endorsing the encouragement of more production, or the use of biotechnology to increase production.

The official policy of the Vatican is at odds with the continuing advocacy by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for biotechnology as a solution to development issues and for world hunger. In September of 2004 the Pontifical Academy of Sciences co-sponsored a conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University with the United States Embassy to the Holy See entitled: "Feeding a Hungry World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology." That meeting and its focus shocked a number of Catholic commentators, including me, then the Executive Director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference and the Peace and Justice Coordinator for the Congregation of Holy Cross. The Columban theologian, Sean McDonogh criticized it at the time as did Jesuits working in Zambia, Ronald Lessup, SJ and Peter Henriot, SJ who operate a social justice and agricultural development program. The policy promoted by the Pontifical Academy is contrary to the strong statements from the South African Bishops, Bishops of the Philippines, Bishops from Brazil, and a number of other places about the moral concerns associated with agricultural biotechnology. Grassroots networks of Catholic farmers in the International Federation of Adult Catholic Rural Movements (FIMARC), based in Belgium and the International Catholic Rural Association (ICRA) based at the Vatican have both published critiques of biotechnology in agriculture. Monsignor Biagio Notarangelo, ecclesiastical advisor to ICRA, well known in Vatican Offices, commented that biotechnology encourages a "new colonialism" in an ethical evaluation he presented to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The Catholic bishops of the United States in their "For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food" on food and agricultural policy have a rather nuanced approach to genetic modification of seeds for food. They certainly never touted it as a "silver bullet" or a moral imperative. And when I served as an agricultural policy adviser to them, it was clear to me that there was not a lot of sympathy for Colin Powell when he asked the Vatican to silence the Jesuits Lessup and Henriot when the United States wanted to give GMO grain for food relief in Zambia.

Now we learn that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is organizing another pro-GMO conference, this time in a Study Week, in Rome from May 15-19, 2009. The title of the 2009 Study Week is "Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development." It is important to recognize that this program is about food security and development. Even the Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA), led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, are not talking about the necessity of GMOs, they are talking mostly about high quality local seeds from African sources. As AGRA's literature says, their seeds will be "home grown." The linking of food security and development is an effort by companies like Monsanto to further their own goals, to make a profit, as Cardinal Martino states. Monsanto has been very keen to secure the support of the Holy See by adopting a moral perspective. Even where it has not secured the Holy See's official support, the veneer or semblance of such will be touted as a factual demonstration of support. The Pontifical Academy seems to be a willing mouthpiece and launching pad.

When I complained in 2004 about the conference in Rome, to the head of the Pontifical Academy, I was told then to remember that the Pontifical Academy was a place of debate; nothing official was being stated there. This time around, having a weeklong study week with totally one-sided presentations is far from a debate. The general public doesn't know what is official and what is non-official, when Rome speaks, they listen. Companies like Monsanto don't make those distinctions between official and non-official for the public. In 2004 people who were not invited to the event managed to provide the public an alternative perspective by going to the press. Since I was one of the critics at the time, the Catholic press and various websites did manage to get out a different perspective and even spokespersons for the Peace and Justice Office, including Monsignor Frank Dewane, (now bishop of Venice, Florida) told me that when he advised a theologian from the Legionnaires of Christ who was speaking on the program that GMOs were not a silver bullet to solve world hunger, the theologian got very upset. At the time of the conference I spoke with Archbishop Raymond Burke, then the Archbishop of Saint Louis and a strong critic of biotechnology and corporate control in agriculture. He had been the President of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. He told me that shortly after he arrived in Saint Louis he met Peter Raven at a social event. Raven approached him and said: "Archbishop, I understand that you are opposed to GMOs." The Archbishop told him, that, yes, he was. And, Raven answered: "I'm going to convert you." Archbishop Burke wrote to the Secretary of State of the Vatican to object to Raven's membership in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Secretary of State at the time wrote back to say that Burke's predecessor, the late Archbishop John May, had been the one who suggested him.

Peter Raven is the director of the Botanical Garden of Saint Louis. He has been the recipient of significant amounts of funds from the Monsanto Corporation, also headquartered in Saint Louis. Peter Raven, when speaking at a conference of the National Religious Partnership on the Environment that I attended, introduced himself as having a "Catholic background." At that time he was accompanied by his fourth wife, just having divorced his third wife, who had a position as a public relations director for Monsanto. The Catholic "background" doesn't include the "family values" of the Holy See. But, Peter Raven has been finding it easy to give voice to his ideas within selected walls of the Vatican. At the conference in the Gregorian University in 2004, Dr. Peter Raven tried to persuade his audience that raising questions about the terminator gene technology was both "emotional and irrational." The terminator seed would have a profoundly negative impact on subsistence farmers. Most of the world's work is agriculture; most of those workers are women. These farmers and their families comprise most of the world's hungry now. The terminator technology exposes the spurious claims of the pro-GMO lobby, including the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that "feeding the world", rather than making astronomical profits is the primary goal of biotech corporations. Terminator seeds would strike a blow to the world's subsistence farmers whose number including their families is in the billions. That focus on profit was the focus of Cardinal Martino's comments in early January. They simply repeat the words of the Holy See in its 1999 World Food Summit in Rome where it said the following: "There are also many large-scale "structures of sin" which steer the goods of the earth away from their true purpose, that of serving the good of all, toward private and sterile ends in a process which spreads contagiously." That analysis was presented in a document on world hunger entitled "World Hunger: A Challenge for All: Development in Solidarity." Surely the focus of proponents of biotechnology such as are represented in this study week are not really concerned about moral issues. They are concerned, as Martino says, about profit.

In the statement of John Paul II for the Jubilee of the agricultural world in November, 2000 we find a very clear observation on biotechnology in agriculture: "This is a principle to be remembered in agricultural production itself, whenever there is a question of its advance through the application of biotechnologies, which cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of immediate economic interests. They must be submitted beforehand to rigorous scientific and ethical examination, to prevent them from becoming disastrous for human health and the future of the earth." This is far from thinking of biotechnology as the solution to world hunger and central to development.

The role of biotechnology giant, Monsanto, in all of this cannot be underestimated. Monsanto has something like monopoly in GMO seeds. It has bought out rivals. It has a long history of litigation to reach its goal of dominance. It goes after farmers that it thinks have replanted its seeds. Currently it is investigating many farmers in the Midwestern section of the United States. Monsanto has opposed legislation in the United States aimed at limiting its monopoly position such as the competition policy proposed in federal legislation. Where Monsanto fights through legal means, it also fights through claiming the terms utilized by its organic and sustainable agriculture opponents. It is now claiming that it deserves the term sustainability. It has run full-page ads in major newspapers claiming that biotechnology is sustainable agriculture. This is the very point of Peter Raven's speech at the study week, as it was in 2004, biodiversity is enhanced, not diminished, by biotechnology.

Where Monsanto cannot fight you, it claims to join you. These are the machinations of Monsanto, willingly put on the world stage as a claim for feeding hungry people and in the name of development. Such claims need to be challenged. Certainly it should not be provided the veneer of responsible policy at the Holy See. It is as unseemly as giving welcome to the deniers of the Holocaust. If fully implemented, these views would create a new holocaust among the billions of the world's poor farmers and their communities, not to speak of the havoc to be reaped on earth itself.

It is surprising to me that the Pontifical Academy of Science seems mindlessly unaware of the recent scientific studies on the capacity of agro-ecology and organic agriculture to address the issues of hunger and poverty. The International Agreement on Science and Technology in Agriculture (IAASTD) was a four-year study with 400 experts funded for twelve million dollars by the World Bank that released its report in April of 2008. It has a central report and five regional reports. It was a project that Monsanto requested of the World Bank. The results though ran counter to what Monsanto hoped for. Monsanto was hoping to have these 400 scientists, economists, sociologists, indigenous people, farmers to come to the conclusion that biotechnology was the silver bullet to solve hunger and poverty. Instead the group found that agro-ecology was more of the solution. So, Monsanto walked out. Now they are turning to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to do for them what IAASTD did not do. I suspect that its sponsorship will not redound to the credit of this facility within the Holy See. I think the word of Cardinal Martino about the unscrupulous has relevance here. That is a tragedy. It would be better for the Pontifical Academy to cancel the study week, or at minimum, to host a dialogue between some of the members of the IAASTD study and their biotechnology proponents. That at least would provide a meaningful debate. Instead it has moved into the position of advocacy and enabling virulent efforts to convert countries to adopt GMOs. The conference participants will be marshaled to carry forth in every part of the world efforts to grow GMOs. It is strange that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is allowing itself to be used in this way, contrary to the official policies of the Holy See on agriculture, poverty and hunger in light of a development agenda. It is indeed, a sad state of affairs.

---

Comment from Roberto Verzola, Organic campaigner in the Philippines:

I'd like to share a point about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which was explained to us by the Papal Nuncio to the Philippines when we sought an audience with him, to express our concerns about the pro-GM stance apparently taken by the academy. This is his explanation, from my recollection:

He said that this academy is a completely independent body, although convened under the auspices of the Vatican. They are very careful not to intervene with its processes, lest they be accused of interfering with scientific discussion. The pontifical academy is completely free to come out with whatever conclusions its processes lead to, even if these may be contrary to church teachings. He recalled that under its auspices, some work on birth control for instance has been taken up in the past. He emphasized that whatever position the pontifical academy takes does not reflect the Vatican position.

Still, we did raise the concern about the one-sided presentation of scientific concerns in the pontifical academy, which mostly contained the pro-GM position and ignored the findings of independent scientists. The Nuncio asked us to put our concerns in writing, taking into account his explanation, so that he may pass it on to his superiors.

So, it appears that the GM industry saw an opportunity to use the name Pontifical Academy, hijacked its well-intentioned processes, to push its own anti-scientific agenda within.

---

Comment by GM Watch:

The points made above by David Andrews and Roberto Verzola about the unrepresentative nature of the Pontifical Academy have of course been greatly reinforced by the Pope's recent warning (in the Instrumentum Laboris) about the threat from GMOs.

[For details see "Bishop Sanchez's position on GMOs untenable" by Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC, under 25 March below.]

26 March 2009

Hunger strike to stop GMOs in Poland

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, 26 March 2009:

In Poland for the last few days eight people have been continuing a hunger-strike against GMO. The strike was initiated by two organic farmers: Mrs Edyta Jaroszewska and Mrs Danuta Pilarska. One person has not been eating for 15 days. They are protesting against uncontrolled genetically modified crops, especially MON 810 and widely used GMO animal fodder. Support their action and send the letter to Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

More information about the action and the letter:
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/stop-the-crop-action/pl.html and
http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/eng_index.php?id=eng_alert

SC seeks clarifications from Govt on GMO regulation

Financial Express March 26 2009. By Ashok B. Sharma:
http://tiny.cc/ZYgDA

New Delhi -- India's apex court has sought clarifications from three Union ministries - agriculture, department of biotechnology (under ministry of science and technology) and environment and forests - about government's regulatory process for genetically modified (GM) crops and its implementation.

The special bench of the Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice, KG Balakrishnan, Justice Ashok Ganguly and Justice JM Panchal on Thursday in the course of the hearing acted on two rejoinders to the petition filed by the Convenor of the Gene Campaign, Suman Sahai in September 26, 2008 calling for a direct review of all the approvals for field trials and commercialization of GM crops given by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) and grant of moratorium on GM crop trials until proper regulatory processes were put in place.

The apex court also sought clarifications from US seed multinational, Monsanto's Indian partner, Mahyco.

Gene Campaign had filed its original petition in 2004 and a year later on the similar lines a public interest litigation was jointly filed by Aruna Rodrigues, PV Satheesh and Rajeev Baruah. The Supreme Court has clubbed both these cases for hearing. The next hearing of the case is slated on April 29, 2009.

The counsel for Aruna Rodrigues and others, Prashant Bhushan said, "The advocate appearing on behalf of the government assured that there are no immediate plans for commercialization of Bt brinjal. The crop is in the process of field trials."

The counsel for the Gene Campaign, Sanjay Parekh said: "We had filed two rejoinders to our petition last year and the apex court acting on our rejoinders has sought clarifications from the Union ministries of agriculture and environment and forests and from the department of biotechnology (DBT)."

The Convenor of Gene Campaign, Suman Sahai alleged that the field trials of Mahyco's Bt rice in Jharkhand has violated all biosafety norms. There was a likelihood of genetic contamination of non-GM rice grown in the area. This was unfortunate as the eastern India alongwith Jharkhand was considered to be one of the centres of origin for rice, she said.

India's approval of GM crops had also raised eyebrows in the countries of its export destination. Russia for instance had imposed a temporary ban on Indian rice and sought clarification whether GM rice was exported.

---

Comment from Aruna Rodrigues:

We were in court for just about half an hour during which time the court understood the thrust of the case before it based on the Petitioners July application covering Dr Bhargava's deliberations with the GEAC (India's apex GM regulatory committee), the Govt reply and our Rejoinders and the Austrian study. Therefore, the case will be heard next month as there was no time yesterday.

However, an exchange of comments initiated by our counsel P Bhushan, made it quite clear that we wanted the Court to rule that no Bt brinjal (aubergine / eggplant) would be released in the meantime by the GEAC as this was the great threat looming over the country.

Therefore the Chief Justice asked opposing counsel whether the GEAC were about to commercialise Bt B. Whereupon, on confering, opposing Counsel made in effect the following statement: There are no plans on the anvil to commercialise Bt brinjal.

[Monsanto applies for field trials of GM crops in Sweden and Romania:]

Deliberate releases and placing on the EU market of GMOs: 9 new summary notifications have been published today.

SeedQuest, 26 March 2009:
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2009/march/25616.htm

Brussels, Belgium
March 26, 2009

The following summary notifications (Plants) have been published today:

B/SE/09/2058 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/SE/09/2058
The photosynthetic genome
Note: this experiment would release Thale cress (a member of the Brassica family) with deficient or suppressed photosynthesis!]

B/RO/09/01 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/RO/09/01
Notification for the deliberate release of genetically modified MON-’’6’3-6 maize

B/RO/09/02 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/RO/09/02
Notification for the deliberate release of genetically modified DP-’9814’-6xDAS-59122-7 maize into the environment

B/RO/09/03 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/RO/09/03
Field trials with genetically modified insect resistant and herbicide tolerant Bt11xMIR162xMIR604xGA21 maize

B/RO/09/04 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/RO/09/04
Field trials with genetically modified insect resistant MIR162 maize

B/RO/09/05 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/RO/09/05
Notification according to Directive 2001/18/EC, Part B, for the deliberate release of MON 89034 ? 1507 ? MON 88017 ? 59122 for the use in field trials in Romania.

B/RO/09/06 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/RO/09/06
Notification according to Directive 2001/18/EC, Part B, for the deliberate release of MON 89034 ? NK603 for the use in field trials in Romania

B/RO/09/07 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/RO/09/07
Notification according to Directive 2001/18/EC, Part B, for the deliberate release of NK603 x MON 810 maize for the use in field trials in Romania

B/RO/09/08 http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/RO/09/08
Notification according to Directive 2001/18/EC, Part B, for the deliberate release of NK603 maize for the use in field trials in Romania

To access the summary notifications please visit: http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_browse.aspx

Pop Science & Propaganda: The GM Debate Revisited

CommonDreams.org, 26 March 2009. By Edward Targett:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/26-4

When the British government last week ordered its chief scientist to conduct a review of the merits of genetically modified (GM) crops, those involved in the long running debate over the controversial technology were unsurprised.

Designated a "wealth creator" and future growth industry by the government, biotechnology was unlikely to disappear despite widespread public opposition to the technology and the announcement was soon followed by all the standard tropes of the now-familiar debate.

Amol Rajan at The Independent welcomed the "new campaign against hysteria, irrationality, and stupidity in relation to GM food" while Clare Oxborrow, the senior food campaigner at Friends of the Earth lambasted ministers for an "obsession with GM as a techno-fix solution to problems in food and farming."

This time however, advocates of GM crops turned to a report they hoped could buttress their position with a no-nonsense scientific dismissal of widespread concerns; a essay by Dr. Matt Ridley titled "genetically modified crops and the perils of rejecting innovation."

The article - a chapter in the 134-page book "Science vs. Superstition" published by centre-right think tank the Policy Exchange - was lauded by commentators as a "superb and meticulous critique of today's anti-science and anti-industrial forces."

From the title onwards it was clear there was little truck for nuance in the publication; this was a "with us or against us" case of empiricism versus the hobgoblins of the pre-modern mind and Ridley, a former science editor of the Economist and banker with a doctorate in zoology, ploughed confidently into his exposition on GM crops.

"Genetically modified crops are an unnecessary, dangerous and untested innovation, bad for the environment and cynically foisted upon farmers and consumers for profit by multinational firms, or so goes the conventional European wisdom," Ridley jibed, before the dČnouement: "Here I demonstrate that every one of these assertions is untrue."

Confidence in any author is an admirable trait, but a closer inspection of the paper raised a number of worryingly obvious lacunae. Ridley was non-executive chairman of failed British bank Northern Rock at the time it was taken into administration after a run on its finances, and his essay follows a remarkably similar trajectory to his bank: its reach extends its grasp and the confidence of those maintaining an interest dissolves after a closer look at the facts and figures.

Most clearly problematic at first glance is his claim that "almost by definition all crop plants are genetically modified" and that transgenic (GM) plants are "kinder, more precise and gentler than mutation breeding."

Dr Mae Wan Ho, a former reader in Biology at the Open University and currently director of the Institute for Science in Society is scathing about this claim:

"GM makes artificial synthetic combinations of sequences that never existed in billions of years of evolution. The constructs are created to invade genomes, and there is now definitive evidence that they integrate randomly, but preferentially into active regions of the genome, typically in rearranged, scrambled forms, causing mutations and sequence scrambling, not only at the site of insertion, but genome-wide." She responded.

"This process is uncontrollable and unpredictable, and so are the unintended effects due to new gene products being made, new toxins, new species of regulatory nucleic acids being unleashed, etc. To make things worse, the transgenic lines are unstable, which makes proper safety assessment well nigh impossible."

Ridley dismisses one of the few concrete examples of scientific testing he refers to on the potential side-effects of GM crops with the cursory comment that the scientist concerned, Arpad Pusztai, was "discredited." This is highly debatable. A decade after Pusztai first raised concern about the effects GM potatoes had on rats in his laboratory, his experiments continue to polarize scientific opinion, but what is beyond doubt is that after an initial firestorm, Pusztai - a world renowned expert on plant lectins and author of more than 270 papers - was prevented from continuing his work, forced out of his job and effectively gagged.

Dr Michael Antoniou, a geneticist at King College, London, in unimpressed with Ridley's comment. "I can reassure you that Arpad Pusztai's work was first rate and appropriately controlled and internally consistent. His data stands as valid," he writes. "P.S. I don't know who Matt Ridley is. What qualifies him to write on the subject in such broad terms?"

This is hardly the resounding vote of confidence one might expect from a scientific peer, but such a response may be partially explained by Ridley's tendency to construct some monumental straw men.

"Nostalgic urban dwellers would prefer farmers to leave fields fallow, to grow oats for horses, to tolerate cornflowers in wheat and bees in clover, and not to pollute streams with nitrate run-off" he steams; rhetoric so far removed from the actual debate over GM that one wonders at his motives almost as much as at his prose. (And does he think polluting streams is a good idea?)

As Professor Peter Saunders at Kings College writes, "I don't know anyone who opposes research into agriculture. On the contrary, one of the most serious objections to GMOs is that they divert attention and resources from research (into sustainable agriculture.) That's especially true of GMOs: there may be a better solution to a problem (like intercropping instead of insecticides) but if it isn't patentable there's nothing in it for companies - or, increasingly, for universities and research institutes, who are also expected to make profits."

The notion that GM crops might pose a threat to sustainable agriculture or organic farmers is one that Ridley dismisses in seven short, remarkable lines. In response to the concerns of organic farmers that their crops could face cross-pollination or contamination by GM crops he writes the following:

"By the early 2000s, many critics of GM crops had fallen back on a new argument, that pollen from GM crops somehow 'contaminated' their own organic crops. This was entirely self-inflicted. Organic farmers had suddenly made their own new rule, that their crops must have less than a certain trace of genes from GM plants to still qualify as organic. Lo and behold, this rule gave them a reason to object to neighbours using GM crops. Ingenious, and circular, reasoning!" The palpable irrationality of this comment hardly needs further magnification, but Percy Schmeiser would no-doubt have something to say.

In 1997 the independent canola farmer was sued by GM giant Monsanto for patent infringement after the corporation's Roundup ready canola was found growing on his farm as a result of cross-contamination. Whilst Ridley can dismiss cases such as this (and there are many) in seven lines, it took Schmeiser an 11-year legal battle to get Monsanto to admit liability and pay for clean-up costs.

The above are a mere handful of the problems with this supposedly "meticulous" article; one wonders if the Independent reviewer who termed it "the best recent essay in defence of the science behind GM foods" had read it.

Perhaps Ridley's work was 'subconsciously influenced' by his membership of the advisory council of Sense about Science; a charity which has come under fire for failing to disclose the industry affiliations of the experts it enlists.

The Times recently noted that eight of the contributors to the pamphlet are based at the John Innes Centre, which has received funding from biotech companies and that another contributor, Professor Vivian Moses is also the chairman of CropGen, a GM lobby croup that receives funding from the biotech industry. Matt Ridley is not known to have any affiliations with the industry and did not respond to a request for comment.

Whilst the failure of the Policy Review to note Ridley's membership of the charity's advisory board was no doubt oversight, Dr. Michael Antoniou, a geneticist at King's College London described Sense about Science's omissions to The Times as "outrageous" and Professor Guy Cook of the Open University noted that such failures of transparency "deal a severe blow to... authority of science, which rests upon rationality, objectivity, evidence and disinterest."

Indeed. With friends like these, the biotech industry must be wondering who needs enemies.

Edward Targett works for South Korea's newswire Yonhap News Agency as a copy-editor and reporter. He graduated from London University's School of Oriental and African studies with a first class bachelors degree in Politics. He has interned at the International Crisis Group, worked for an eco-village in Australia, volunteered for an NGO in Malawi and has a long running interest in environmental issues.

Pope's comments on Africa

The Irish Times (Letters), 26 March 2009:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0326/1224243450529.html

Madam,

When Pope Benedict XVI speaks on issues of sexual morality sections of the media go into a frenzy of disparagement. When he highlights issues of social justice, as he did when he introduced the working document for the Synod of Bishops for Africa at Mass in Yaounde, Cameroon on March 19th, the media largely ignore what he says.

That document, which grew out of an extensive consultation with all the dioceses in Africa, criticises multinational corporations that continue to "systematically invade the continent in search of natural resources". It points out that Africa's rights are infringed by nations seeking control of its enormous mining reserves.

It issues a strong warning against thinking that genetically modified crops will solve Africa's food crisis. Using GM crops risks ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of sharing seeds and makes farmers dependent on production companies. Why are these important and pertinent insights ignored by the media?

Yours, etc,

Fr Seán McDonagh,

Navan, Co Meath.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The owner of the Irish Times - the Irish Times Trust - is headed by David McConnell, who also happens to be Co-Chair of EAGLES - European Action on Global Life Sciences (http://www.efb-eagles.org), a biotech lobby group funded by the European Federation of Biotechnology. Chaired by former World Bank Vice-president Dr. Serageldin, EAGLES perpetuates the biotech industry myth that GM technology will end world hunger and "solve the problems of illness, starvation and environmental degradation". EAGLES used its supposed concern for such humanitarian causes to seek EC funding from taxpayers in 2003. The request was turned down.

David McConnell is also Professor of Genetics at Trinity College Dublin's Smurfit Institute of Genetics (which also receives biotech industry funding). Known as "God" by TCD students amused by his dogmatic personality, Prof. McConnell is widely regarded as a hard-line GM fundamentalist who refuses to admit or discuss the existence of any scientific evidence of GM risks.

Although the Irish Times denies any editorial influence by McConnell, this conflict of interest may explain why Ireland's "newspaper of record" gives minimal coverage to the GM debate and why its rare articles on GM issues fail to provide any substantive coverage of the negative health, agronomic, ecological, economic, legal, and food security impacts of GM food and farming.

For more on this, see "Irish Times slammed for bias on GM issues: Irresponsible journalism stifles informed debate - Conflict of interest with biotech lobby group" (GM-free Ireland press release, 25 October 2007) at http://www.GMfreeireland.org/press/GMFI37.pdf.

Biotech seed bill tabled by Montana senators

Associated Press, 26 March 2009. By Kahrin Deines:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gE61B6LHmZRyYsT3HtZKRbJqoa0gD975IP981

HELENA, Mont. (AP) - A Montana Senate committee has sidelined a bill that sought standards for how biotech companies test crops for patent infringement, burying the measure after members attended a private dinner also attended by biotech giant Monsanto Co. representatives.

The Senate Agriculture Committee's action on Tuesday provoked charges of unfairness after news emerged of the dinner, which was attended by most of the committee at a private club in Helena.

The bill would have required Monsanto and other companies to get permission from a farmer before taking a sample from their crops. If the farmer denied permission, the company could seek a court order. Under the measure, either the farmer or the company could also ask the state Department of Agriculture to oversee the sampling.

The bill was tabled on a 6-3 vote.

The St. Louis-based Monsanto did not offer public testimony about the bill but did express its opposition in private at the dinner, according to committee chairman state Sen. Donald Steinbeisser, R-Sidney. Five of nine committee members attended the dinner, paid for by another bill opponent.

"The lobbyists wanted to inform the committee of their concerns, and that's all it was about," Steinbeisser said.

A nonprofit North Dakota-based group known as Growers for Biotechnology said it picked up the tab and sent out the invitations.

Democratic Rep. Betsy Hands, the bill's sponsor, blasted the private meeting, saying "the cards were stacked" by the time the committee met for the bill's actual hearing.

Committee dinners are not illegal in Montana, but veteran lawmakers and lobbyists both said hosting such an event prior to a bill hearing is highly unusual.

The controversial measure discussed at the dinner split the state's farm lobby. It would have set rules for how companies such as Monsanto can test farmers' fields for what is known as seed piracy.

When farmers buy genetically engineered seeds, they must agree not to harvest and reuse them from year to year. Some farmers, however, argue that pollen can drift with wind and water, exposing small growers to expensive legal tussles with big biotech companies even when they are innocent.

"After the death penalty and horse slaughter bills, this is the largest number of communications I've had, and these are from farmers," said Sen. Cliff Larsen, D-Missoula, before voting in favor of the measure.

Opponents of the bill, which included both the Montana Farm Bureau and the Montana Agribusiness Association, told lawmakers it would discourage the development and sale of biotech products in the state.

"I don't want to lose any kind of research, whether it's the big boys like Monsanto or anyone else, because we have serious, serious problems out there," committee member Ken Hansen, D-Harlem, said in voting against the bill.

Nationals in ag policy tangle

Stock Journal (Australia), 26 March 2009. By Alisha Fogden:
http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/political/nationals-in-ag-policy-tangle/1469684.aspx

SOUTH Australian president of The Nationals Wilbur Klein's call this week to lift the moratorium on the growing of genetically-modified canola in South Australia has put him at odds with his party's parliamentary leader Karlene Maywald.

Mr Klein said there had been "more than enough debate" and a decision was needed to provide the State's farmers with the choice to use GM canola in their cropping rotations.

"The feel of the agriculture industry now is that we need to remove the moratorium to go forward," he said.

"With the changing climatic conditions, it is imperative that SA farmers have as many tools and choices as possible to maintain the viability of their farming enterprises. If we wait until next year for a decision, it will be two years before farmers will get the opportunity to use the technology.

"The science is there and needs to be accepted and acted upon."

Under present arrangements, SA has banned all GM crops until early 2010 when the moratorium will be reviewed.

But as The Nationals sole member of Parliament in SA, Ms Maywald said in a statement that she was not convinced.

"There is no compelling case put forward to suggest there is any advantage for SA growers to have access to these products," she said.

"It is my understanding that the State Government is watching to see how New South Wales and Victoria address the key issues of segregation and regulation in their states."

Newly-appointed Agriculture Minister Paul Caica confirmed the Labor government's ban on GM crops remained.

"The government considers the benefits of maintaining a prohibition on the cultivation of GM food crops outweighs any benefits of allowing it to lapse," he said.

Shadow Agriculture Minister Adrian Pederick said Mr Klein's comments highlighted a Nationals' split.

"His comments are totally contradictory to what the Member for Chaffey (Ms Maywald) is supporting in the Labor government," he said.

Agribusiness leaders back GM law

Business Daily Africa, 26 March 2009. By Steve Mbogo:
http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13662&Itemid=5813

Genetically modified foods will eventually provide answers to the food security situation in Kenya, according to agribusiness leaders.

Mr Michael Turner, the managing director of Actis East Africa, a private equity fund with interests in agribusiness and other sectors said GM technology will open up arid and semi arid land in Kenya to food production.

"Passing the biodiversity law was a good idea. We have to find a way of making use of more than half of the country which is arid and semi arid," he said.

Kenya's food security needs have been increasing dramatically over the years, because of the growing population, failure to use farm inputs and the now the climate change which is changing rainfall patters.

v "We will have no excuse to ignore the technology that can increase our food output," said Agriculture Minister William Ruto, "This is our future."

Proponents of the GM food in Kenya say the country has good research capacity to enable local scientists develop GM crops that are specifically suited to the country's needs.

Sidney Quantia, the coordinator of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition had said earlier that the Biosafety Bill 2008 which was assented by the President Mwai Kibaki in February does not allow labelling of foods produced from genetic modified crops.

Safeguarding Kenyans

"We are not opposed to biotechnology but we want the proposed law to have safeguards for Kenyans," he said.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are the result of genetic engineering ostensibly to make them withstand harsh weather conditions or boost yields. But this genetic alternation is highly opposed by various groups who say that GM foods could result in new forms of human diseases and affect the growth of flora and fauna.

Kenya Government has strongly supported GM foods and made into law the Biosafety Bill 2008 last month. The basis of the support is that it will increase food production.

The argument by the anti-GM lobby is that the country does not yet have regulatory capacity to prevent rogue researchers from bringing into Kenya contaminated GM foods.

The coalition says the law signed this year to allow for GM crops to be grown in Kenya does not allow for labelling of GM crops to help consumers make a choice.

There are also specific pesticides used on GM crops. This is seen as being adverse to the predominant smallholder and poor farmers in Kenya. It is seen as a way to create ready market for GM seeds and chemical manufacturers.

However, an almost similar scenario happens when farmers plant hybrid seeds. Although they can be replanted, the yields of these seeds after replanting are less and agriculture extension officers usually encourage farmers to use new seeds every planting season.

'Fourth pillar' is needed in global GM crop debate

Stock Journal (Australia), 26 March 2009. By Paul Meyers:
http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/wheat/fourth-pillar-is-needed-in-global-gm-crop-debate/1468997.aspx

When 300 of the world's top crop scientists gathered in Mexico last week to discuss the Ug99 strain of stem rust they barely noticed the elephant in the room - genetically-modified wheat.

But scratch the surface and it is apparent the push is on for GM wheat among agriculture's scientific community.

China has allocated millions of dollars to transgenic wheat research and development, and is virtually committed to its introduction.

Kenya may soon become the first African country to trial GM varieties and next month India will introduce a GM eggplant variety that could double yields.

As eggplant is a vital ingredient in the local diet, plant breeders say GM eggplant may be a forerunner for more GM food crops in India and other developing countries.

In a twist to the way scientific developments usually work - starting in developed countries and eventually finding their way to the Third World - GM wheat looks set to reverse the roles.

Support for GM wheat exists among the highest echelons of the world's crop scientists.

Dr Norman Borlaug, the father of the green revolution, who introduced new wheat varieties to India and Pakistan in the late 1960s that doubled wheat yields and saved the lives of an estimated one billion people, is a committed advocate.

"It's the only way to feed the world," said Dr Borlaug, 95, who was feted by fellow plant breeders and biologists, including some from Australia, at the conference in his honour in Sonora, Mexico.

With a mind as alert as when he won the Nobel Prize in 1970, Dr Borlaug said there was "ongoing change" in the global attitude towards GM.

"There's now a fourth pillar to the three essential ingredients needed to maximise wheat production," he said.

"The first three are seed, fertiliser and weed control. The fourth is public policy.

"Without the support of governments, the job of plant scientists is going to be much harder."

25 March 2009

Biotechnology crucial to solving the climate crisis

Novozyme press release, 25 March 2009:
http://www.novozymes.com/en/MainStructure/AboutUs/March /A>

New initiative by Novozymes and WWF sets out to map how and where low carbon biosolutions can eliminate the first billion tonnes of CO 2 and pave the way to a green economy.

The climate crisis has made it more urgent than ever to find a sustainable way of developing our society. So far, the main effort to combat climate change has focused on reducing the negative impact of the big emmitters. While important, this neither secures all the reductions needed nor does it provide a sustainable economic model for creating jobs, growth and a prosperous society.

From improvements to solutions

This makes it imperative that world leaders grasp the opportunities of a low carbon economy, and support and boost the business and industry that provide us with the low carbon solutions, the world is in urgent need for.

The biotechnology industry is such an opportunity because the reductions secured by biotech solutions greatly outnumbers the emissions from its production. Looking at only one specific technology, the enzyme production of Novozymes emitted 1 million tonnes of CO2 eq last year ‚ but in total helped reduce around 28 million tonnes of CO2 eq. This is because enzymes save large amounts of energy when applied to the production of a varity of every day products, such as paper, washing powder and bioethanol.

With this climate positive balancesheet the biotechnology industry is set to become a winner in a new low carbon economy. It is an important part of the solutions needed to secure big emmissions cuts while creating succesfull business models. And we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Today, only a small part of the potential of biotech is realized.

The 'invisible' solution

Coming together in the Biosolutions Initiative ‚ Eliminating the first billion tonnes of CO2, WWF and Novozymes now set out to change this:

"Low carbon biotech solutions are a good example of hidden or invisible climate solutions that are all around us already today but are easy to overlook for policymakers, investors and companies. Fighting climate change is also about innovation and finding smarter ways to do things, and biotechnology help us do just that. Accelerating and exploring the further potential of this industry is a crucial part of the climate solutions we are looking for." says, Kim Carstensen, Director of WWFķs Global Climate Initiative.

"Novozymes is committed to improve and develop biotech solutions in the pursuit of a sustainable global economy. What we offer our customers is to produce more from less input, use less energy in their processes and generate less waste. In order to unlock the full potential of biotechnology, policy makers need to integrate low carbon biotech solutions as part of all major climate strategies. Together with WWF we want to inspire decision makers in building low carbon solutions for our society," says, Steen Riisgaard, CEO of Novozymes.

NOTE:

The Bio Solutions Initiative ‚ Eliminating the first billion tonnes of CO2 will map the first strategic billion tonnes of CO2 reductions from low carbon biotechnology. The partnership will also engage in dialogue with central policy makers and create low carbon business partnerships to ensure that low carbon biotech solutions become an integrated part of all major climate projects and initiatives.

---

Comment from GM Watch:

WWF has long claimed to oppose GM technology despite having have allied itself with the likes of Monsanto and Syngenta in the Round Table for Responsible Soya. But this direct alliance with a biotech company further undermines such claims.

Novozymes is part of the pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk, which has the largest market share for genetically engineered insulin, as well as being one of the largest GM (and non-GM) enzyme manufacturers.

GM enzymes may do things with less energy input, as this Novozymes' press release suggests, but there's half a decade of experience in producing natural enzymes that will do many of the same jobs. GM is not needed. And these enzymes will end up in food if used in food production.

Consumer interest takes pride of place in today's successful vote on Novel Foods

Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), 25 March 2009:
http://www.guengl.eu/showPage.jsp?ID=7376&AREA=27&HIGH=1

A report by GUE/NGL MEP Kartika Liotard (Netherlands) on the proposal for a new EU regulation on Novel Foods, meaning foods and food ingredients that have not been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community before 15 May 1997, was voted successfully this morning by a resounding 667 votes for and only 16 votes against.

In adopting this report, the European Parliament has also called on the European Commission to come forward with legislative proposals, before the application of the new Regulation, banning food from cloned animals from the market. MEP Liotard expressed her entire satisfaction at this, saying: "Food from cloned animals should not be put on the European tables. The cloning of animals causes too much suffering."

Furthermore, the Parliament supported Liotard's view that there should be a clear definition of nanomaterials and distinct labelling for all novel food products, for products containing nanomaterials and products from animals nourished with genetically modified feed.

"I am very happy that the Parliament has shown such strong political will today and that the interests of consumers are considered to be more important than the economic interests of producers," MEP Liotard concluded.

European Parliament supports SP Euro-MP Kartika Liotard's report on novel foods

SP International, March 25 2009:
http://tiny.cc/QQOc3

The European Commission should, according to the European Parliament, introduce a ban on meat and milk from cloned animals. In addition, the Parliament has demanded clearer definitions regarding nano-particles in food, and the imposition of an obligation to state on foodstuff labels whether the product contains 'novel foods', or is a product of animals fed on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The European Parliament today voted on the report from SP Euro-MP Kartika Liotard on novel foods. Liotard describes the vote as 'a huge success', especially in view of the opposition from the European Commission. "The Commission repeatedly puts economic interests first," she says. "But the European Parliament agrees with me that priority must be given to food safety and to the wellbeing of the public."

Liotard adds that "in the EU there's always talk of the environment and of animal welfare. But there's absolutely no consideration given to these matters in the Commission proposal. That's why I proposed that the environmental impact and animal welfare should play a role in the procedure for allowing novel foods on to the market. The European Parliament supported this as well.

"This is about foodstuffs that have never been placed on the market before. The regulation must state precisely what 'novel foods' are. The food industry does a great deal in the way of innovation. But both the industry and the consumer have an interest in seeing that foodstuffs are safe. The use of nanoparticles in foodstuffs has enjoyed an enormous boom, yet very few consumers know about this. Just look at energy drinks, food supplements or packaging materials. In these instances there are as yet no uniform safety laws, and for this reason these products have not been tested for possible heath risks. So it's extremely important that these new techniques and new technologies come under the novel foods regulation. What's needed is a clear definition, one which if necessary can be adapted as science and technology progress." The European Parliament, once again, supported this point.

The European Commission wanted meat and milk from cloned animals to be included under 'novel foods'. "This is unacceptable,"Liotard insists. "The cloning of animals causes enormous suffering. Only a small percentage of the clones prove viable and their birth must much too frequently be performed by Caesarian." The Commission, she says, evades the ethical aspects of the cloning of animals for food. "No public debate has as yet occurred on the desirability of this. Including products from cloned animals in the novel foods regulation would mean, indirectly at least, that we find these practices acceptable. I am arguing therefore for a ban on placing foods from cloned animals on the European market. The European Parliament supported my proposals for a ban, and I'm pleased that such meat will not be finding its way on to our plates."

Liotard added that she was "extremely pleased with the result of the vote. The European Parliament has expressed its political will and sent a powerful message to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers that meat from cloned animals does not belong on our tables, that we must have clarity regarding nanoparticles in foods before problems arise and that the consumer, and not the market, must be the priority for European legislation on food safety."

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Yesterday's EU Parliament vote for mandatory GM labelling on meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs is good news for Irish farmers.

Monsanto and the pro-GM Irish Farmers Association, Irish Grain and Feed Association, and the Irish Farmers Journal will claim the opposite. But over 1 million EU consumers signed a petition in support of such labelling in 2005.

The reason it's good news is that Irish beef, dairy and lamb production relies on a mostly grass-based diet, with less use of GM compound feeds than livestock in many other countries – including 50 EU Regions that have already adopted Quality Agriculture strategies which avoid the use of GM animal feed altogether. This means that Irish farmers can phase out GM animal feed with less hassle than most of their competitors.

Together with the implementation of the Agreed Programme for Government to keep this island off-limits to GM crops, a voluntary phase-out of GM animal feed – supported by a new GM-free labelling and traceability scheme – would give Irish meat, poultry and dairy produce a unique selling point: the most credible, safe, GM-free food brand in Europe.

GM-free Ireland is currently working with farmers to develop an Irish GM-free label for meat, poultry and dairy produce. Farming organisations wishing to participate should contact Michael O'Callaghan on + 353 (0)404 43885, encourage local production of GM-free feed crops, and also pressure the grain importers and distributors to import certified Non-GMO soy meal and maize gluten at affordable prices.

---

Comment by GM Watch:

In the plenary session of the European Parliament yesterday morning MEPs voted on the report by Euro-MP Kartika Liotard on Novel Foods. And for the first time the parliament supported a call for the labelling of products from animals fed with GMOs.

This is a co-decision issue so it will now have to be considered by the Council. Expect a big fight back. The biotech industry knows that consumers will not buy products labelled as derived from GM animal feed. And GM animal feed is the biotech industry's lifeline. Stop GM animal feed and we stop the GM industry in its tracks.

TAKE ACTION: Help build the pressure ***NOW*** by demanding that European supermarkets ensure that their suppliers of meat, eggs and dairy products feed their livestock only non-GM animal feed. And tell them that if they have ranges of meat, eggs and dairy that are fed on non-GM feed, to make this plain by labelling these ranges clearly as "GM Free", in accord with the wishes of consumers - and MEPs!

Model letter and addresses for UK supermarkets here: http://www.bangmfood.org/take-action

More information on GM animal feed here: http://www.bangmfood.org/stealth-gmos

Bishop Sanchez's position on GMOs untenable

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC, 25 March 2009.

The publication of the Instrumentum Laboris for the Synod on Africa on March 19th 2009, must have put a lot of pressure on Bishop Sanchez, the Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who is an enthusiastic supporter of GM crops.

This working document for the Synod has involved extensive collaboration between the 36 Episcopal Conferences and two Eastern Catholic Churches on the African continent, as well as those of the 25 Departments of the Roman Curia and the Union of Superiors Generals. It is critical of the propaganda which has surrounded GM crops. In number 58 it states that:

"Farm workers, on whom a great part of the African economy depends, are victims of injustice in marketing their products. They are often paid a very low price for their goods. Paradoxically, in some parts of Africa, the cost is even set by the buyers themselves. Populations already suffering from a disadvantage are thereby further impoverished. The seeding campaign of proponents of Genetically Modified Food, which purports to give assurances for food safety, should not overlook the true problems of agriculture in Africa: the lack of cultivatable land, water, energy, access to credit, agricultural training, local markets, road infrastructures, etc. This campaign runs the risk of ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of exchanging seeds and making farmers dependent on the production companies of GMOs."

While many bishops in Asia, Africa and Latin America have made similar comments about GMOs, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has been doing all in its power to aggressively promote GM crops.

In September 2004, the Academy and the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See, organized a one day seminar in the Gregorian University on the theme Feeding the World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology. All the speakers at that event were actively involved in promoting GM crops and some, such as Dr. Peter Raven, the director of the Missouri Botanical Gardens, have close connections with Monsanto.

I attended the seminar and trenchantly criticized the one-sided nature of the debate. I also pointed out that none of the speakers had any competence in the area of development, poverty alleviation or hunger. Those who had such competence, such as Caritas Internationalis, were not invited to the event.

As if a one-day promotion of GM crops supposedly to feed the poor was not enough, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is organising a five day event at the Vatican from May 15th to 19th this year. The title of the Study-Week is Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development. Many of those who attended the 2004 seminar are speaking at the Study-Week.

In an introduction to the booklet which outlines the topics and speakers for the Study Week, Prof. Ingo Potrykus, Chairman of the Swiss based Humanitarian Golden Rice Board and Network, stated, "Changing societal attitudes, including the regulatory processes involved, is extremely important if we are to save biotechnology."

Prof. Potrykus wants the Academy to support his campaign to dismantle the regulatory system for GM crops. He blames it for impeding the spread of potential benefits to be gained from adopting biotechnology in agriculture. This is also the position of Dr. Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Gardens.

In an article entitled, Vatican Cheers GM, in Nature Biotechnology [1], Anna Meldolesi quotes Dr. Raven who interprets the Study Week as a sign that the Vatican has given a green light to GM crops, "I think that we are heading in the right direction with this meeting and it will help to dispel some of the myths about GM crops. I would hope that the high moral ground of the Vatican is relevant, at least in Catholic countries." Dr. Raven's claims are in direct contradiction to what the authors of the working document for the Synod for Africa have written.

Prof. Potrykus admits that this particular Study Week is not a standard 'science' meeting. He claims that opposition to biotechnology in agriculture is usually ideological. However, it is obvious from his introduction that the Study Week is ideologically biased towards advancing the dominance of agriculture by Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

The authors of the working document for the Synod for Africa are close to their people and sees GM crops for what they are, namely a way of enriching giant biotech corporations at the expense of the poor. It is a pity that Bishop Sanchez is listening to pro-GMO propaganda, instead of paying attention to the voice of the Church in Africa.

Reference

1. Anna Meldolesi, Vatican Cheers GM, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 27, No. 3., pp. 214-214 (2009).
http://www.nature.com/nbtjournal/v27/n3/full/nbt0309-21a (subscription needed).

---

Comment by GM Watch:

This interesting piece by Father Seán McDonagh, follows on from the Pope's presentation last week of the instrumentum laboris, or "working paper," for the upcoming Synod for Africa, warning of the threat to small farmers from GMOs. The full text of the Instrumentum Laboris can be found here http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-25422

Fr. Seán McDonagh is a Catholic priest who's lived and worked for many years in the developing world and who's widely respected in the faith community as a leader on climate change, environmental justice, GMOs and human rights.

Controlling the world's seed supply

OpEdNews.com, 25 March 2009. By Devinder Sharma:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Controlling-the-world-s-se-by-Devinder-Sharma-090323-773.html

Let there be no doubt. There is a global effort -- some call it a master plan -- (involving not only seed corporations, but also governments, CGIAR and the FAO) to control the entire seed heritage. Privatisation and commercialisation of seed, which means through it controlling the entire food chain, began several decades ago. With governments, CGIAR/World Bank/FAO facilitating the process, the private seed companies are slowly and steadily ensuring that farmers all over the world fall in line. They are left with no choice but to buy seed every cropping season from the agribusiness companies.

The new seeds are not only being genetically modified but are also being genetically programmed. We will talk about the genetic programming of these seeds sometime later, but first let us look at the ways of the seed mafia.

The WTO provides the legal instruments to make it possible. Strengthening of intellectual proprietary control over seed comes through UPOV and WIPO, both being the public face of the seed industry. These IPRs are being further tightened through the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), bilateral and regional agreements. All these agreements seek IPR-Plus treatments, and developing country governments are being made to swallow the bitter pill.

The governments are more than willing to facilitate the process. India is a classic example, where the Agriculture Ministry appears to be on a fast track mode to increase the seed relacement ratio. In the next 15-20 years, it wants to replace 50 per cent of the farmers seed with so called 'improved seeds' being produced and marketed by the private companies. No wonder, more than 500 seed companies are operating in India now. All looking forward to the farmer's pocket, keen to take out the last penny from his soiled kurta.

As the article below (excerpted from the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith) tells us briefly, an alert civil society and some farming groups worldwide have slowed down the process of takeover of the seed supply -- as per the master plan. For the full article, scroll down to the end of this post.

On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa [1] using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe's "unfounded, unscientific fears" of these foods for thwarting recovery efforts. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded U.S. exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed down from president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisements.

The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world's food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan.

First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

Integral to the plan was Monsanto's influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, "The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender." [2]

The anticipated pace of conquest was revealed by a conference speaker from another biotech company. He showed graphs projecting the year-by-year decrease of natural seeds, estimating that in five years, about 95 percent of all seeds would be genetically modified.

While some audience members were appalled at what they judged to be an arrogant and dangerous disrespect for nature, to the industry this was good business. Their attitude was illustrated in an excerpt from one of Monsanto's advertisements: "So you see, there really isn't much difference between foods made by Mother Nature and those made by man. What's artificial is the line drawn between them." [3]

To implement their strategy, the biotech companies needed to control the seeds – so they went on a buying spree, taking possession of about 23 percent of the world's seed companies. Monsanto did achieve the dominant position, capturing 91 percent of the GM food market. [4] But the industry has not met their projections of converting the natural seed supply. Citizens around the world, who do not share the industry's conviction that these foods are safe or better, have not "just sort of surrendered."

Widespread resistance to GM food has resulted in a global showdown. U.S. exports of genetically modified corn and soy are down, and hungry African nations won't even accept the crops as food aid. Monsanto is faltering financially and is desperate to open new markets. The U.S. government is convinced that EU resistance is the primary obstacle and is determined to change that. On May 13, 2003, the U.S. filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization (WTO), charging that the European Union's restrictive policy on GM food violates international agreements.

On the day the WTO suit was filed, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick declared, "Overwhelming scientific research shows that biotech foods are safe and healthy." [5] This has been industry's chant from the start. It is the key assumption at the basis of their master plan, the WTO challenge, and the president's campaign to end hunger. It is also, however, untrue. The following chapters reveal that it was industry influence, not sound science, which allowed these foods onto the market. Moreover, if overwhelming scientific research suggests anything, it is that the foods should never have been approved.

References:

[1] See the White House press release on this available here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030521-2.html. The comments mentioned are about two-thirds of the way down the web page.

[2] Stuart Laidlaw, "StarLink Fallout Could Cost Billions," The Toronto Star, Jan. 9, 2001. Article can be purchased in the Toronto Star archives available here http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds-of-Deception-10-pg-by-Rady-Ananda-090322-919.html, or find a free copy by clicking here http://www.biotech-info.net/starlink_fallout.html.

[3] Robert Cohen, Milk, The Deadly Poison, Argus Publishing, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998, p. 133

[4] See http://www.foodfirst.org/media/news/2003/butterfliesvsusda.html

[5] See http://www.ustrade-wto.gov/03052102.html

(See the full article at: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds-of-Deception-10-pg-by-Rady-Ananda-090322-919.html)

Tired of Being Left Out In the Cold

Truth About Trade and Technology, March 25 2009 [via AgBioView]. By Allan Skogen:
http://www.truthabouttrade.org

The poet T.S. Eliot knew what he was talking about when he called April "the cruelest month."

We're approaching the critical time of year when wheat farmers in the Upper Great Plains will first get an idea what the crop potential may be. If the weather lets us plant in mid-April, we'll be in luck. If we can't start until the middle of May--because we've suffered through a cruel April, due to cold wet soils--we'll be in trouble. Our yields could drop by as much as 40 percent.

One month makes a huge difference in yield potential, and we're completely at the mercy of Mother Nature. We can put seeds in the ground while there's still snow in the ditches, but seeds will lay there for weeks without progress. While seeds will slowly sprout in soils as cool as 40 to 45 degrees, it's not until the soil temps approach 60 degrees and wheat plants really begin to feel the warmth of spring that plants will rapidly grow and flourish.

What if modern science was to give us an edge?

We already have the know-how.

Biotechnology has transformed agriculture for farmers who grow soybeans, corn, and cotton. Earlier this year, they passed a significant milestone: 2 billion acres of genetically modified crops planted around the world since commercialization began 13 years ago. For these farmers, GM crops are not a cutting-edge fantasy but the new reality of conventional agriculture.

Wheat farmers, however, are left out in the cold, both literally and figuratively. We not only need to shake off the chill of January, February, and March, but we also want to take full advantage of the Gene Revolution--something that we've been blocked from doing, thanks to a toxic mix of political confusion and scientific illiteracy.

Farmers who plant biotech crops have enjoyed large increases in yield. Some seed companies are even talking about new technologies doubling the yields of these crops over the next two decades.

Where's wheat? Twenty years behind and counting. Years ago, several players in the wheat industry grew nervous about biotechnology, primarily spooked by misguided fears about consumer acceptance in foreign countries. Consequently, producers and consumers alike are paying a steep price. While the rest of the planet started to embrace biotechnology, wheat retreated. Now, while many years behind other major crops, the wheat industry is uniting and strategically moving forward toward enhancing wheat through biotechnology.

Cold-tolerant wheat, possibly obtained through genetic modification, would provide a big boost. Crops able survive in slightly colder temperatures--even by just a few degrees--would help us increase our output. That would lead to earlier harvests, better yields, lower food prices and greater global food supplies. Each point takes on more importance when you consider the global relevance of wheat as a staple food crop for billions.

Even more important is drought tolerance. Wheat grows in dry climates, and plants that make efficient use of water perform the best. The goal is more production per unit of available water. If biotech wheat is ever commercialized, drought tolerance could possibly become the first available trait because the science behind it is already proven and soon available in other crops.

Biotechnology also promises a solution to an emerging problem in Africa and parts of Asia, where a deadly fungus called stem rust pose a huge threat to small-acreage farmers and their staple crop. Some diseases depress yields. This new stem rust is different--it wipes out whole harvests. "It has immense destructive potential," said Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, in a recent interview.

The last stem-rust epidemic occurred half a century ago. Scientists thought they had defeated it permanently through better breeding. But now the disease is back, in a virulent new form that could imperil the world's food supply. The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico has warned of "a pending disaster in global agriculture."

Fungicide sprays offer marginal relief, but not a cure. We need to defeat this disease. Some new discoveries indicate that genes that convey resistance to this rust exist today however, we need all the scientific tools available to us - and that includes biotechnology to defeat this threat. Unfortunately, the answers to this problem lie not merely a season or two away, but years in the future. That's why the work to annihilate it for another half-century or longer must begin immediately.

T.S. Eliot's famous line about April appears in a poem called "The Waste Land." If we don't take advantage of biotechnology, wheat farmers will have to endure not only more cruel Aprils, but brutal years of mediocrity as fertile wheat lands are deprived of their potential while other crops flourish with the biotech advantage.

Al Skogen produces wheat, corn and soybeans, using minimum and no-till production practices, on a diverse grain family farm in east central North Dakota. Mr. Skogen is chairman of Growers for Biotechnology, participated in the 2008 Global Farmer to Farmer Roundtable and is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network.

Comment by GM Watch:

Al Skogen is a long time GM supporter and Chair of the Growers for Biotechnology lobby group who picked up the tab for Monsanto's controversial private dinner with lawmakers in Montana. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gE61B6LHmZRyYsT3HtZKRbJqoa0gD975IP981

Skogen's pitch to wheat growers is utterly discreditable. With emotive language -- perfectly captured in the headline: 'Tired of Being Left Out In the Cold' -- the article constantly implies that if only growers had GM wheat varieties all their problems would be at an end.

Skogen tries to groom wheat growers with come ons that suggest that GM has transformed the yield potential of other crops - corn, soybeans, cotton - and that if only wheat growers adopted GM wheat all their troubles would be over. "We already have the know-how," he tells them.

But this is nonsense. If corn and soybeans have seemed more bouyant to wheat farmers, this is because they've benefitted from the massive subsidies of the "biofuel" boom. GM cotton acreage has actually gone into a decline as cotton farmers have been faced with rapidly growing weed resistance and pest problems Bt cotton cannot meet.

Skogen's big lie is in suggesting GM already has the answers when in reality it's all hype and unfulfilled promises, not least on yield. Here's what Skogen says:

"Farmers who plant biotech crops have enjoyed large increases in yield. Some seed companies are even talking about new technologies doubling the yields of these crops over the next two decades."

Let's be clear. GM has not improved the yield potential of a single crop. Not one.

Its more careful proponents claim that it may have protected crops from losses due to weed competition and insect pressures, but even this is far from certain. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) concluding from peer reviewed evidence that any yield gains in GM crops "were highly variable" and that in some cases "yields declined". http://www.bangmfood.org/feed-the-world/17-feeding-the-world/6-gm-no-solution-to-global-hunger

But the cruelest joke by far, in relation to the direction in which Skogen is trying to take wheat growers, is that even Monsanto has admitted that GM is not going to be the most effective tool for improving wheat. Non-GM biotech approaches like Marker Assisted Selection (or Marker Assisted Breeding) have far more to offer, as Monsanto has stated unambiguously outside of N. America.

This is from an article in Farmers Weekly: "Biotechnology rather than genetic modification is the key to improving wheat varieties, says Monsanto. Although GM techniques may develop some traits, most will stem from conventional breeding backed by sophisticated biotech tools.

"Biotech to aid conventional wheat breeding is already attracting 10 to 20 times more effort than the [GM] genetic transformation of the crop, says US-based Tom Crosbie, Monsanto's global head of plant breeding.

"'[GM] Genetic transformation is just one particular wrench in the biotechnology toolbox. We have lots of other [non-GM] tools to accelerate the development of new wheat varieties,' he says.... 'Genetic transformation can only be used to introduce one segment of novel genetic material to a variety at a time, but biotech tools can be used to enhance a host of existing traits. It's a numbers game and ultimately non-transformation biotech offers the greatest potential.'" http://www.bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/32-non-gm-biotechnology-is-the-future

And in case anyone's in any doubt, here's Jeff Cox, general manager for Monsanto Northern Europe, in another Farmers Weekly piece: "The possibilities are as endless as they are exciting and they are achievable with existing technologies. Within the wheat plant we have a vast reservoir of genes. We also have the advanced analytical equipment necessary to pinpoint the molecular characteristics we need. And the marker-assisted systems to reliably build these characteristics into high output varieties through conventional plant breeding." http://www.bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/32-non-gm-biotechnology-is-the-future

And, of course, what Skogen never mentions is the customer. Commodity crops like soy, corn and cotton have been channelled into non-food uses (eg biofuels, fibre) and animal feed, or into highly processed products, where consumer resistance becomes difficult to focus, particularly in N. America with no GM labelling.

But wheat is another matter entirely - just think bread. Skogen is trying to use wheat grower frustations to divert their attention from market realities. GM, far from giving wheat growers the kind of competitive advantages Skogen claims, would only promise without delivery while triggering a market meltdown. And that really would leave wheat growers out in the cold.

DuPont presses govt over GM corn crops
• US-based chemical giant says it is trying to register hybrid corn seeds with Ministry of Agriculture, but opponents warn of dire consequences

The Phnom Penh Post (Cambodia), 25 March 2009. By George McLeod:
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2009032524991/Business/DuPont-presses-govt-over-GM-corn-crops.html

CAMBODIA'S first genetically modified (GM) crops may be on the way, with American chemicals giant DuPont saying it is in the process of registering GM seeds with the Ministry of Agriculture.

"We are proceeding to register our hybrid corn seeds with [the Ministry of Agriculture]... We are open to discuss research collaboration in hybrid materials," said Hsing Ho, Du-Pont's managing director in Singapore, in a speech at an agriculture and technology seminar in Phnom Penh on Monday.

DuPont opened its first office in Cambodia in 2008.

A DuPont representative in Phnom Penh said the company is still studying the Cambodian market, and that it has not developed a plan for local operations. He added that DuPont attended the Monday event at the government's invitation.

DuPont is one of the top makers of genetically modified seeds, or seeds whose DNA is altered to offer benefits such as higher yields, or enhanced resistance to disease.

GM crops are grown in 25 countries worldwide with nearly 800 million hectares under cultivation in 2008, say figures from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), which attended the seminar.

GM crops, also often called genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified organisms (GMO), are a subject of controversy, and opponents claim they pose health and environmental risks. The Ministry of Agriculture told the Post that no

GM crops are grown in Cambodia, and they require special permission.

A ministry spokesman said that the government is under pressure to adopt the crops, but that the benefits of higher yields do not offset possible damage to Cambodia's food exports.

"Many countries do not allow GM goods, so if we start allowing those crops here, it could lead countries to stop buying from us," said Hean Vanhan, secretary of state for the Ministry of Agriculture.

"We also need to do more research into the health and environmental impact of GMO," he said.

But one group that backs GE crops said Cambodia could benefit from reduced malnutrition and increased food security.

"Cambodia has a lot to gain from the use of GE crops," said a spokesman from ISAAA, a nongovernmental group.

"The three most common GM crops have been corn, cotton and soy - corn is doing wonderfully well, especially in China and India," said Daniel Otunge by telephone from Kenya. "For developing countries, the first concern has to be feeding its own population ... this is a legitimate concern for exporting farmers, but at this point, GM crops are so widespread that it is becoming less of an issue," he said.

Five European countries ban the import of GM crops, and some African and South American states prohibit some types of GE crops, according to Greenpeace. Sixty countries require the labelling of foods containing GM ingredients, according to the American Association for Health Freedom.

Otunge said that concerns about possible environmental and health side effects are overblown. "Over the past 12 years when GM crops have been widespread, there has been no evidence they impact health. Ultimately, they help the environment by reducing the need for toxic sprays," he said.

But according to Greenpeace, an environmental watchdog, Cambodia stands to lose by adopting GM crops. "For Cambodia, I can't see how it would make any sense [to use GE crops].... In the age of climate change, genetically engineered crops are a threat to food security," said Jan van Aken, a GE expert.

He cited South Africa as an example, where 200,000 hectares of GE crops were lost recently for unexplained reasons. "There is not a single example of where genetically modified varieties have seen higher yields. There have been examples where genetically modified crops have resisted insects for two or three years, but new insects come and threaten the crops."

Former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Calls for Development Czar

Individual.com (America.gov/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX), 25 March 2009. By Matt Herrick:
http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=98354874

[Extracts only - see link above for full article]

Washington, DC -- Former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has called for appointment of a development czar to oversee U.S. foreign aid and challenged the Obama administration to spend more to alleviate hunger worldwide, especially in Africa.

Glickman, in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee March 24, said the amount of funding needed to feed the malnourished in Africa is "a drop in the bucket" compared to government funds devoted to stanching the current economic crisis. He challenged the U.S. government -- the world's leader in food assistance -- to allocate at least $340 million in 2010 and more thereafter toward infrastructure, agricultural research and education in poor countries.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democrat and chairman of the committee, said that one in seven people goes hungry every day in the world, a fact that constitutes "one of the great moral challenges the world faces today." Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the panel, echoed Kerry's support for an enhanced foreign assistance budget that tackles global agricultural development, which would improve crop yields.

...

Kerry questioned the witnesses on promoting the use of nitrogen fertilizers and biotech seeds during a perceived organic produce movement.

"This is virtually impossible -- to get to the yields we are talking about without taking seriously seed and fertilizer," said Lugar, also a farmer, who called on leaders in the European Union to act as role models and drop their exclusion of genetically modified seeds. As evidence of the world's shifting use toward biotechnology, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, in its 2008 annual report, found that 13.3 million farmers in 25 countries planted 125 million hectares of biotech crops in 2008. Egypt, Burkina Faso and South Africa are the only African nations to cultivate biotech crops.

---

Comment from TraceConsult®:

This masterpiece expression of American charity attitude wouldn't be complete without a clear statement of preference to include biotech crops. But readers won't find it until they scroll to the last paragaph.

Be good role models, European Leaders - and tell the starving Africans to accept our GM crops!

Perhaps former USDA chief Dan Glickman can turn the story into a movie? (He is now Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America!)

Fedco Seeds: The David To Monsanto's Goliath

The Huffington Post, 25 March 2009. By Kerry Trueman,Co-founder of EatingLiberally.org:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kerry-trueman/fedco-seeds-the-david-to_b_178581.html

Seed money for start-ups may be evaporating faster than California's dwindling reservoirs, but this rocky economy's proving to be fertile ground for the seed industry. Cash-strapped consumers, scared by the specter of an empty fridge, are investing in the ultimate low-tech, high-yield start-up: the kitchen garden. The National Gardening Association estimates that some 43 million Americans are gearing up to grow at least some of their own food this spring.

And no wonder. As Roger Doiron, founder of Maine-based Kitchen Gardeners International, has documented, a few dozen seed packets costing $130 can yield more than two thousand dollars worth of produce over the course of the growing season. "We have a fabulous opportunity," C.R. Lawn, the founder of another Maine mainstay, Fedco Seeds, told an audience at the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture's Farming For The Future conference last month. "The challenge is on us to come through." Lawn, an endearingly shaggy character who looks a bit like a pale Papa Smurf, rocked gently from side to side as he spoke of the challenges that his company faced following the acquisition of Fedco's largest seed supplier, Seminis, by monolithic Monsanto back in 2005.

Like many a diehard Fedco fan, I eagerly await their famous catalog each spring in anticipation of the wonderful, whimsical illustrations and witty seed descriptions sprinkled with fascinating tidbits of trivia and gratuitous political commentary. "We wish we were writing for the New Yorker," Lawn confessed wistfully.

But when I opened my 2006 Fedco catalog, anticipating a breezy excursion through the season's seed offerings, I was dismayed to find out about Fedco's dilemma. I was vaguely aware, at the time, of Monsanto's house of horrors: Agent Orange, DDT, rBST,Roundup, and so on. But I hadn't realized that they were swallowing up smaller seed companies in their relentless drive to dominate the world's food supply. In January of 2006, I wrote:

"Does it matter if most of our vegetables are brought to us courtesy of Monsanto and Dupont? I'll admit I don't think about this issue a whole lot myself. But when I kicked back with a stack of seed catalogs on Sunday to find out what's new and novel in the edible landscape, I opened up the Fedco Co-op Seed Packers catalog and found a can of worms.

Fedco sells the finest hybrid and heirloom vegetable seed to farmers and home gardeners alike, offering a wide range of certified organic cultivars and regional heirloom varieties at terrific prices. A cooperative venture committed to fostering sustainable agriculture, Fedco conducts extensive trials of its seeds in order to select the best tasting, hardiest varieties with the highest germination rates.

So when Fedco's largest seed supplier, a company called Seminis, got snapped up by Monsanto last year, Fedco was faced with a major ethical dilemma. Monsanto, king of the genetically engineered crop crowd, is anathema to the folks at Fedco, but Seminis has long provided Fedco with many of its most popular vegetable varieties, including my all-time favorite cherry tomato, a super sweet golden hybrid called Sunsugar.

Fedco, being the cooperative that it is, polled its customers: should they drop the Monsanto/Seminis seed altogether, phase it out gradually, or keep it? The majority voted to drop Monsanto like a genetically modified hot potato."

As Lawn told us at the PASA conference, Fedco has been scrambling ever since to find replacement seed varieties for the ones its customers have come to rely on. It's been a struggle, Lawn admitted, but he has no doubt they made the right decision, and sales have doubled over the past two years.

Monsanto's ongoing campaign to control our food chain's been well documented in a series of books, documentaries, and articles in recent years, but the vast majority of American consumers remain blissfully unaware of all the behind-the-scenes machinations Monsanto has employed in its quest to persecute--and, presumably, eliminate--the small, independent farmers who decline to buy Monsanto's patented, genetically modified seeds, preferring instead to grow seed varieties that have been painstakingly bred for superior flavor and texture and, in many cases, passed down through generations.

These are the heirloom varieties that have been threatened with extinction since the advent of industrial agriculture, because though they may have the best flavor, they don't ship well, or their appearance is too irregular for customers programmed to demand uniformly round tomatoes or perfect apples.

C. R. Lawn has been on the frontlines of the agri-culture wars since he founded Fedco Seeds in 1978, so the 2006 catalog was full of quotes from customers cheering his company's decision not to do business with Monsanto:

"You don't need to sell your soul for a Sunsugar...We'll survive on the sweet tastiness of the moral high ground."

But Fedco's not only surviving; it's thriving. Three years later, the 2009 catalog includes a brand new open-pollinated cherry tomato Fedco's introduced named "WOW," because "WOW! has been the first word out of everyone who has ever plopped one in his or her mouth." Sadly, I missed the boat on this reportedly remarkable new variety because, well, I was too busy attending sustainable ag conferences and the like to crack open my seed catalogs.

I'm sorry I won't be harvesting any "WOWs" this year, but thankful I had the opportunity to hear the iconic, ironic C. R. Lawn speak. With the impending publication of Robyn O'Brien's The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food is Making us Sick -- And What We Can Do About It, and the June release of the documentary Food, Inc., mainstream America's about to get a wake-up call on just how asleep at the wheel our government's been in allowing Monsanto to monopolize our country's crops. Here's to C. R. Lawn and his colleagues at Fedco for weathering the Seminis/Monsanto storm and emerging triumphant. Thanks to these savers of seeds, our nation's rich agricultural heritage lives on.

Did a Monsanto-Hosted Dinner Kill the Montana Farmer Protection Bill?

New West Missoula (Montana, USA), 25 March 2009. By Courtney Lowery:
http://www.newwest.net/city/article/monsanto_hosts_dinner_for_montana_legislators_on_seed_sampling_bill/C8/L8/

The opposition that lined up against House Bill 445, or the Farmer Protection Bill, last week wasn't exactly unexpected.

Whether the bill would make Montana "unfriendly to business" was one topic of conversation. Another line of questioning involved whether the bill would scare off big bio-tech companies, such as Monsanto, from investing research dollars in the state's university system.

These arguments are commonplace in the halls of the Montana Capitol, especially on legislation that offers any kind of regulation on any kind of business. But, considering the simplicity of the bill, and considering that Monsanto in particular was not there to tell legislators what signals the bill would send to the company and others like it, it seemed just a little out of place.

Then, Kahrin Deines of the Associated Press found out that Monsanto did in fact offer input on the bill. It just did so via a private hosted dinnerórather than through customary channels like, you know, registering as a lobbyist or testifying before the committee along with the rest of the public.

From Deines' story:

Instead of offering public testimony at the committee hearing for the bill, Monsanto shared its opposition to the measure during a private dinner with the Senate committee at the Montana Club...

The bill in question is House Bill 445, sponsored by Rep. Betsy Hands, D-Missoula. The legislation aimed to establish rules on how providers of expensive, proprietary seeds (often for genetically modified crops) can go about policing their patents. Farm country is full of horror stories about legally-purchased patented plants pollinating the next farm, or last year's seeds sprouting this year, leaving innocent farmers subject to aggressive legal action.

House Bill 445, which was patterned partly after similar bills in North Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, Indiana and California, had a simple objective: protect the rights of farmers while still allowing the company to enforce its patents. The bill would have done that by regulating the seed sampling process (allowing farmers to have 3rd party testing done, making the company get permission from farmers before coming on to the land, etc), eliminating liability for farmers that unknowingly grow patented seed, and by mandating that the cases be tried in the farmer's home state, rather than the company's home state.

The bill passed the House earlier in the session on a 57-43 vote. Before that, it flew through the House committee 13-7. But on Tuesday, the Senate Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation committee voted 6-3 to table the bill.

Donald Steinbeisser, R-Sidney; Terry Murphy, R-Cardwell; Taylor Brown, R-Huntley; Ken Hansen; D-Harlem, Rick Ripley, R-Wolf Creek and Verdell Jackson R-Kalispell, all voted to table the bill.

Steinbeisser, the chairman of the committee told Deines regarding the private dinner: "I doubt if anything we talked about that night affected anybody's position on the bill."

According to the story, six of the nine Senate committee members, along with many of the bill's opponentsóincluding the Montana Grain Growers, the Montana Farm Bureau, and the Montana Agribusiness Associationóattended the Monsanto dinner.

I should note that I'm not exactly an objective observer of this bill. I liked the bill. My husband, a farmer, and several of our friends and colleagues were among the growers and researchers who testified in support of the legislation. The Montana Farmers Union, the Alternative Energy Resources Organization and the Montana Organics Association also supported the bill.

The bill isn't anti-biotech or anti-patent. And it certainly would not make it easier for seed "pirates," as some have suggested. It's quite simply a way to protect a farmers' rights (including private property rights) in these cases. A seed company has every right to investigate patent infringements and that right should be protected, but there need to be some simple rules to play by.

Interestingly enough, most of the opposition wasn't even about the substance of the bill. A lot of the questioning at the hearing revolved around whether we actually need this bill, since there have been no recent cases in Montana and since patented seed is not as mainstream here as it is in say, the corn and soybean-rich Midwest. Many of the questionsóand the responses of opponentsóimplied that the bill might send the wrong message to biotech companies, whose products might someday save Montana wheat farmers from pestilence and drought.

Consider this exchange between Sen. Bradley Hamlett, D-Cascade, who voted against tabling the bill, and Douglas Jones of Growers for Biotechnology:

Sen. Hamlett: "You made the point that patent cases have to go to federal court and we have federal courts here in Montana and I think I heard you say, if we tried cases in Montana and the farmer prevailed, Montana would have a black eye. Now did I hear that correct?"

Jones: "I believe you did hear me use the word black eye, only becauseóand it would have nothing to do where the court case was decided, it would have to do with having the case brought at all and a decision made.

But, having said that, the reason I mentioned the term black eye is because if it is decided in Montana against a seed companyóone company in particular has been used today, they're not the only ones out there with proprietary seed varietiesóbut, I think the the net result of that could be that they would then make a business decision to stop doing business in the state of Montana and thereby deprive other growers of that technology that they might choose to use or any future technology that company might developódrought tolerance, better nitrogen utilization, phosphate utilization ... frost resistanceóthat would be a benefit to other growers as well. If that company has made that decision to not sell that seed legally in your state, then your growers, your producers do not have access to it..."

Hamlett: "So you're saying that a company can decide, we're not selling any of our seed in Montana, nobody can buy any seed and plant it in Montana? They can make that determination?'

Jones: "I believe they can. It's a pure business decision. You're not required to farm in any particular state. You're not required to do business in any particular state. You make a decision as a company, as a business person where you're going to go to do business in the most business friendly environment, the most profitable environment for you as a business."

Many of the opponents seemed to suggest that instead of creating regulations now, we should just trust that when Montana does start growing more patented crops, companies like Monsanto will be fair and play by the rules.

But if the way the company handled lobbying against this bill is any indication, playing fair and following the rules may not be Monsanto's strong suit.

The committee did vote on Tuesday to write a letter to both proponents and opponents of the bill inviting them to begin working on a compromise bill for the next legislative session. It's a commendable move, but let's just hope that this time, the committee will listen toóand putóMontana farmers first.

24 March 2009

Luxembourg set to ban GMO cultivation

Agra Europe Weekly, 24 March 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com/portal/puboptions.jsp?Option=menu&pubId=ag002
[Subscription required]

Luxembourg is set to become the fifth EU member state to ban the cultivation of GMO crops, Commission sources confirmed today (Tuesday).

The Luxembourgish government is said to have informed the Commission that it will notify its decision to use the 'safeguard clause' this week.

The cultivation ban will apply to Monsanto's MON810 maize variety, which is currently the only biotech crop approved for cultivation in the EU.

Bringing in a national ban will see Luxembourg join France, Greece, Austria and Hungary in overriding EU approvals to ensure that GMOs are not grown on their territory.

The move comes amid growing calls for a revamp of EU GMO approvals and for devolution of decision-making back to member state level, following a Dutch paper submitted to yesterday's Farm Council http://www.agra-net.com/portal/home.jsp?pagetitle=shownewsarticle&art_id=20017631612&pubId=ag002&art_source=3&pagenum=null&logincode=2> .

Growing use of safeguard

Current EU rules allow member states to invoke a safeguard clause allowing a provisional ban of GM events on their territory, but new scientific evidence must be provided of valid environmental or human health threats.

EU states most sceptical towards GMO usage saw their hand strengthened earlier this month when the MON810 bans in Austria and Hungary were upheld by a majority of member states at the Environment Council.

French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier told reporters at this week's Farm Council that for France -- whose safeguard will be voted on next month by environment ministers -- the Austrian and Hungarian votes were a major boost.

Luxembourg 'acting on science'

Environmental group Greenpeace welcomed the imminent ban in Luxembourg, claiming that it is based on the EU's own precautionary principle and reacting to "serious scientific concerns" on the long-term effects of GM maize cultivation.

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director, said: "Last year, EU ministers called for a re-think in the way GM crops are assessed in Europe. Faced with the Commission's reticence to take these concerns on board, EU countries have no other choice but to protect their citizens and their environment with national bans."

Luxembourg is said to support last December's Council conclusions http://www.agra-net.com/portal/home.jsp?pagetitle=showstory&article_id=1228404645796&pubId=ag002 , which saw member states call for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to revamp its GMO assessment criteria.

Germany considers local bans on GMO crops-minister

Fresh Plaza, 24 March 2009:
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=40433

Germany is considering permitting regional bans on cultivation of crops with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said on Friday.

GMO crops approved as safe by the European Union can be cultivated anywhere in the bloc.

But Aigner signalled that Germany might join several other EU member states which have imposed controversial GMO cultivation bans in the face of EU approvals.

"In the long term I do not believe that a national ban on cultivation is the correct route," she told Reuters. "Opinions in the federal republic (of Germany) differ greatly about this."

"I believe it would be more sensible to transfer the decision about the cultivation of genetically modified organisms to the regions."

"The federal states and local councils should be able to decide whether they want to renounce crops with genetic technology or not.

"I am currently in negotiations with colleagues in the federal government about this."

France, Greece, Austria and Hungary have bans on growing GMO crops. On March 2, EU states voted to stop the EU Commission ordering Austria and Hungary to lift their GMO cultivation restrictions.

MON 810 maize, developed and marketed by U.S. biotech company Monsanto, is the only GM crop that may be commercially grown in the EU.

Aigner, who took office in October 2008, said previously she would separately consider revoking permission for growing MON 810 maize in Germany if strict rules governing cultivation were not obeyed.

Monsanto is due to give German authorities a report on compliance with cultivation rules this month, Aigner said.

"I will then make a rapid decision," she said.

The report is due only about two weeks before German farmers start sowing this year's GMO maize seeds.

Asked about the closeness of the report date and this year's sowing, she said: "I do not find this situation satisfactory".

German farmers have currently registered intentions to plant 3,668 hectares of GMO maize for the 2009 harvest, up from 3,207 hectares in 2008.

The total is an insignificant part of the German annual maize cultivation of around 1.8 to 2.0 million hectares.

Aigner, who is also responsible for consumer protection, said the German public was unconvinced of the need for GMO crops.

"Consumers see no benefit from the cultivation of GMO maize," she said. "The genetic changes are basically a replacement for plant protection chemicals, about whose use no one is shouting about anyway."

European Biotech Debate Embraces Climate Change

TCM News (BioWorld International Via Acquire Media NewsEdge), 24 March 2009:
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/03/24/4080694.htm

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European debate on biotechnology becomes even more diverse this week when the biotech industry defends its legitimacy as a climate-change warrior, while hunger strikes spread in Poland in pursuit of a biotech ban.

Adroitly adopting the sustainability terminology that has gained such prominence as fears grow over global warming, the European biotech industry association, EuropaBio, has launched a new pitch to win farmers' rights to plant GM crops.

"Fresh water is one of the world's most valuable resources, and in the future, it is going to be even more precious," said EuropaBio's Nathalie Moll. "Worldwide, agricultural biotechnology could play a significant role in providing farmers yield stability during periods when water supply is scarce by mitigating the effects of drought - or water stress - within a plant" Areas of high water stress in Europe are likely to dramatically increase in the coming years, she predicted, but "what is less certain, is if and when EU farmers, whose land is currently 80 percent rain-fed, will be offered the choice of growing crops, which can reduce water loss and improve drought tolerance." Drought-tolerant maize seeds could be commercialized by 2012, and field trials already have shown significant yield enhancement, as well as offering reduced fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emission and soil erosion.

The only way to exploit that resource is if new GM crops are approved for cultivation, Moll insisted, arguing that "in the European Union today, farmers don't have the choice about what they grow because new GM crops are not being approved." Meanwhile, the inveterate Polish anti-GMO campaigner Jadwiga Lopata has started a hunger strike in support of two women farmers - Edyta Jaroszewska and Danuta Pilarska - who have been on a hunger strike outside the Polish Ministry of Agriculture in Warsaw since mid-March in protest of their government's refusal to ban GM crops.

A "GMO-free Poland" campaign also has won the backing of a national association of independent farmers who have adopted the iconic name of "Solidarnosc" [solidarity], in an evocation of Poland's struggle in the 1980s against communism.

Polish officials have discouraged the hunger-striking women, but their attempts to allay the protesters' concerns so far have failed.

"The response from the minister of agriculture, received on Friday, March 20, did not change anything. We need to continue the hunger strike, and now we will also be going to the office of the prime minister," the striking women said.

Julian Rose, president of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, has taken what he described as bundles of letters of support to Warsaw: "Whole heaps of letters addressed to Prime Minister Donald Tusk, very dramatic, showing direct support for the hunger-striking farmers and their demands," he said. "Everyone is speaking with one voice to say 'no' to GMOs, including from people in Austria, Hungary, France and Greece, where governments have already introduced GMO bans."

EU Moves Toward Faster Patent System

The European Union has moved one step closer to the harmonized patents regime that biotechnology firms - particularly smaller firms - have been demanding for years. It could dramatically improve legal certainty and access to patent dispute procedures. A new court structure would have jurisdiction both for existing European patents and for future EU-level patents.

European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, responsible for the single EU market, said: "European businesses find the current patent litigation system complex, slow and costly. Once agreed, a unified system with a dedicated unified patent court would make patent litigation more predictable, faster and less expensive, helping to stimulate innovation, competitiveness, growth and job creation in Europe." The risks currently associated with EU patent litigation, together with the lack of a unitary patent title in Europe, hamper access to the patent system, particularly for smaller firms and individual inventors. It is predicted that by 2013 the creation of the new system would result in total private cost savings of up to €289 million (US$350 million) a year. But the results will take time. The new move consists of a recommendation to EU ministers to provide EU officials with negotiating directives for the conclusion of an agreement creating a Unified Patent Litigation System. It should result in an agreement between the EU, its member states and the European Patent Convention.

Federal judge says no to modified crops on U.S. refuge land

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 24 March 2009. By Bill Lambrecht:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/70525F9F8A10BF98862575830078B4FD?OpenDocument

WASHINGTON - In a court case with potential impact in Missouri and across the country, a federal judge in Delaware ruled today that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife should not have permitted farming with genetically modified crops on a national wildlife refuge.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Sleet wrote that the Fish and Wildlife agency erred by failing to conduct environmental studies to determine whether farming with genetically modified crops at the Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware was compatible with conservation and habitat preservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service, Sleet wrote, does "not contest that their own biologists determined that these activities posed significant environmental risks to Prime Hook, including biological contamination, increased weed resistance and damage to soils."

The successful suit was brought by the Audubon Society in Delaware and two Washington-based nonprofits, the Center for Food Safety and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Until 2006, the federal agency had permitted local farmers to plant genetically engineered soybeans and corn on the 10,000-acre refuge. When the groups contested the plantings, the Fish and Wildlife Service canceled 37 farming contracts.

The judge granted the groups' request for an injunction that would prohibit any future cultivation with genetically modified crops until an environmental assessment or a more detailed environmental impact statement was conducted. Tony Leger, the Fish and Wildlife regional refuge manager, said that his agency had halted farming because the groups had made some good arguments. "We can't disagree with the plaintiffs that we should have done a better analysis of our program," he said.

Leger said he was speaking only for his region in the northeast and not for refuge managers around the country, where farming with genetically modified crops is common.

In Missouri, for instance, the Big Muddy National Wildlife Refuge along the Missouri River had hundreds of acres of genetically modified soybeans and corn planted, according to data that the Fish and Wildlife Agency provided to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Similarly, Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in southern Illinois has well over 2,000 acres in crops engineered for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance, according to the federal agency.

The case had added implications in the St. Louis region because most genetically modified crops are sold or licensed by Monsanto Co., of Creve Coeur.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of the public employees' environmental group, said he planned to send the court ruling to managers at more than 80 Fish and Wildlife refuges that permit farming.

"If we don't see movement, our litigation plan is to select a refuge in each region of the country and file similar suits," he said.

Greens present OFMDFM with "Fire Sammy Petition"

Green Party Northern Ireland press release, 24 March 2009:
http://www.greenpartyni.org/news.aspx?a=123

The Green Party has presented its 'FIRE SAMMY PETITION' to the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister.

2,290 people signed the PETITION at http://www.petitiononline.com/bt43xx/petition.html.

Steven Agnew, Green Party MEP candidate said: "The First Minister cannot ignore the views of over 2,000 people. If these people decided to take to the streets it would be a mass protest. Sammy Wilson has acted irresponsibly by ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is man made and by refusing to encourage energy efficiency that can help people save money and contribute to CO2 reductions. It's time for him to go. The joke's over."

The Minister's ranting about climate change has also inspired 2,551 people to join a Facebook group call REMOVE SAMMY WILSON AS ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=62806780904

Speaking from the steps of Stormont today Neil Halliday, a Young Green who set up the group said: "Minister Wilson's censuring of advertisements and his attitudes to climate change are incompatible with his role as Environment Minister. Not only are his opinions on the issue contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, but his decision to ban the adverts is tantamount to censorship and is an affront to democracy in Northern Ireland. His arrogant dismissal of a no-confidence motion by the Environment Committee undermines democracy and makes a mockery of ministerial accountability."

Some of the comments left on the FIRE SAMMY WILSON PETITION included:

•

James McLarnon
While Sammy Wilson is Environmental Minister, I agree Northern Ireland will never be taken seriously, however I also believe that Northern Ireland will never have the much needed public debate on future energy production it desperately needs. We have great potential resources for tidal and wind which could be utilized at a local and national level. Projects to take advantage of these resources could create employment and pave the way for a renewable future. Unfortunately men like Sammy Wilson have their head firmly stuck in the sand.

•

Mags Adams
NI politics has a reputation for ignoring real political issues and blatant climate change denial does nothing to encourage me that much has changed. This man should not be in public office in the new NI.

•

Morgwn Trolinger
Disputing scientific evidence with one's own opinions is not appropriate if in a public office representing a country

•

Jonny McCormick
I don't understand why this appointment was made in the first place when he clearly either really doesn't know anything about the environment, or just doesn't care.

•

Shauna McCollum
Silly man!

•

S Crook
Censorship at it's most ignorant.

•

Barbara Groves
He is a national embarrassment.

•

Paul Conlon
A minister is supposed to represent the electorate, the people who put him in office. He/She is not supposed to go on continuous rants derived from his own personal opinions.

Contact:

Katrina M. Doherty
Communications & Policy Officer
Green Party, Northern Ireland
Room 253, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT43XX
Tel: + 44 28 90 521 461
Mobile: + 44 79 66 14 77 02

Text of the Petition:

Fire Sammy Wilson

To: OFMDFM

We the undersigned support the Green Party's call for the removal of Environment Minister Sammy Wilson because of his refusal to recognize man made climate change.

While the Minister is entitled to his own views, he is not entitled to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that man made climate change exists. The Minister is making a laughing stock out of Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson's decision to block a government advertisement campaign on climate change is tantamount to censorship and grossly irresponsible.

We support the removal of Sammy Wilson from the DOE immediately.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned [2,290 signatures]

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Sammy Wilson also denies the dangers of GM crops, and is the principal obstacle to declaring the whole island of Ireland as a GM-free zone. Time for him to go!

Civil society organisations issue 'health manifesto'

IANS, 24 March 2009:
http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=117682

New Delhi, March 24 (IANS) Various civil society organisations and public health workers here Monday issued a health manifesto for political parties ahead of general elections, to draw attention to their demand that people's health should be given priority as a "national political issue".

The "Peoples Health Manifesto 2009" was released by Jan Swasthya Abhiyaan (Peoples' Health Movement), an association of over 1,000 organisations working in health care and policy.

Highlighting the situation of public health care and emphasising that the current condition is abysmal, especially for the poor, the manifesto asks political parties to take effective measures to "achieve the right to health, which includes the right not only to timely appropriate quality health care but also to the underlying socio economic and environmental determinants of health."

It includes food security, the issue of malnutrition; safe water, sanitation to all and a regulatory framework to address health concerns of genetically modified (GM) cropping and import of GM foods as key factors.

The manifesto also calls for the government to enact a National Health Act ensuring "the right to comprehensive, quality health care at public expense in relevant health institutions to all, where everyone is entitled to the full range of guaranteed, free health services".

The implementation of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has been criticised in the manifesto, which calls for increased allocation and effective expenditure of funds for the project.

"The NRHM had envisaged expenditure of Rs.55,000 crore (Rs.550 billion) per year by 2012 but for past two to three years it has stagnated at about Rs.10,000-12,000 crore (Rs.100-120 billion) per year," the manifesto said.

"The current health policies and their implementation need to be seriously examined so that new policies can be implemented in the framework of quality health care for all and access to basic determinants of health as a basic right," said Amit Sengupta of the Jan Swasthya Abhiyaan.

"A recurring and distressing face of this reality is the unacceptable state of ill-health of our people. It is required that peoples' health be given priority as a national political issue," he said.

"We hope the recommendations in the manifesto will be incorporated by political parties in their election manifestos for the upcoming general election as a demonstration of their commitment to public health."

The manifesto also stresses the need to reform and implement some existing policies on child health and nutrition, gender and health urgently as well as rework policy issues on drugs, medicines and patents.

New climate-ready maize varieties released in Malawi

CheckBiotech.org, 24 March 2009. By Henry Neondo:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/new_climate_ready_maize_varieties_released_malawi

LILONGWE, Malawi - The Government of Malawi Friday launched two new drought tolerant varieties in Balaka District, developed through joint efforts by Malawi's Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).

One of the varieties, an early maturing and dwarf variety with good pounding qualities will be included in the country's national agricultural input subsidy program - credited with being the force behind the nation's food self-sufficiency and Green Revolution.

The varieties will help farmers to increase and stabilize maize production, safeguarding their livelihoods, food security, and economic development despite rising food and fuel prices and climate change effects.

The varieties - ZM 309 and ZM 523 - were developed for drought-prone areas with infertile soils in eastern and southern Africa . They are also resistant to maize streak virus, gray leaf spot, and other diseases.

The new varieties were launched yesterday (20 March 2009) by Dr. Andrew Daudi, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security at a field day in Balaka District - one of the target areas.

Maize is the most important cereal in Malawi, accounting for 70 percent of all the area planted to grain crops.

In Malawi, as in most of sub-Saharan Africa, it is the most important staple food crop - integral to food security, and the nationals typically say "when there is no maize, there is no food."

The annual per capita maize consumption of in Malawi is 300 kilos: the largest in the world. Maize production is mostly rainfed and threatened by frequent periods of poor rainfall.

Climate change experts are predicting more frequent and severe droughts for the region with an estimated annual decline of 0.4 percent in maize productivity.

Malawi's Chitedze Research Station developed the varieties using seed and technical support from the Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT, by its Spanish acronym), through the center's "Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA)" project .

The varieties were tested in farmers' fields and approved for release by Malawi's Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee.

"The farmers liked ZM 309 because of its early maturity," says Kesbell Kaonga, who heads the Maize Program at Chitedze Research Station in Lilongwe. "In fact, farmers compare the yield of both varieties to some commercial hybrids available on the market."

ZM 309 has a potential yield of 5 tons per hectare; while that of ZM 523 is 6 tons per hectare. Both are open pollinated varieties (OPV), meaning that farmers can save and re-use the seed optimally for up to 3 subsequent seasons; compared to hybrids which typically yield more than OPVs in the first season but cannot be recycled as they have a steeper decline in productivity.

Dr Andrew Daudi, said: "We are grateful to CIMMYT for technical, financial and scientific support in developing these new varieties that are suitable for the drought prone areas and will help the people of Malawi to alleviate poverty and hunger and cope with climate change; which these days is becoming a reality. These varieties are drought tolerant, high yielding and resistant to diseases."

He said farmers have embraced these new varieties and have even given them local names, meaning that they appreciate them, especially ZM 309, which is early maturing, resistant to leafy diseases and are dwarf - even children can harvest them. "ZM 309 is going to be included in the national subsidy program next year."

These developments come at a time when Malawi is being looked to as an African success story due to its food self-sufficiency. It is also now a net exporter of maize to the region.

According to Wilfred Mwangi, Program Leader, Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Project, the CIMMYT-Malawi projects will provide important lessonf to the rest of Africa.

This success is owed to the country's agricultural input subsidy program, initiated by the government in 2005 after Malawi experienced one of its worst harvests in years.

Farmers are supplied with improved maize seed and fertilizer at subsidized prices and can choose either hybrid or OPV seed.

Use of improved maize seed and fertilizer has been responsible for the remarkable increase in agricultural productivity and associated bumper maize harvests, dubbed Malawi's Green Revolution. Farmers are free to choose any suitable seed and with the encouraging preliminary results of ZM 309 and ZM 523 trials with farmers, it is only a matter of time before they will be demanding seed of these new varieties.

The DTMA Project is implementing an Innovation Learning Platform (ILeP) to address these challenges.

Currently being piloted in Malawi's Balaka District and led by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, with support from CIMMYT, the ILeP is a multi-stakeholder partnership that aims to ensure that smallholder farmers have access to agro-inputs, drought tolerant maize varieties, credit facilities and output markets to increase food security and improve productivity.

Through the ILeP seed companies, agro-dealers and micro-financial institutions will benefit by marketing their products to farmers. It involves researchers, extension agents, seed producers, agro-dealers, grain marketing companies, non-governmental organizations and micro-financial institutions.

Says Wilfred Mwangi, DTMA Project Leader: "We are grateful for the support that the ILeP has received from the Malawi government and encouraged by the progress made in bringing drought tolerant maize varieties closer to farmers."

"CIMMYT has been working with Malawian scientists to develop maize varieties that can cope with climate change and to because maize is life we want to make a difference in the lives of Africa's farmers."

Synthetic Biology: The Next Biotech Revolution Is Brewing
(Landmark report addresses regulatory oversight for emerging technology )

Memphis Business Journal / PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX, 24 March 2009:
http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/prnewswire/press_releases/national/District_of_Columbia/2009/03/24/DC88437

WASHINGTON -- The safety of early applications of synthetic biology may be adequately addressed by the existing regulatory framework for biotechnology, especially in contained laboratories and manufacturing facilities. But further advances in this emerging field are likely to create significant challenges for U.S. government oversight, according to a new report authored by Michael Rodemeyer of the University of Virginia. Synthetic biology promises major advances in areas such as biofuels, specialty chemicals, and agriculture and drug products.

In New Life, Old Bottles: Regulating First-Generation Products of Synthetic Biology, Rodemeyer examines the benefits and drawbacks of using the existing U.S. regulatory framework for biotechnology to cover the new products and processes enabled by synthetic biology. According to Rodemeyer, initial synthetic biology products will be relatively simple modifications of current technology and can be addressed by existing biotechnology regulations with only modest revisions.

However, as the technology develops, regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration will face challenges in assessing potential risks and the adequacy of controls, especially if complex synthetic microorganisms are released into the environment. Today's risk assessment practices and laws like the Toxic Substances Control Act and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, simply are not designed to handle 21st century technological advances.

"Before synthetic biology matures, Congress and policymakers should consider how to rationalize and modernize the regulation of new converging technologies, instead of attempting to shoehorn each new area of technological development into laws previously written for a different set of issues and potential risks," Rodemeyer argues.

A five-minute video interview with Rodemeyer is available at: http://www.synbioproject.org/news/project/rodemeyer/.

"It would be easy to relegate discussions about oversight to the backburner. But procrastination bears a risk. A productive dialogue may become more difficult as synthetic biology evolves and stakeholders become divided in their opinions about benefits and risks. The existing regulatory framework for biotechnology is the natural starting point for synthetic biology oversight. But the framework is at best a patchwork quilt of decades old guidelines and laws that could impede innovation, undercut public confidence, and compromise the promised benefits of synbio," says David Rejeski, the director of the Foresight & Governance Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "Policymakers, industry, and other key stakeholders should start a discussion now on the basic question of whether existing regulations will work with advanced synthetic biology, and if not, what changes may be needed to ensure safe development and application of the science."

For Rodemeyer's report and more information about synthetic biology, see: http://www.synbioproject.org.

About synthetic biology

The Rathenau Instituut, a unit of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), describes synbio as the convergence of molecular biology, information technology and nanotechnology, leading to the systematic design of biological systems.

The U.S. is considered the world leader in this emerging field of science. Lux Research, however, claims government funding is more coordinated in Europe, led by the European Union's 6th Framework program (FP6) which provides millions of euros in funding for synbio research. Corporations and venture capitalists are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into startups like Amyris, LS9 and Gevo. Some estimate that by 2015, a fifth of the chemical industry (worth $1.8 trillion) could be dependent on synthetic biology.

About the author

From 2000 until 2005, Mr. Rodemeyer was the Executive Director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonprofit research and education project on genetically modified foods funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts. Before that, Rodemeyer held a variety of posts in the federal government, including Assistant Director for Environment in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Clinton administration, and Chief Democratic Counsel for the U.S. Congress House Committee on Science and Technology. From 1976 through 1984, he was an attorney with the Federal Trade Commission, working on consumer protection and antitrust issues.

Currently, Mr. Rodemeyer is an independent consultant on science, technology and environmental policy. He is also an adjunct instructor in the Science, Technology and Society Department in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the University of Virginia.

His report was made possible by a grant from the European Commission to support projects on "Transatlantic methods for handling global challenges." It is based on independent research and does not represent the views of the European Commission or the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. For more information, go to: http://www.lse.ac.uk/nanoregulation.

Source

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
http://www.synbioproject.org
http://www.prnewswire.com

Monthly Biodiversity Report from the Americas Program

Americas Program, 24 March 2009. By Carmelo Ruiz Marrero:
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5990

Translated from: Informe Mensual de Biodiversidad del CIP Americas Program
http://ircamericas.org/esp/5959
Translated by: Esther Buddenhagen

Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP) http://americas.irc-online.org

Dear Readers,

We are pleased to present a new series of short reports on subjects concerning biodiversity in the Americas. These reports, written by Carmelo Ruiz, our long-time collaborator on environmental subjects and an expert on the region, bring together information on the most significant threats to biodiversity as well as on grassroots resistance to them.

We hope that this series will help you understand the risks for the planet and will aid efforts to create networks to protect it. As always, we invite all our readers to send their thoughts, comments and opinions to:

Monthly Bulletin on Biodiversity from the CIP Americas Program
americas@ciponline.org
LC

---

Paraguay: Tractor Blockades from the Right

As one of the biggest producers and exporters of soy in the world, Paraguay suffers severely from the adverse social and environmental effects of export monoculture. These effects include the destruction of biodiversity, deforestation, contamination from agrochemicals, and violent dislocation of campesinos and indigenous people from their land.

"Violence, murders, extreme poverty, and forced displacement are some of the terrible consequences facing campesino movements in Paraguay. These result from the imposition of the agribusiness model in which huge transnational corporations participate," reports Radio Mundo Real. "The Paraguayan model is characterized by the production of soy as a monoculture depending for the most part on transgenics, and on intensive livestock farming. This model affects biodiversity and puts the livelihood of the people in danger."

In response to this situation, organizations of campesinos have participated in protests, occupied land, taken direct actions to stop fumigation by toxic agrochemicals, and organized resistance against evictions from their land. The authorities, landholders, and sectors allied with agribusinesses have responded to this resistance with violence and repression. The recent election of the progressive candidate Fernando Lugo to the presidency of the republic promises positive change in the traditional stance of the Paraguayan government regarding monoculture and agribusiness. However, the web page "La Soja Mata" warns: "In this new political context, social movements are pressing to advance their most important struggles: agricultural reform and the recovery of food independence. The new government has produced visible progress such as the change in national direction of the Agrarian Reform Institute (INDERT, Instituto de Reforma Agraria), in which it has employed people close to the campesino movements. However, the repression of campesino movements continues as can be seen by recent violent evictions from occupied land and the murder of the campesino leader Bienvenido Melgarejo on Oct. 4, 2008."

Soy producers are confronting the new government with a series of "tractor blockades," demonstrations using heavy agricultural machinery in the streets of Asunción, the capital city, and other major cities. The organizers maintain that the objective of the "tractor blockades" is "a safe Paraguay where everyone, without exception, lives together respecting the law."

The organizations of people exiled from their land, the small campesinos, environmentalists, and labor unions call these protests a demonstration of violence against social change. "They have the machines, we have the people," said a campesino organizer of "La Soja Mata." "The peace and safety they demand is a declaration of violence against those who want a new Paraguay. They will become more confrontational when Lugo's government does not give in to the wishes of a corrupt minority," proclaimed the Social and Populat Front (Frente Social y Popular).

References

La Soja Mata Collective, "Tractorazo: Los productores de soja protestan para 'paz, securidad y trabajos,'"
http://lasojamata.org/es/node/345.

Radio Mundo Real, "Monocultivos de soja y ganadería intensiva amenazan biodiversidad y campesinado en Paraguay,"
http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/2008/05/radio-mundo-real-en-bonn.html.

http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Paraguay.

---

Argentina: Stop Spraying

Photo captions:

•

Argentinian activists demonstrate against fumigation practices in the cultivation of soy. Photo: Jorge E. Rulli, http://www.grr.org.ar.

•

Map of the current fumigation of soy crops in the Argentine province of Cordóba.
Photo: Gerardo Mesquida, http://parendefumigar.blogspot.com.

No country has devoted more land to the production of only one transgenic (or genetically modified) crop than Argentina. Right now genetically modified soy from the Monsanto Corporation which is resistant to herbicide is planted in half of the agricultural territory in the country. In the January 2009 issue of its journal Seedling, the NGO GRAIN published an article summarizing the environmental cost of this type of monoculture in Argentina. They state:

Every year 200,000 hectares of native forest are destroyed as the agricultural frontier advances. With intense monoculture comes erosion and soil degradation. It has been estimated that deforestation has resulted in the loss of from 19 to 30 million tons of soil to erosion every year. Furthermore, the planting of soy extracts nutrients from the soil and absorbs water which is stored in the crop. In practice, this means that a million tons of nitrogen and 160,000 tons of phosphorus are being "exported" annually, along with 42,500 million cubic meters of water.

The collective Stop Fumingating Córdoba (Paren de Fumigar Córoba) has joined various initiatives which have arisen to combat the expansion of monoculture and the use and abuse of agrotoxins. This citizens' group favors organic, sustainable, traditional agriculture and the recovery of traditional knowledge. The group supports neighbors who suffer from agrotoxin contamination, monitors social conditions in small towns affected by spraying, and coordinates action on a national level.

References

La Soja Mata Collective website: http://lasojamata.org/es/node/338.

GRAIN, "Twelve years of GM soya in Argentina," Seedling, Jan. 2009,
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=578.

Stop Fumigating Córdoba (Paren de Fumigar Córdoba) website:
http://parendefumigar.blogspot.com/.

http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Argentina.

---

Mexico: Geo-pirates in Oaxaca

The Union of Oraganizations from the Sierra Juárez of Oaxaca (UNOSJO, Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca) denounced a "joint" initiative called Indigenous Project Mexico (Proyecto México Indigena). This project allegedly puts the sovereignty of indigenous pueblos in jeopardy and facilitates the looting of their natural patrimony through the mapping of their territories. Critics call this activity, which involves compiling high resolution geographic information about the precise location of various resources, including water resources and biodiversity, "geo-piracy."

In the words of Silvia Ribeiro of the Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration (ETC Group), "The implications of this type of activity are so vast that it is difficult to summarize them. The detailed and exact mapping of the areas is possible only by obtaining the local knowledge of the people who live there. By processing this data with new technologies such as systems of digitized geographic information superimposed on satellite maps freely available on Google, one can obtain an enormous amount of information which was previously unknown or was not visible. These maps are not only very useful for military purposes and for counterinsurgency efforts, but also for industrial purposes (exploitation of mineral resources, plants, animals and biodiversity, mapping accesses to constructed or 'necessary' highways, sources of water, population centers, social mapping of possible resistance to or acceptance of projects, etc.)."

The critics of the project "Mexico Indígena" note with great concern that among its financiers is the United States Army.

References

UNOSJO, "Geopiteraría y Proyecto México Indígena,"
http://www.ecoportal.net/content/view/full/84360.

Silvia Ribeiro, "Geopiratería en México,"
http://www.biodiversidadla.org/content/view/full/47165.

---

Chile and Mexico: Transgenic Maize Contamination

The University of Chile's Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA, Instituto de Nutrición y Tecnología de los Alimentos) found that the plantings of conventional maize in Chile, in the O'Higgins region, have been contaminated with transgenic varieties. The ecologist María Isabel Manzur, of the Sustainable Societies Foundation (Fundación Sociedades Sustentables), considers the situation extremely grave.

According to the report in the journal Biodiversidad, Sustento y Culturas, "Manzur and the ecologist Sara Larraín asked the Ministry of Agriculture to undertake independent studies to evaluate the extent of the contamination of plants and seeds in the country. They also asked that at the same time control measures be implemented over areas already contaminated; that the Bio-security Protocol (Protocolo de Bioseguriad) be ratified, and that a law be passed which would prohibit these plants from entering the country because, in their judgment, such plants are dangerous for the environment and for human health."

In 2007 The Chilean government authorized the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, mostly maize, on almost 25,000 hectares. In parallel, in Congress a bill was debated, introduced by senators from different political parties who support the expansion of transgenic crops without considering the threat they present.

Meanwhile, the scientific journal Molecular Ecology recently published a study which confirmed the surreptitious presence of transgenic maize in rural areas of the Mexican state of Oaxaca. The study, authored by a team from UNAM led by professor Elena Alvarez Buylla, vindicated Ignacio Chapela and David Quist of the University of California who were the first to report this phenomenon in Oaxaca in 2001.

The new article demonstrates that indeed transgenic contamination existed in Oaxaca in 2001, and moreover, it also existed in the samples of maize on which Sol Ortiz García based his 2005 article in which he alleged that there was no transgenic material detectable in Oaxaca.

For Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group, the article by Alvarez Buylla, et. al. is supremely relevant since it highlights the collusion between the biotech industry and government scientists and officials.

References

Biodiversidad, Sustento y Culturas, "Contaminación transgénica de maíz en Chile,"
http://www.biodiversidadla.org/Principal/Contenido/Documentos/Ataques_politicas_resistencia_relatos2.

Silvia Ribeiro, "Corrupción transgénica al descubierto,"
http://www.biodiversidadla.org/content/view/full/46665.

---

Bolivia and Uruguay: Persistent Organic Contaminants

In January the Action Network on Pesticides and their Alternatives in Latin America (RAP-AL, Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus alternativas para América Latina) held an international meeting in La Paz, Bolivia, where they presented important findings on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

"POPs are a substance which bio-accumulate, bio-magnify, and remain for many years in the environment," explained the activist María Isabel Cárcamo of the Uruguayan chapter of RAP-AL. "POPs are transported from industrial and agricultural processes by both air and water, so that they accumulate at high, cold altitudes. They later begin re-circulating, re-entering soil and vegetation ... One of the most frequently utilized POPs at present is the insecticide endosulfan. It was introduced in the 1950s and emerged as one of the most important chemical products for use against a wide variety of insects and mites in agriculture and related sectors."

Studies presented in La Paz, undertaken by Dr. Margot Franken and colleagues at the Institute of Ecology (Instituto de Ecología), Major University of San Andres, Bolivia, detected significant evidence of POPs accumulated in the atmosphere at an elevation of between 1,820 and 5,200 meters.

The investigation concluded that airborne POPs have travelled to high mountain areas and there condensed due to the prevailing low temperatures. The highest peak concentrations were detected between February and June, coinciding with the period of greatest agricultural activity.

Cárcoamo expressed great concern about these findings and their relevance to her own country. According to Cárcoamo, in Uruguay the importation of enosulfan increased 4,581% between 2000 and 2007. "Our country doesn't have mountains and the average temperatures are not as low as they can be in Bolivia. However, endosulfan is a POP. It is extremely contaminating and persistent. In addition to accumulating in our ecosystem, it travels to other more distant regions, contaminating them as well."

References

María Isabel Cárcamo, "Endosulfán en las monta as de Bolivia: ųY en Uruguay?"
http://webs.chasque.net/~rapaluy1/agrotoxicos/Prensa/endosulfan_Bolivia.html.

---

Translated for the Americas Program by Esther Buddenhagen.

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

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

For More Information

The Biosafety Protocol and the Future of Biosafety
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5559

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

Losing the Forest for the Trees: Tree Monocultures and the Biofuel Boom
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5193

Activist or terrorist? Mild-mannered eco-militant serving 22 years for arson
'The government is trying to send a message,' Marie Mason tells the Guardian in her first interview since she was sentenced

The Guardian (UK), 24 March 2009. By Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/marie-mason-speaks-from-jail

Marie Mason, an environmental activist from Cincinnati, Ohio, is serving 22 years after admitting 13 counts of arson and property damage. Photograph: freemarie.org

She is, in the eyes of the law, America's most dangerous eco-terrorist: a self-confessed serial arsonist who resorted to fire and destruction to register her opposition to the fur industry and genetically modified crops.

But to those who know her and to some legal experts, the 22-year jail term handed to Marie Mason, 47, is a consequence of America's preoccupation with terrorism in the post-9/11 world.

She is serving the longest sentence of any convicted animal rights or environmental militant, including several activists responsible for greater destruction.

"It is obvious the government is trying to send a message - to have a chilling effect, not only on my action, which of course transgressed the laws, but also on 30 years of above-ground actions in the environmental rights spheres," Mason told the Guardian in her first interview since she was sentenced last month.

Mason was convicted on the evidence of her fellow arsonist and ex-husband, Frank Ambrose. He was jailed for nine years.

"It's very, very sad. These are karmic things that Frank will have to deal with on his own," she said.

The explosive fire Mason and Ambrose set at Michigan State University on 31 December 1999 caused nearly $1m (£680,000) of damage to buildings and equipment, but no death or injuries. The target was the office of the director of a genetically modified crop research programme into moth-resistant food crops for Africa, funded by the US Agency for International Development and the biotechnology company Monsanto.

Professor Daniel Clay, who worked at the institute in 1999 and is now the director, said the attack had a severe impact on the staff. "It really was a shock," he said. "It was a very difficult period for all of us. People were frightened and we asked ourselves how close did this come to physically harming someone."

However, Mason's lawyer, John Minock, who filed an appeal against the sentence last week, argues that 22 years is excessively harsh. Mason got a much longer sentence than several militants recently convicted of setting fire to logging camps and vehicles in Oregon and Washington states - including Stanislas Meyerhoff who received 13 years for setting 11 fires and causing $30m in damage.

"Giving her a 22-year sentence is like using a cannon to shoot a mouse," Minock said. "She is a 47-year-old, mild-mannered woman with no previous criminal record other than trespassing."

The FBI had singled out militant environmentalists and animal rights activists as domestic security threats even before the 9/11 attacks. Since then, the courts have used domestic terrorism laws to stiffen the punishment for politically inspired violence.

Mason is a prime example. "We are definitely seeing more severe sentences post-9/11, no doubt about it," said Heidi Boghosian, the director of the National Lawyers Guild. "We have seen a trend of using the terrorist label and federalising a lot of criminal activities that would have gotten a far less stringent sentence before."

Lauren Regan, an Oregon lawyer who defends environmental militants, calls it the "green scare".

To those in Mason's home city of Detroit who know her, her elevation to the ranks of America's most dangerous criminals came as a shock. A fixture in activist circles, she was bright and charming, but unfocused - a woman who had an advanced degree in chemistry but lived near the poverty line.

They saw her as a doting mother to her adult son and teenage daughter, a soft touch who took in stray dogs and named them after revolutionary heroines, an amateur folk singer and a passionate supporter of various causes. But not, they say, the organiser of a series of attacks.

"She is one of those people that, whenever there would be a demonstration, she would be there," said Peter Werbe, a Detroit broadcaster who has known Mason for 20 years. "I don't think she ever rose to prominence as a figure in the city."

A long-time acquaintance said: "If you look at the court documents, Frank is always the one lighting the fire, she is always the one spray-painting the wall. That, in a nutshell, is who she is. Marie is always the support staff."

Mason met the man who was to become her third husband in 1998. Ambrose, now 34, was well-known among forestry activists in the mid-west and was leading a workshop for activists.

Mason says there was an instant attraction. The two were soon living together and married, although the relationship was troubled.

At about 9pm on New Year's Eve 1999, the couple entered an office in the Institute of International Agriculture at Michigan State University and doused it with petrol.

The arson, by Mason's own account, was botched. A fireball set her hair on fire, forcing the couple to run before she even managed to write her slogan, "No GMO".

The next day, the pair set fire to a logging camp. She has also admitted to burning boats belonging to the owner of a mink farm.

When asked whether the fires might have terrified staff and students at the university, she said: "It was intended as an enlightenment moment that people would see what is going on beneath the surface."

Clay argues his institute's research was aimed at creating a more sustainable agriculture, an ambition he believes should be shared by environmentalists. "It was most important to us that the perpetrators were caught and that justice was served," he said.

The couple nearly got away with it but were caught in March 2007. By then, the two had split up.

Ambrose, who was cleaning out his possessions, left gas masks, fuses, maps and explosives in a rubbish dump. The material was discovered by a man who called the authorities. Eventually, the gas masks led the FBI to Ambrose, who agreed to turn informer. He wore a wire and gave Mason a mobile phone, to help the FBI monitor her conversations.

Mason, in her jail cell, has often thought about those talks. "I did think that some of our conversations were very strained and strange but I attributed that to the fact that Frank was a very nervous person and he was under a lot of pressure," she said. "I was the last to know that Frank was unreliable."

Additional reporting by Damian Carrington.

Monsanto meeting with Mont. panel draws criticism

Boston Globe, 24 March 2009. By Kahrin Deines:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/03/24/monsanto_meeting_with_mont_panel_draws_criticism/

HELENA, Mont.óAn unusual private dinner shared by most of a Senate committee and biotech giant Monsanto Co. has led to talk that unfair tactics, avoided by even the most seasoned Montana lobbyists, are being used by groups that slip through the state's lobbying laws.

The controversy has sprouted over a bill that would set rules for how seed samples are taken from farmers' land for patent enforcement by companies such as Monsanto. On Tuesday, a Senate committee is scheduled to vote on a measure that has already passed the House on a 57-43 vote.

That St. Louis-based agribusiness, known for its sturdy varieties of corn and soybeans, has been courting the Senate Agriculture Committee to table House Bill 445, although it's not currently registered as a lobbyist in the state.

Instead of offering public testimony at the committee hearing for the bill, Monsanto shared its opposition to the measure during a private dinner with the Senate committee at the Montana Club, according to committee chairman Sen. Donald Steinbeisser. Six of nine committee members attended the dinner, but all were invited, he said.

"I doubt if anything we talked about that night affected anybody's position on the bill," said Steinbeisser, a Republican farmer from Sidney who has found biotech products to be very useful.

But supporters of House Bill 445, which would set guidelines for how farmers' fields are checked for stolen seeds, feel the private dinner undermined the fairness of the bill's actual hearing.

"I walked into the hearing feeling like the cards were stacked against me, without knowing what was said and what the opposition was," said Rep. Betsy Hands, D-Missoula, the measure's sponsor.

Lawmakers at the dinner, held about a week before the formal hearing, said Monsanto organized and paid for the event. But a group known as Growers for Biotechnology claims it picked up the tab and sent out the invitations. Monsanto also said it did not pay for the dinner, although the company had a major presence.

Growers for Biotechnology are also not registered as lobbyists in Montana. Unless Monsanto or the group spend at least $2,400 on lobbying -- whether in wages or steaks -- they are not required to report their activities in the state.

"It's open to anybody who'd like to do it. We weren't buying anybody's votes," said Allan Skogen, chairman of Growers for Biotechnology. "We basically introduced ourselves. We just want to provide information."

Taking a committee out to eat before a bill hearing is not illegal in Montana, but it is highly unusual.

"The idea that they would not testify before the committee and instead that they would bring the committee to them -- I think it's fair to say that's not a common approach," said Dennis Unsworth, Montana's Commissioner of Political Practices.

Spokesmen for PPL Montana -- which led in spending on lobbying efforts in the 2007 session -- and Capitol regular NorthWestern Energy both said they have never taken a full committee out to eat before a bill hearing. They have, however, offered committee dinners at the end of the session once lawmakers' work is largely finished.

"It's more about appreciation and getting together to say goodbye," said David Hoffman, the lobbyist for PPL Montana.

Veteran legislators also could not remember seeing full committees offered a private dinner prior to a hearing.

"I've never had the experience, and I'm not personally aware of any committees being taken out before a bill hearing," said Sen. Mike Cooney, D-Helena, who has served in both the House and Senate, and currently serves on three committees.

The bill would require Monsanto and other companies to get permission from a farmer before sampling crops on their land. If the farmer denies permission, the company could ask a district court for an order to sample the crops. The farmer or the company could also ask the state Department of Agriculture to oversee the sampling process.

The state's leading farm organizations, however, have testified against the need for any such guidelines. They argue the bill's real aim is to discourage the development and sale of genetically modified seeds in Montana, leaving farmers without access to the benefits of biotechnology.

Opponents include the Montana seed company WestBred, the Montana Farm Bureau, the Montana Agribusiness Association and the Montana Grain Growers Association -- all of which joined the committee and Monsanto at the dinner, according to its sponsor.

"It's not a farm protection bill," said Arlene Rice of the Montana Agribusiness Association during the bill's hearing. "What it does is deny many farmers and many growers a chance for new technology."

But farmers supporting the bill contend rules are needed to protect small growers from false accusations of seed theft that have led to hefty legal fees and harassment in other states.

Now they are also pointing to Monsanto's efforts to undermine the bill as more proof that protections should be in place.

"I think it shows this bill is needed to protect farmers because we want an open, honest and transparent process and clearly a behind-the-scenes dinner isn't open to the public," Hands said.

---

Note by GM Watch:

See comment about Al Skogen under 25 March above.

Rice trade issues for new USTR Kirk

Delta Farm Press (USA), 24 March 2009. By Bob Cummings, Senior Vice President, USA Rice Federation:
http://deltafarmpress.com/markets/rice-trade-0324

The confirmation of Ron Kirk as the new U.S. Trade Representative on March 18, 2009, is an opportunity for the Obama administration to refocus the U.S. trade agenda. Aggressive enforcement of existing trade agreements must be a priority along with congressional approval of the free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia, and completion of the Doha Round of multilateral negotiations.

With the current state of the economy, trade is as important a factor in economic recovery as any other. In particular, agriculture remains one of the only sectors to enjoy a surplus of exports over imports, and rice sales to foreign customers are an important contributor to that. The U.S. rice industry exports nearly half of the rice crop annually, so trade is critical to the future health of the industry. Ambassador Kirk's agenda must include engaging our trading partners and eliminating trade barriers for U.S. agricultural commodities abroad.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance, Ambassador Kirk stressed the importance of enforcing current trade agreements. As the fourth-largest global exporter of rice, the U.S. rice industry faces two specific market access barriers that require the immediate attention of the USTR.

The most pressing concern is Taiwan's failure to fulfill its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligation to import rice. In March 2007, Taiwan committed to a series of country-specific tariff rate quotas (CSQ) for the annual import of rice by the government. Under these CSQs, Taiwan is obligated to import 64,634 metric tons of U.S. rice on a calendar-year basis. Taiwan fell short in 2007 and 2008 by importing only 46 percent and 36 percent, respectively, of its commitment to the United States.

Taiwan cites high U.S. prices and lack of budget as its reasons for not buying. However, even when U.S. prices were below current levels, Taiwan failed to purchase rice. Taiwan uses a non-transparent price ceiling mechanism that makes it nearly impossible for U.S. rice to be competitive. It is unclear how Taiwanese officials calculate the price ceiling because it does not reflect the commercial realities of the market. The USA Rice Federation has met with Taiwan officials on several occasions to explain market fundamentals. We have also engaged USDA and USTR to seek resolution. It is now time to elevate the U.S. government's discussion with Taiwan.

Multiple trade barriers also exist with the European Union (EU). Long-grain brown rice dominates U.S. exports to the EU, where it is milled into white rice, packaged and sold to consumers. By WTO obligation, current EU import duties on U.S. brown rice should be zero, but the EU withdrew this trade concession in 2004 and has yet to replace it as required by WTO rules. Instead of paying zero duties, importers of U.S. brown rice now must pay the equivalent of $54.35 per ton.

Compounding the unfair import duty is the EU response to the presence of the LibertyLink Rice 601 (LL601) trait in the U.S. long-grain supply. The LL601 trait is not approved in the EU, and after trace amounts of the trait were found in the commercial U.S. long-grain rice supply in 2006, long-grain rice trade with the EU effectively stopped. In order to regain this market the U.S. rice industry implemented an extensive voluntary testing protocol to rid the long-grain supply of the trait. That protocol, called the Seed Plan, has been very successful, and 99.9 percent of tests on the 2008 crop came up negative for the LL601 trait.

Unfortunately, the effort of the U.S. rice industry has not been enough to lift the EU's Emergency Measures requiring mandatory origin testing of U.S. long-grain rice before it is exported to the EU. These measures, in place since 2006, should be eliminated because the U.S. rice industry has proven its commitment to meet EU regulations by effectively removing the LL601 trait.

According to USDA data, total 2007 U.S. rice exports to the EU-27 were 98,000 metric tons, a decrease of 53 percent from 2006 levels and 68 percent from 2005. In order for the U.S. to fully recover the market, the EU must adopt a comprehensive low-level presence (LLP) policy that covers food and feed. Currently, the EU has a zero tolerance for genetically engineered traits, like LL601, not yet approved in the EU. The establishment of a LLP policy would allow for a low level presence of GE traits that are approved in other countries, but not in the EU.

The USA Rice Federation has actively worked to reverse trade barriers to U.S. grown rice around the world. Now is the time for Ambassador Kirk to press our trading partners. If enforcement of current trade agreements is Ambassador Kirk's top priority, the trade barriers unfairly inflicted upon the U.S. rice industry that conflict with existing trade agreements must be pursued vigorously until market access and competitiveness are restored.

Beth A. Park, USA Rice Federation International Policy Manager, contributed to this commentary.

23 March 2009

Council eyes renationalised GM cultivation

Agra Europe Weekly, 23 March 2009:
[Requires subscription: http://www.agra-net.com/portal/]

A growing consensus has emerged among member states at this week's Farm Council in favour of renationalising GMO cultivation policy.

The Czech presidency said that a "surprising" number of countries reacted positively to a paper from the Dutch government proposing that the choice of whether to cultivate GMOs should be left to individual member states.

In a paper put forward to the Council, the Netherlands suggests that a possible solution to GMO approval issues would be for internal market rules to apply on the import of products - with a decision at EU level. But for cultivation it could be left to each member state.

The Dutch paper warns that 'socio-economic concerns' are not currently being taken into account in the EU approval process.

Nine countries in favour

Around nine countries expressed some form of support for the Dutch paper, welcoming the opportunity to discuss fundamental concerns with the current approval process, sources said.

France, Romania, Poland, Finland, Austria, Cyprus and Luxembourg all offered their support, while Germany was said to be "sympathetic" to the Dutch concerns and Greece welcomed the idea but urged a continued focus on "science".

Spain, Portugal, Italy and Estonia are said to have rejected the Dutch approach, on the back of concerns that it will undermine the internal market.

The Czech presidency said that there was already clear support for renationalising GM cultivation approvals, and that "the number of these member states seems to be growing". Czech Agriculture Minister Petr Gandalovic said that agriculture ministers should have a new input into the approvals debate.

Commission: no mandate for revamp

The Commission, however, showed reluctance to debate the idea of devolving cultivation approval to member state level.

Health Commissioner Androulla Vassilliou, stepping in for the absent Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, is understood to have recalled that the current legal framework on GMOs is fully comprehensive.

Environment ministers voted unanimously in December to strengthen the existing system while tweaking its implementation rules, the Commission said. There is therefore no mandate for revamping the approval process, letalone renationalizing cultivation policy, it was argued.

The December conclusions included a contentious paragraph on socio-economic criteria which directed the member states "to collect and exchange data on socio-economic implications of the placing on the market of GMOs, including socio-economic benefits and risks and agronomic sustainability, by September 2009."

The Commission is said to have taken note of the Dutch position, and will use its input alongside that of other member states as it compiles a report on the socio-economic impact of the release of GMOs into the environment.

This report will be presented to the Environment Council by June 2010, member states were told.

Dutch call for new approach

The Dutch paper reiterates the country's support for the internal market, recalling that the Netherlands has in general respected EU safety approvals when voting on GMO applications.

It however urges a new focus on national socio-economic interests -- thought to include concerns over research-related jobs and local food and feed supply factors - in the GMO equation.

The paper reads: "Because of the increased attention in society for GMOs and rapid technological developments the question may be raised whether a distinctive approach on the approval of GMO products and the cultivation of GMOs can provide a solution for the often complex and difficult EU decision making process on GMOs.

"The Dutch government recognises however that the European legislation on GMOs is not taking into account the recent developments and worries in EU-society and socio-economic dimensions of use and market access of GMOs".

"Therefore, the Netherlands urges the Commission to take the initiative to develop proposals on adapting the existing GMO-regulation, taking into account the socio-economic dimensions of GMOs."

EU ministers' meeting on the crisis and GMOs

Green Planet, 23 March 2009:
http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/372-eu-ministers-meeting-on-the-crisis-and-gmos.html

The economic crisis and the GMOs will be the core of the talks of EU Agriculture ministers in their Monday's meeting in Brussels.

Following to the spring European summit, the 27 leaders will consider the crisis' consequences on the agricultural sector. The ministers are willing to grant European citizens with right priced food supplies, at the same time allowing fair profits to European farmers.

Upon initiative of the Dutch delegation, the ministers will also discuss the EU's strategy with regard to the delicate matter of Genetically Modified Organism (GMOs). The proposal made by the Low Countries is to maintain an authorization system for the European Union for food imports containing transgenical products, but allowing each member State to take its own decision for what concerns GMO cultivations. This new contribution will be added to the discussion among Health, Environment and Agriculture ministers that have to grant coexistence of GMO and GMO free productions.

Will Obama's Food Safety Team Finally Regulate the Biggest Food Safety Hazard of Our Time

The Huffington Post, 23 March 2009. By Jeffrey Smith:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/will-obamas-food-safety-t_b_178127.html

If President Obama's new Food Safety Working Group dedicates all their time and credentials to prevent future food recalls, they will have saved thousands of people – but forsaken millions.

Over the last decade, our radically changing diet has ushered in the explosive growth of food-related ailments, such as allergies, asthma, obesity, diabetes, autism, infertility, gastro-intestinal disorders, and learning disabilities. Of all the changes in our food, the most dangerous transformation was the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops.

When these gene-spliced concoctions, such as GM soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed, came on the scene in 1996, the proportion of Americans suffering from three or more chronic ailments. After just 9 years, that nearly doubled to 13%. GM foods are the prime suspect.

Government policy at odds with science

Until now, the government has sidestepped the controversy by hiding behind FDA policy, which asserts that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are "substantially equivalent" to natural foods and therefore don't require any safety studies. But as Obama acknowledged, "many of the laws and regulations governing food safety in America" are outdated.

In truth, the FDA's GMO policy was not even up-to-date when it was implemented in May 1992. FDA documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that virtually all the agency scientists asked to comment voiced strong warnings that GMOs may cause serious health problems. But the FDA was under orders from the White House to fast track GM foods, and the person in charge of FDA policy was the former attorney of biotech giant Monsanto – and later become their vice president. The scientists and the science were ignored.

Now that animals fed GMOs – in labs and farms around the world – have exhibited symptoms related to the growing list of diseases in the US population, the President's Food Safety team, including Dr. Margaret Hamburg as FDA Commissioner, must update GMO regulation. A scientifically sound regulation would translate into an immediate ban of current GM crops, and the implementation of rigorous safety testing requirements before any GMO was put back into the food supply. And certainly mandatory labeling, as promised by President Obama during his campaign, must accompany any GM food approval.

Presidents and industry insiders avoid GMOs

The Obama family has wisely opted out of exposing themselves to GM foods by requiring organic – and therefore non-GMO – foods served at the White House. They are even planting an organic garden on the south lawn of the White House, to feature 55 types of vegetables.

The Bush family also had an organic kitchen policy. Laura Bush was "adamant" about it, but kept it all quiet.

Even at Monsanto, many in-the-know employees won't consume the company's own GM creations. Back in 1999, the management of the cafeteria at Monsanto's UK headquarters in High Wycombe, England wrote:

"In response to concern raised by our customers... we have decided to remove, as far as possible, genetically modified soy and maize (corn) from all food products served in our restaurant... We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."

And one former Monsanto scientist told me that his colleagues, who were safety testing milk from cows injected with the company's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, decided to stop drinking milk – unless it was organic.

It's now time to let us all opt out of this dangerous and failed GM experiment. If Obama's team is serious about food safety and public health, they must take GMOs off our plates and put them back into the laboratory.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa – surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green http://www.chelseagreen.com.

Monsanto courts Senate committee at private dinner

The Associated Press, 23 March 2009:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20090323/NEWS01/90323019

HELENA - An unusual private dinner shared by most of a Senate committee and biotech giant Monsanto has led to talk that unfair tactics, avoided by even the most seasoned Montana lobbyists, are being used by groups that slip through the state's lobbying laws.

The controversy has sprouted over a bill that would set rules for how seed samples are taken from farmers' land for patent enforcement by companies such as Monsanto. On Tuesday, a Senate committee is scheduled to vote on a measure that has already passed the House on a 57-43 vote.

That St. Louis-based agribusiness, known for its sturdy varieties of corn and soybeans, has been courting the Senate Agriculture Committee to table House Bill 445, although it's not currently registered as a lobbyist in the state.

Instead of offering public testimony at the committee hearing for the bill, Monsanto shared its opposition to the measure during a private dinner with the Senate committee at the Montana Club, according to committee chairman Sen. Donald Steinbeisser. Six of nine committee members attended the dinner, but all were invited, he said.

"I doubt if anything we talked about that night affected anybody's position on the bill," said Steinbeisser, a Republican farmer from Sidney who has found biotech products to be very useful.

But supporters of House Bill 445, which would set guidelines for how farmers' fields are checked for stolen seeds, feel the private dinner undermined the fairness of the bill's actual hearing.

"I walked into the hearing feeling like the cards were stacked against me, without knowing what was said and what the opposition was," said Rep. Betsy Hands, D-Missoula, the measure's sponsor.

Lawmakers at the dinner, held about a week before the formal hearing, said Monsanto organized and paid for the event. But a group known as Growers for Biotechnology claims it picked up the tab and sent out the invitations. Monsanto also said it did not pay for the dinner, although the company had a major presence.

Organizations clamour for more thorough GE controls

Food Navigator USA, 23 March 2009:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Legislation/Organizations-clamour-for-more-thorough-GE-controls

A consortium of 82 organization is campaigning for more stringent evaluations of genetically engineered crops in the US, and urging a freeze on new approvals pending changes to the authorization procedure.

Regulation on genetically-engineered, or GE, crops was first introduced 22 years ago, since which time both public awareness of GE organisms and the area on which they are grown around the world have increased - as has controversy over propounded benefits and potential for harm.

Last year the USDA released a proposal to overhaul the regulation, which has not been reviewed since 1987. But campaigners say the proposal on the table would weaken the USDA's oversight and put more onus on biotech firms to self-regulate. Because of the interest this generated from stakeholders, the department extended the deadline from November 2008 to March 17 2009, and is planning to hold a public event in April to discuss key concerns. 15,000 comments are understood to have been received to date.

Given the administration change since the proposal was issued, the organizations, which represent farm, food, environmental and public interest groups, have sent a letter to USDA secretary Tom Vilsack, asking that new approvals be blocked until the regulatory situation is clearer - and what they see as "serious deficiencies" are corrected.

The letter was not seen by FoodNavigator-USA.com prior to publication as the organisations are awaiting confirmation of receipt from Vilsack's office before releasing it publicly.

"Peoples' right to choose the food they eat and farmers' right to plant the crops of their choice is at risk with these proposed rules," said Bill Wenzel, Policy Advisor, Center for Food Safety. "USDA must engage in a new rulemaking process that makes significant revisions to protect the rights and livelihoods of farmers, the public, and the environment."

The Center for Food Safety claims that stricter oversight of GE crops was "promised" by the USDA more than four years ago, but that "the improvements considered early on have vanished".

According to the latest figures from the Worldwatch Institute, the total global area of genetically engineered crops increased 12 percent in 2007 compared to the previous year, bringing total land area up to 114.3 million hectares. The US accounts for half of this.

[USA]: Neugebauer vows to fight for farmers

The Graham Leader - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX, 24 March 2009. By Cherry Young:
https://sites.stockpoint.com/dain/newspaper.asp?site=D&Mode=Agriculture&Story=20090324/083e8796.xml

Congressman Randy Neugebauer had his first meeting with newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack recently to discuss President Barack Obama's ideas for the country's farming future.

The two discussed breaking down trade barriers, changes to the 2008 Farm Bill and funding for a new nutrition program Obama would like to implement, Neugebauer said during a teleconference.

"Changing the rules of agriculture right now would not be in America's best interest," said Neugebauer.

He said he told Vilsack he opposed altering the farm bill with the economy weaker than it was when the bill was enacted because the details of that bill have not been fully hashed out.

"We've got a farm bill here that we just passed, and we don't even have all the rules for it and that would create a lot of uncertainty," said Neugebauer.

Many farmers in the 19th Congressional District are concerned about Obama's desire to eliminate the direct payments for grain, cotton and soybean producing farms that gross over $500,000. Neugebauer said the effects of the elimination would be catastrophic.

"This farm bill was put together and the safety net was woven together in a bipartisan way and ... a lot of farming decisions and financial decisions have been made on that landscape, and changing it would be detrimental," he said.

Vilsack, a native of the Midwest, should visit the district to see the scale of farming here. A farm of 5,000 acres in West Texas is not a big corporation with jet airplanes, said Neugebauer, who hopes the ag secretary will take him up on his invitation soon.

He said he was pleased that Vilsack agreed with him that America needs to expand its market for American agricultural products.

"We need to be more aggressive in breaking down trade barriers to be a healthy country. Particularly in Europe which has not allowed genetically modified products. There's no science to justify them to do that, so I hope he follows through on that," said Neugebauer.

Neugebauer said Vilsack mentioned that it is a new administration and they are trying to develop a blueprint on agricultural policy, but the congressman said time is of the essence.

"We're 45 days away from people needing to make planting decisions and decisions with their bankers," said Neugebauer.

They also discussed Obama's goals mentioned in the State of the Union address to work toward better nutrition and healthier children.

"A lot of money was put up to increase the nutrition side from the last farm bill. I think any new nutrition programs should be funded by money put in the last farm bill, not from production farming," said Neugebauer.

When it comes to all of the policy changes, Neugebauer said Vilsack agreed it is important that the people who are going to be affected by the policies have a seat at the table and have their say.

John C. Bullock, president of Young County Farm Bureau, said there is still uncertainty about what will become of the farm bill, but it seems production will be the element most affected.

"Obama has proposed $16 billion in cuts. It's pretty non-specific except it's all in the production side," he said.

Despite giving away hundreds of billions of dollars to other industries, Obama has focused on cutting back in agriculture. Bullock said it is a relatively small amount of the budget.

"Production agriculture is about one quarter of one percent of the federal budget. It's pretty minute and it is extremely small in regards to the rest of the farm bill," he said.

Hungry or not, don't force GM down our throats

The East African, March 23 2009. By Anuradha Mittal:
http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/549204/-/rjjeryz/-/index.html

The biotech industry is using the increase in global hunger as a tool to win support for GM crops.

Its tactics of "poor washing" (we must accept genetic engineering to increase production and improve livelihoods of farmers) and "green washing" (biotech is environmentally friendly and will help counter climate change) have won favour with the misguided philanthropic community as well.

For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-led Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra) is poised to become a key institutional vehicle for changing African agriculture.

However, in its enthusiasm to help Africa feed itself with a technology package involving the use of chemical inputs and genetically-modified seeds, the Foundation has neglected to consult with the African farmers and communities it purports to help.

To silence civil society's criticisms, the foundation has been deliberately vague about its role in the promotion of genetically engineered crops.

Its grantees, however, are working to thwart widespread local resistance. St Louis-based Donald Danforth Plant Science was recently awarded $5.4 million by the Gates Foundation to secure the approval of African governments to allow field-testing of genetically-modified crops.

Blinded by its ambition and deaf to the demands of the African farmers and environmental groups, the Foundation has chosen to disregard prominent studies that challenge the conventional wisdom of industrial and market-based agriculture agenda.

The 2008 study by the UN Conference on Trade and Development and the UN Environment Programme, clearly demonstrates that organic agriculture outperforms chemical-intensive farming and is thus more conducive to food security in Africa.

An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries demonstrated that yields more than doubled where organic, or near-organic, practices had been used.

The research also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water, and resistance to drought in these areas. But these findings do not make it into the Foundation's agricultural plan.

The 2008-2011 Agricultural Development Strategy Report of the Gates Foundation makes it obvious how far removed it is from those it intends to help. According to its claims, the Foundation invests in agricultural development because the growing majority of the world's poor rely on agriculture.

However, the executive summary of the confidential report proposes moving people out of the agricultural sector without specifying or addressing where or how this new "land mobile" population is to be rehabilitated or re-employed.

Promotional campaigns for technological solutions to hunger regularly feature a handful of African spokespeople who drown out the genuine voices of farmers, researchers, and civil society groups. There is, however, widespread opposition to genetic engineering and plans for a "New Green Revolution" for Africa.

Africa has been largely united against GM crops, opting instead for comprehensive policy interventions supporting family farmers to produce and trade their crops in a sustainable manner.

Even when faced with dire situations of hunger, African countries have chosen to protect biodiversity over accepting GM food aid, as was the case with Zambia in 2002.

It is crucial, particularly in this time of poor washing amid growing hunger, that their voices be heard to ensure food sovereignty for Africa and her people.

---

Anuradha Mittal is the executive director of the Oakland Institute and the editor of Voices from Africa: African Farmers & Environmentalists Speak out Against the New Green Revolution. http://www.oaklandinnstitute.org

"Stop GM trials; Monsanto, quit India":
Farmers protest at Monsanto's GM Corn trial in Kolhapur

Shetkari Sanghatan, CYDA, YUVA, Greenpeace India, Kheti Virasat Mission, MOFF press release,
23 March 2009.

Kolhapur (Mahaarashtra, India).

On "Shaheed Diwas" marked across India in the honour of the martyrdom of revolutionary freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru, hundreds of farmers from all across Maharashtra came to Kolhapur to protest against the open air experiment of Monsanto's GM corn being conducted in the B farm of Maharishi Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth (MPKV) here. The peaceful sit-in ended when the university officials here assured the activists that all pending concerns with regard to the trial would be responded to in a special meeting convened on the 2nd of April and if no satisfactory responses can be provided, the field trial will be destroyed by the university.

This is the first time that Monsanto, the largest American seed transnational, has applied directly for field trials of GM crops in India and so far, Indians have seen it as a trait seller with Indian farmers paying billions of rupees in the name of technology fees for Bt Cotton. Protestors condemned the Indian government's nexus with criminal corporations like Monsanto while putting aside the interests of the aam aadmi (common citizen). They demanded that political parties should pay heed to the growing democratic resistance against unsafe food and corporate takeover of our farming and asked all parties to state their stand on the issue immediately.

Addressing the protestors, N D Patil, well known farmers' leader said, "The government is shamelessly siding with big MNCs like Monsanto and neglecting the interests of farmers and consumers. Where is the need for a herbicide-tolerant GM corn in this country? Why are tax payers' funds being spent in a public sector body like the state agriculture university, to support the research of a profit-hungry corporation like Monsanto? If the agriculture university has any loyalty left for the Indian farmer, it should immediately stop such field trials. It is clear that GM crops are hazardous and unneeded and the Government of India should stop pushing this technology on all of us. I also call upon all political parties vying for the votes of common citizens to clearly state their stand on GM in our food and farming - we will know clearly which side are you on".

Joining him was Vijay Jawandhia of Shetkari Sanghatan. The veteran farmers' leader, who had witnessed the distress produced by Bt Cotton, India's only approved GM crop, said, "Monsanto is a criminal corporation known to have sued or sent to jails scores of farmers elsewhere for doing what farmers around the world have done for millennia - saving their seeds! This is a corporation documented to have bribed officials to get regulatory approvals. This is a corporation which has earned crores of rupees in the name of royalty in India while thousands of Bt Cotton farmers have committed suicides. On Shaheed Diwas, we should remember Bhagat Singh's words, which hold very true today - let us declare that the state of war does exist and shall exist as long as the Indian toiling masses and the natural resources are being exploited by a handful of parasites. In this neo-colonial era where parasites like Monsanto and its supporters in the government masquerade as our well-wishers, this is the time to start the new war of independence".

Earlier in the month, Col Vikram Bokey, Chairman, Maharashtra organic Farmers Federation, wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the Agriculture University here, citing evidence of the negative impacts of GM crops in general, GM Corn in particular, Monsanto's criminal record, negative social and health impacts of herbicides like Round-Up etc. and demanded an immediate response from the University on the concerns raised before proceeding further on the trial. "We did not receive a response from the University", he said.

"GM corn as well as herbicides are known to cause several adverse health and environmental effects. Another fundamental concern is about herbicides displacing the agricultural employment potential for farm women. We are here to assert that we do not need such technologies. As consumers, our right to safe food cannot be violated and we cannot be made into lab rats in this experiment", added Col. Vikram Bokey, Chairperson of MOFF.

The protest rally was addressed by Shri A.B Patil, the state vice president of Kisan Sabha of CPI[M], Sathish Bansode,CYDA,Pune, Kavitha Kuruganti, Kheti Virasat Mission, Sanjay Bhagat of YUVA, Rajesh Krishnan of Greenpeace India etc. amongst others. Speakers pointed out that the Supreme Court appointee into the apex regulatory body, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, had asked for a moratorium on all GMO releases in India after studying the current regulatory regime and the serious lacunae therein.

For more information, contact:

1. Vijay Jawandhia, Shetkari Sanghatan, at 94-217-27998
2. Mathew Mattam, CYDA, at 93-733-08126
3. Nitin Mate, YUVA, at 93-721-56005
4. Rajesh Krishnan, Greenpeace India, at 098-456-50032
5. Kavitha Kuruganti, Kheti Virasat Mission, at 093-930-01550
6. Vikram Bokey, MOFF at 9822060606

---

Annexure 1:

March 11 2009

To: The Vice Chancellor
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyalaya
Rahuri, Maharashtra.

Dear Sir,

Sub: Open Air Field Trial of Monsanto's GM corn by the University

Based on a permission letter issued by the Department of Biotechnology's RCGM on 8th December 2008, an open air trial of Monsanto's transgenic corn hybrids (HiShell and 900 M Gold containing MON 89034 event and NK603 event), your University had gone ahead with the planting of this GM corn trial in Kolhapur.

We have several serious concerns with regard to this trial in terms of its need, biosafety issues and the fact that tax-payers' funds for a public sector body are being utilized to further the commercial interests of a private company which is the world's largest seed company. We request you to respond to each of our concerns immediately.

1.

What is the need assessment with regard to this GM Corn? - Has the MPKV taken up a need analysis and impact assessment of this GM corn before undertaking the trial? Are there no other alternatives to this GM corn available in the agricultural research system? Have the impacts of the herbicide use by such crops been assessed including on the employment potential for the poorest farming households in the country?

2.

Has the University questioned the application by Monsanto or the decision by the DBT to undertake the trial in the University? By what legislation can the Union Government impose its decision on a State Agriculture University which is under the state government, and when agriculture is a state subject by the Constitution of India? Has the state government expressly taken any decision to allow this trial in the state - when, where and how?

3.

Is the University aware of the fact that several recent studies have actually pointed out to problems with the NK603 GM corn event? One such important and independent study is one that was undertaken by the Austrian government, for which the report came out in November 2008; this was a 20-month-long, multi-generational study conducted by the health department of the government of Austria. Prof. Dr. Jürgen Zentek, Professor for Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna and lead author of the study, summarized the findings as: 'Mice fed with GE maize had less offspring in the third and fourth generations and these differences were statistically significant. Mice fed with non-GE maize reproduced more efficiently. This effect could be attributed to the difference in the food source". (Annexure: "Biological effects of transgenic maize in long term reproduction studies in mice"). Whether it is aware or not aware, should it be jeopardizing the environment by undertaking an open air trial of this GM maize?

4.

As corn is a completely cross pollinated crop and evidences exist of pollen transfer up to a kilometer has the university alerted the farmers in a radius of a kilometer about the trial at its farm and ensured that no cross contamination happens.

5.

Glyphosate, the popular herbicide that accompanies this GM corn of Monsanto, has been implicated in findings of adverse health effects in a recent study. French researchers recently sought to examine the toxicity of four popular G-based herbicide formulations on human placental cells, kidney cells, embryonic cells and neonate umbilical cord cells and surprisingly found total cell death of each of these cells within 24 hours. Why then is the University keen on promoting a herbicide-tolerant GM crop for a big MNC despite all these issues?

6.

Does the University know that Monsanto is known to have criminalized farmers in America for saving their own seeds? This company is known to have bribed officials to get regulatory clearances elsewhere and is known to have suppressed biosafety information from public scrutiny. For more information on the antecedents of this giant corporation seeking more and more profits, please watch the attached film called "The World According To Monsanto". Why then are public-funded bodies like yours eager on helping this profit-hungry corporation, which is reported to have announced "No food shall be grown that we don't own"?

7.

Has the University adhered to the Environment Protection Act's 1989 Rules? Does a DLC exist in Kolhapur and when was the last time that a meeting was convened of this DLC? Does the SBCC function in Maharashtra and were they appraised of this trial and did they take a decision to permit the trial and decide ways on ensuring scientific and transparent trials without any biosafety violations?

As aware and concerned farmers and consumers, we demand immediate responses from you on all the above points before the University proceeds with the trial. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Col. Vikram Bokey / Diliprao Deshmukh,
Maharashtra Organic Farmers' Federation

Germany may permit regional GM bans

Agra Europe Weekly, 23 March 2009:
[Requires subscription: http://www.agra-net.com/portal/]

Germany is considering permitting regional bans on cultivation of crops with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said at the weekend. GMO crops approved as safe by the European Union can be cultivated anywhere in the bloc. But Aigner signalled that Germany might join several other EU member states which have imposed controversial GMO cultivation bans in the face of EU approvals.

"In the long term I do not believe that a national ban on cultivation is the correct route," she told Reuters. "Opinions in the federal republic (of Germany) differ greatly about this."

"I believe it would be more sensible to transfer the decision about the cultivation of genetically modified organisms to the regions."

"The federal states and local councils should be able to decide whether they want to renounce crops with genetic technology or not.

"I am currently in negotiations with colleagues in the federal government about this." France, Greece, Austria and Hungary have bans on growing GMO crops. On March 2, EU states voted to stop the EU Commission ordering Austria and Hungary to lift their GMO cultivation restrictions.

Mexican corn contaminated by genetically modified materials, Government invites more

Upside Down World, 23 March 2009. By Cyril Mychalejko:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1775/68/

An article in the in the February edition of Molecular Ecology confirmed a controversial 2001 study in the journal Nature that genetically modified material has contaminated native corn in Southern Mexico.

The Mexican government's response to this was an announcement in March that it would change its laws to allow planting of genetically modified corn for experimental reasons. The new law overturns a nation-wide moratorium on the planting of any genetically modified varieties of the crop.

Latin America Press reported that there are currently 25 requests to plant experimental transgenic corn in the country. Corn is "the country„s most important crop and the centerpiece of the Mexican diet...where there are some 200 native varieties of the staple crop."

Elena Alvarez-Buylla of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City, author of the February article, said "The escaped transgenes are common in a few fields and absent in others so gene-monitoring efforts must sample as broadly as possible. What's more, not every detection method or laboratory identified every sample containing transgenes."

Mexico's new law "does not set a limit on how much corm can be grown or where it can be grown."

The AP reported that Mexico's Agriculture Secretary Alberto Cardenas said "the country could be growing genetically modified corn by 2012...[claiming] GM varieties could boost production by 30 percent."

Push is on for GM wheat

Stock & Land, 23 March 2009. By Paul Myers:
http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/push-is-on-for-gm-wheat/1466818.aspx

THOUGHT genetically modified wheat was on the backburner? Think again.

China has allocated millions of dollars to transgenic wheat research and development and is virtually committed to its introduction; Kenya may soon become the first African country to trial GM varieties; and next month India will introduce a GM eggplant variety that could double yields.

As eggplant is a vital ingredient in the local diet, plant breeders say GM eggplant may be a forerunner for more GM food crops in India and other developing countries.

In a twist to the way scientific developments usually work - starting in developed countries and eventually finding their way to the Third World - GM wheat looks set to reverse the roles.

Support for GM wheat exists among the highest echelons of the world's crop scientists.

Dr Norman Borlaug, the father of the green revolution, who introduced new wheat varieties to India and Pakistan in the late 1960s that doubled wheat yields and saved the lives of an estimated one billion people, is a committed advocate.

"It's the only way to feed the world," said Dr Borlaug, now 95.

"We have to use every means available. The knowledge exists to do what we need to do. I just wish I had that technology available to me 40 or 50 years ago."

With a global population of more than nine billion people forecast by 2050, plant breeders are faced with the task of having to double wheat production again - a task many believe is impossible without GM varieties.

With a mind as alert as when he won the Nobel Prize in 1970, Dr Borlaug said there was "ongoing change" in the global attitude towards GM.

With Roundup Ready wheat developed but not released, he believed it would only be a matter of time before transgenic varieties were made available to growers.

* Extract from report to appear in Stock & Land, March 26.

Infant Formula is Not Sustainable, Causes Ecological Damage

Associated Content, 23 March 2009. By Juniper:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1570541/infant_formula_is_not_sustainable_causes.html?cat=7

Need just one more very good reason to breastfeed? Infant formula wreaks havoc on the environment, from its production to its processing and transportation. In every step of the manufacturing process, the infant formula industry pumps massive amounts of carbon and toxic chemicals into the air and soil, and may contribute to less-considered problems like erosion and deforestation. Infant formula is neither sustainable nor healthy.

Let's begin by considering where cows' milk, the base component of most infant formula, comes from. Unless cattle are certified free-range, they are generally kept in enclosed, un-sustainable, sunless factory farms where they are not allowed to graze or even see the sky. Because of this, their food (usually corn) must be trucked to the cattle from another part of the country-- a process that consumes massive amounts of diesel and sends carbon smoke, methane, and even poisons into the atmosphere.

The corn or other grain crops that are grown for cattle are also a serious ecological disaster. To cultivate feed for dairy cows and ultimately benefit the infant formula industry, massive amounts of land must be deforested, usually in a manner that is not remotely sustainable on a long-term basis. The crops are then sprayed with pesticides and herbicides-- all toxic, nonrenewable, and wasteful of fossil fuels. What could have been a fertile forest instead becomes a field of GMO, toxic grains.

The cows who produce milk for the infant formula industry also have a tremendous impact of their own on the environment. Cattle have repeatedly been implicated as a major contributing factor to global warming, since their belches, flatulence, and feces contain large amounts of methane and carbon-- noted greenhouse gases. Their feces also pollutes waterways, leading to serious problems including cultural eutrophication--whereby an entire river ecosystem system can collapse to excessive nutrient runoff from animal waste. Infant formula contributes to this very serious ecological epidemic.

After the cattle have provided their milk for the infant formula industry, additional petrochemical fumes are released into the air and waterways when the milk is trucked to another part of the country for processing. Cow's milk is made for baby cows, not baby humans, so incredible amounts of energy must be used to convert it into something that is allegedly nutritious for human infants. Not only must more diesel be used to ship the milk to its processing site, but even more un-sustainable energy is wasted as it is dried and processed into infant formula.

The vitamins, minerals, corn syrup, and other additives in infant formula have ecological impacts of their own. Vitamins and minerals must be either extracted from precious natural resources, or created in a synthetic form using petroleum by-products. In either case, the outlook for Mother Nature is grim. In recent times, corn syrup, another key ingredient in infant formula, has been in the news for its catastrophic effects on the environment, and most people who practice green living avoid it on a general basis.

The packaging for infant formula is also less than encouraging in terms of its ecological impact and potential health effects. Infant formula cans are usually a combination of plastics, papers, and metals, all of which use precious resources and can not be recycled effectively. From the plastics, which are made using petroleum, to the metals that are strip-mined and then hyper-processed, cans of infant formula look like a list of materials that are not sustainable or healthy for a young child.

Every step of the process of formula manufacturing places yet another serious strain on the environment, and the unnecessary use of infant formula runs in contradiction to the principles of green living. Because infant formula is an absolute necessity for some babies' survival and wellbeing, it is important that we move toward the creation of more sustainable varieties of infant formula. Parents who are unable to breastfeed but are concerned about the ecological impact of the formula industry should contact formula companies expressing their concerns. With enough pressure, even the must un-sustainable of industries can alter their methods, for the future of our children.

Source Used: J. Dairy SCIENCE VOL. 51: 7. Dairy Industry and Environmental Waste. Accessed 16 Mar 09.

Kerala agri policy flouted, minister demands report
The current policy of the Kerala government is to eliminate GM crops as well as prevent such crop trials. However, there is no ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops.

LiveMint.com, 23 March 2009:
http://www.livemint.com/2009/03/23191739/Kerala-agri-policy-flouted-mi.html

Kochi [India) -- Kerala minister for agriculture Mulakkara Ratnakaran on Monday asked K.Ramakrishnan, additional director in the agriculture department, to visit the Attapdi hills along the border with Tamil Nadu and submit a report immediately on reports of genetically modified cotton being grown there.

However, it took the Left-led government nearly two years to realize that its stated policy of keeping out GM plants was being violated in the Attapadi hills along the border with Tamil Nadu. The hills, which are adjacent to the Silent Valley National Park, are part of the Nilgiri biosphere reserve. VS Vijayan, chairman of the Biodiversity Board, said that he had visited the Attapadi villages in Pallakad district a few weeks ago and had found about 500 acres of land under cultivation of BT cotton,the plant with a genetically built-in pest repellant.

The current policy of the Kerala government is to eliminate GM crops as well as prevent such crop trials. However, there is no ban on the cultivation of GM crops.

"Incidentally, this has been happening for the last two years. Even the agriculture department was not aware of this," Vijayan said. Farmers had procured seeds from dealers who promised that the suppliers from neighbouring Coimbatore town would buy back the crop.

Any action in the matter would be on the basis of the agriculture department report and discussions with different departments and agencies concerned VK Uniyal, director of the Attapadi Hills Area Development Society, or AHADS, a government-supported society for eco-restoration, social development and creation of sustainable livelihood opportunities for the tribals of Attapadi, said though agriculture did not directly come under the society's ambit, it would offer all support to the agriculture department.

22 March 2009

Pollan, Waters influencing food politics more than we know

Eco-Farm.org, 22 March 2009. By Sarah Gilbert:
http://www.eco-farm.org/

Blame [U.S. Secretary of Agriculture] Tom Vilsack's grandchild, blame Sasha and Malia Obama, blame 30 million American children. Blame them for this: food politics are changing mightily, and the Secretary of Agriculture is out to prove he's no longer a shill for Monsanto. Call him a convert to the ways of Michael Pollan and Alice Waters: he's got a grandchild he wants to stick around for, and he's eating organic yogurt for breakfast. (And who wants to bet it's Stonyfield Farms?)

A New York Times Sunday business section headline sums up the news coming from Washington over the past few months in a question: "Is a Food Revolution Now in Season?" As most question-mark headlines go, the article doesn't answer much, but does bring a wide number of recent news makers into focus on the central theme, will Congress ever be persuaded to act on the growing sentiment to focus on local food systems, organic foods, sustainable agriculture and to slay the all-powerful corn and soy subsidies that give us commodity food (in other words, junk food whose production is terrifically profitable for Monsanto (NYSE: MON) and Archer Daniels Midland Co. (NYSE: ADM))? The only answer seems to be that, whatever else is true, the Obamas, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and many members of Congress are listening to Michael Pollan. According to the NYT: "a prominent food industry lobbyist who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to reporters said he was amazed at how many members of Congress were carrying copies of "The Omnivore's Dilemma.""What's more, Obama himself supposedly read the entirety of Michael Pollan's enormous and demanding letter to the "Farmer in Chief," published in the New York Times Magazine in October 2008. While Obama's personal food choices are certainly not the ideal of any food leaders (a 60 Minutes clip shows him making tuna fish sandwiches with supermarket white bread; an aide said his favorite "foods" are Nicorette, Met-RX bars, and Dentyne Ice gum), it's clear that his wife and mother-in-law are forcing the issue of setting food policy, with their White House vegetable garden (featuring lettuce galore, peas, spinach and kale), their selection of a quietly anti-GMO activist, Sam Kass, as White House assistant chef, and many public comments about how important seasonal vegetables and fruits are for children.

While a considerable and vocal minority of the public seems to have caught up the idea of reviving the Victory Garden, and Vilsack with his "People's Garden" is a fervent champion of the idea of local food, having stated publicly that he wants to encourage farmers to develop regional food networks; he also hopes to devote more resources to child nutrition to improve the quality of school breakfasts and lunches, and to ensure that only healthy choices are available in school vending machines.

These are not the priorities of the food lobby, and these are not the priorities of Congress, who just passed a five-year Farm Bill with few changes to the status quo of big subsidies for big monoculture crops -- the bread and butter of Monsanto and ADM -- and expressed anger at the proposed budget, which would cut subsidies to the nation's largest farmers and bolster child nutrition payments. Or aren't they?

Behind closed doors, our government's officials are reading Michael Pollan; they're screening the documentary "Food Inc."; which is what the New York Times calls "a withering critique of agribusiness and industrially produced food." Times, they might be a-changin'.

Thus far, it's hard to tell if fear of changing food politics has had any affect on the love investors feel for Monsanto and ADM. While profits are just fine, and the companies both predict better-than-market-average growth prospects for the next several years, their P/E ratios are very low; ADM, despite projecting growth at 15x earnings, is hovering at a P/E of 7.35. But they're not showing any different trajectories than the rest of the market's stocks. At stock prices not seen since August of 2007, when the Dow was on its upward climb -- Monsanto closed Friday at $80.35, and ADM at $27.44 -- these stocks seem a bargain, like the rest of the companies that make up the NYSE's biggies. And though the political sentiment of foodies is that Monsanto is a trust in need of busting (after all, the company owns 99% of the market of soy and corn seeds, a truly frightening state of affairs for two of the world's biggest crops), the sentiment of the rest of the investing public seems to be that of the Food Lion shopper mentioned by columnist George F. Will; in other words "I'm not listening I'm not listening nanananana." Monsanto has a 16.91 P/E ratio; higher than most all of the DJIA components; and either that is willful disbelief in the ability of sustainable food advocates to change the world, or a simple hope in the power of the short term.

It's not where I'm putting my money; I'm investing in vegetable gardens and a CSA grass-fed beef share; but I am, like the organic foods market, part of a very, very small minority.

Luxembourg bans GM corn MON810

Luxemburger Wort, 22 March 2009:
http://www.wort.lu/wort/web/letzebuerg/artikel/11755/luxemburg-verbietet-genmais-mon810.php

The Grand Duchy is making its point in the debate about genetically modified organisms (OGM) in agriculture.

During Sunday's action day "Luxemburg and the greater region without biotechnology", Health Minister Mars Di Bartolomeo announced the government's decision to ban the GM corn variety MON810.

Thus Luxembourg joins EU countries Austria, Hungary, France and Greece in resisting an EU Directive. In light of possible risks for environment and humans emanating from the release of genetically modified organisms, Di Bartolomeo and Octavie Modert, State Secretary for Agriculture, argue for the precautionary principle.

In this country, 83 percent of the citizens plus two thirds of all communities reject genetic engineering.

---

Comment from TraceConsult®:

The reasons may not be easy to analyze but the facts are obvious: The number of European Union (EU) Member States opposing the EU Commission's liberal course in regards to planting GM corn is growing. Just three weeks after the EU Council of Ministers has rejected the EU Commission's proposal to waive the bans of Austria and Hungary on Monsanto's MON810, Luxembourg has now announced it will join the ranks of these renegade countries.

Rumbling noises can already be heard from Berlin signaling similar decisions can be expected from Germany as well.

These developments do not bode well for a swift and easy breakthrough of green biotechnology [ie GM crops] in Europe. On the contrary, it signals to policy makers in the food supply chain, from ingredient importers to retailers, to hold their horses - in case they should have been thinking about releasing them lately.

GM Crops Benefit Rich Corporations, Not the Poor

Fr. Sean McDonagh, SCC, 22 March 2009.

On Monday, 18 May 2009, Martin Qaim will lecture on Benefits of GM crops for the poor at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study Week on Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development in Rome. In his abstract he writes: "Among these benefits are insecticide savings, higher effective yields through reduced crop losses, and net revenue gains, in spite of higher seed prices."

Almost all of these claims are contested in the Friends of the Earth study: Food Sovereignty: who benefits from gm crops? Feeding the biotech giants, not the world's poor. The Friends of the Earth study refutes the claim that GM crops lead to major reductions in pesticide use. In Argentina overall glyphosate use more than tripled from 65.5 million litres in 1999/2000 to over 200 million litres in 2005/6. In 2007, a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) one of the most damaging weeds in the world had infested 120,000 hectares of the prime cropland in the country. Farmers are now using more toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine to control weeds. It is estimated that 25 million litres of herbicides will be needed each year to control resistant weeds which, in turn, will increase overall production costs dramatically.

The claims for higher yield from GM crops are also disputed. The Friends of the Earth study states that "none of the GM crops on the market are modified for increased yield potential." Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture admits that "genetic engineering has not increased the yield potential of any commercialized GM crop." They point to a University of Nebraska study which attributes a 6% yield drag directly to unintended effects of the genetic modification process used to create Roundup Ready soybeans.

The one certainty about GM crops is that they are making massive profits for biotech corporations such as Monsanto. The silence on this crucial matter from all who will speak at the Pontifical Academy event is staggering. Monsanto is the largest seed firm in the world. It now has almost a monopoly on biotech "traits" incorporated into GM seeds such as herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). It also markets the Roundup pesticides. Because of this extraordinary control Monsanto's revenue is expected to increase by 74% between 2007 and 2010. In money terms that involves a jump from $8.6 billion to $14.9 billion.

Despite these profits, seed prices have risen dramatically. The average price of soybean seed has increased by 50% in the past two years in the U.S. The company is expected to roll out a more costly version of their patented Roundup Ready soybeans (called RoundUp Ready 2) in 2009. This will further increase costs for farmers. Monsanto is also raising the GM corn seeds by $90 to $100 a bag in 2009. The Friends of the Earth Report claims that "the company (Monsanto) has also raised its trait prices for its less expensive single and double-stack corn seed more sharply than for triple-stack corn in order to move as many customers to triple stacks as possible, creating a captive customer base for the 2010 launch of its SmartStax octo-stack product."

The retail price of Monsanto's glyphosate, Roundup has increased by 134% in less than two years. The revenue from Roundup in 2006 was $2.3 billion dollars so the further increase has brought hundreds of millions of dollars into Monsanto's coffers. A similar pattern has emerged from Argentina. At the end of 2007, the increased demand from agrochemicals coincided with a substantial rise in the price of Roundup when compared to the price of herbicides which are used on conventional crops.

The virtual monopoly position enjoyed by Monsanto has further negative consequences for U.S. farmers. Monsanto are now incorporating Roundup Ready traits into maize which until now had only been modified to be resistant to insect pests (Bt crops). Now the farmers find these crops have herbicide resistant traits as well. This "trait penetration" strategy means higher profits from selling the seeds and the herbicide. It also copper-fastens the farmers' dependence on GM traits and Roundup.

GM has made a fortune for biotech companies. Monsanto's monopoly position has meant that it can increase both the price of its GM seeds and herbicide even when food prices are increasing rapidly, thus pushing more and more people into poverty. They are also stacking traits in order to make more money. How this technology which is owned by corporations can help the poor is beyond me.

Italian varsity team on anti-GM food mission

Express News Service (India), 22 March 2009:
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Italian+varsity+team+on+anti-GM+food+mission&artid=vqTMZWB3rlk=&SectionID=lMx/b5mt1kU=&MainSectionID=lMx/b5mt1kU=&SEO=&SectionName=tm2kh5uDhixGlQvAG42A/07OVZOOEmts

Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) -- Teachers and students of a unique Italian university, who are busy plotting a massive counter-revolution in worldwide eating habits, seems to have found in Kerala a place grappling with the kind of anxieties they are trying hard to surmount.

"Since ours is a consumer State, we are at the receiving end of the genetically modified (GM) food menace. Some GM food obviously enters our food chain from other States. The Centre's unwillingness to ban GM food does not help matters," Power Secretary L.Radhakrishnan told the 15-member group from the University of Gastronomic Sciences (UNISG), Italy. The interaction with agriculture scientists, Government officials and the media was held at the Centre for Innovation in Science and Social Action (CISSA).

The UNISG team, too, had a similar problem. Europe does not behave like a single entity on the GM-crop issue. Austria, Sweden and Italy had banned it.

But in richer and larger countries such as Germany and France, GM food is easily available. As a consequence, many European countries, just like Kerala, suffer from the erosion of genetic biodiversity.

The Slow Good Movement has a solution. Get down to the grassroots-level and create awareness among small-scale farmers. The UNISG team, comprising both professors and students, was on a seven-day visit to the country to promote Slow Food Movement.

They arrived in the city from North India on March 20. They were first taken to Anchuthengu in the outskirts of the city to get a close understanding of traditional fishing practices. They left for Kochi today to get a close look of modern fishing techniques. Simultaneous visits are being carried out by the UNISG students in Cuba and Spain.

At the CISSA, the team was given a lowdown on the 'Annam' movement inspired by the Slow Food Movement. Slow Food is an organisation founded in 1989 by Carlo Petrini as a counter to fast food and fast life and the disappearance of local food traditions. The movement is said to have expanded to include over 83,000 members with chapters in over 122 countries.

UNISG is a one-of-its-kind institution founded by Carlo Petrini himself, which is devoted to the principles of Slow Food movement. The objective of the university is to bridge the gap between agricultural science and gastronomy.

20 March 2009

Monsanto Planting Seeds In the White House?

Post Carbon Institute, 20 March 2009. By Asher Miller:
http://www.postcarbon.org/monsanto_planting_seeds_white_house

Apparently, President Obama is considering appointing Michael Taylor to head the new Food Safety Working Group. Who's Michael Taylor? From Food Politics (care of Jill Richardson):

Mr. Taylor is a lawyer who began his revolving door adventures as counsel to FDA. He then moved to King & Spalding, a private-sector law firm representing Monsanto, a leading agricultural biotechnology company. In 1991 he returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, where he was part of the team that issued the agency's decidedly industry-friendly policy on food biotechnology and that approved the use of Monsanto's genetically engineered growth hormone in dairy cows. His questionable role in these decisions led to an investigation by the federal General Accounting Office, which eventually exonerated him of all conflict-of-interest charges. In 1994, Mr. Taylor moved to USDA to become administrator of its Food Safety and Inspection Service... After another stint in private legal practice with King & Spalding, Mr. Taylor again joined Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy in 1998.

The man has moved in and out of roles at the federal government and Monsanto so many times he probably has whiplash.

So what's the big deal? (I'm not going to opine on Monsanto here, other than to say that I know quite a few people who think Monsanto is the most evil corporation in the world, and that's even after this AIG debacle.) Well, two things: The first is that I find it puzzling, to put it lightly, that Obama would choose this guy to help ensure food safety. Here's what Taylor recently said:

FDA is in "bad shape" and the FSIS meat and poultry inspection system is "obsolete," Taylor said. "We're spending a lot of government money to do inspections that could be done by someone else," he said. "We need to complete the transformation of FSIS as a food safety agency, away from inspection to a science-based public health agency."

Yes, because it's been proven just how effective is lack of rigorous monitoring and regulation on the part of the government. We need more of less. Taylor was also responsible for writing the rBGH labeling guidelines for the FDA. The guidelines specifically prohibited dairies from stating that their products contained or were free of rBGH. Sounds safe to me.

Second, the appointment of Michael Taylor to the Food Safety Working Group would really belie Obama's pledge not to appoint lobbyists to positions within his administration. And this would not be the first time. Am I shocked? No. But this is not merely a matter of a politician going back on a pledge or dancing around the edges.

The AIG/bank bailout fiasco shows just how crippled the Obama Administration can be by conflicts of interest. Secretary Geithner has failed miserably at asserting the federal government's authority over the corporations to which we've handed out hundreds of billions of dollars. The banks aren't lending, and AIG and Citigroup are using our tax dollars to provide private benefits to some of the who got us into this mess.

As Josh Marshall eloquently states, the real issue behind the AIG bonus debacle isn't the money.

There's no end of puffed up outrage and opportunistic posturing over the on-going revelation of the AIG bonus scandal. But some line has been crossed. And it's worth thinking really clearly about just what that line is. What is so damaging about this isn't the money -- which is almost trivially small compared to the many hundreds of billions we've already committed. The problem is what appears to be the president's mortifying impotence in the face of bankers and financiers who created the problem.

Appointing people who have close ties to--and, in many cases, have actually worked for--the industries they are responsible for regulating, is a losing proposition. Whether or not Geithner and other Obama appointees are intending to serve private corporate interests over those of the nation, their close relationships and possible conflicts of interest certainly don't help.

German BÖLW presents loss report: GM agriculture incurs more costs than benefits

German Federation of Organic Food Producers (BÖLW) press release, 20 March 2009:
http://www.boelw.de/uploads/media/BOELW_Schadensbericht_Gentechnik090318.pdf
[English translation by GM Watch]

BERLIN -- The GM loss report- presented by the German Federation of the Organic Food Producers ( Bund Ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft, BÖLW) in Berlin - shows that the use of genetic engineering in agriculture does not bring any macro-economic benefits. In fact, the use of GM crops incurs extreme high costs in the entire food chain. These costs are generated by strongly increasing seed prices as well as necessary measures to avoid threatening resistances, the separation of commodity flows, and analyses. Additionally, there are losses (Dazu kommen Schäden) to the tune of several billion US dollar, which where caused in corn and rice by contamination with unapproved GM. Also in farming, the at best marginal cost benefits of planting GM crops pay off only in the short-term. Clear winners from the use of GM seeds are a handful of corporations, first and foremost Monsanto, which secure high profits for themselves from seed patents.

Dr Felix Prinz zu Löwenstein, chairman of BÖLW, sums up: "It is not the farmers or consumers who make a profit from agri-GM - only the seed corporations. It is not understandable why these companies are protected from a comprehensive liability by laws, and why reviews of GM seeds with regards to environmental damages and economic impacts during the approval process are completely insufficient. We demand the inclusion of a comprehensive causer liability and a reform of the EU approval procedure. In light of this state of things, agriculture minister Ilse Aigner must stop the cultivation and resist the EU commission's request to approve now more GM corn varieties."

Christoph Then, an independent critical expert who co-authored the study, explains: "All in all, the losses through contamination with unapproved GM as well as the costs for elaborate separation of commodities add up to several billion US dollars. At the same time, various studies on the economics show that farmers are able to bring in the additional costs for the GM seeds only in exceptional cases very limited conditions. This is also true for Germany and even when the the costs of coexistence are passed on to others." He added: "GM increases the price of seeds enormously; GM seeds prices increase much faster than prices of conventional crops, without an accordant yield increase."

Completed were these statements by Stefan Rother, Frosta AG and director of the Association of organic food producers (Assoziation ökologischer Lebensmittelhersteller): "Our customers expect natural products which are produced without GM. We as enterprises want and must satisfy this. The inadequate regulation framework in the field of GM leads to the situation in which medium-sized enterprises have to bear the risks and costs that are caused by the use of genetic engineering, though we don't want it."

The report was kindly supported by the Foundation Ecology & Agriculture (Stiftung ÷kologie & Landbau) and is available at http://www.boelw.de/uploads/media/BOELW_Schadensbericht_Gentechnik090318.pdf

The Trade Union of the independent farmers "Solidarnosc" is supporting the protest of the Coalition "GMO-FREE POLAND"

Solidarnosc press release, 20 March 2009:
http://icppc.pl/antygmo/pliki/glodowka-solidarnosc.pdf

Jadwiga Lopata, winner of Goldman Prize (2002) and Malopolska 'Woman of the Year award (2008) has started a hunger-strike in support of Edyta Jaroszewska and Danuta Pilarska - the farmer ladies that are continuing their hunger strike action and protest at the Ministry of Agriculture in Warsaw since 11 days.

"The response from the Minister of Agriculture, received on Friday March 20th, did not change anything, we need to continue the hunger-strike, and now we will also be going to the office of the Prime Minister," said the striking women.

Jadwiga Lopata, together with Sir Julian Rose, president of ICPPC (International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside,) took letters which were sent to their offices in Stryszow (Malapolska) and went to Warsaw.

"Whole heaps of letters ... even we are not able to take everything. They are addressed to the Prime Minister Donald Tusk ... People sent us copies. Many are very dramatic - showing direct support for the hunger striking farmer-ladies and their demands," says Jadwiga Lopata (see the photos on http://icppc.pl/galerie/glodowka/

"They came from all over the world: from professors, scientists, organizations, concerned private people. Everyone is speaking with one voice: "NO TO GMO". The letters demand positive actions, based on mounting evidence of GMO threats. They include communications from Austria, Hungary, France and Greece, Countries that have already introduced GMO bans," added Julian Rose.

For more information, contact:

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside,
Międzynarodowa Koalicja dla Ochrony Polskiej Wsi
34-146 Stryszów 156, Poland tel./fax +48 33 8797114
biuro@icppc.pl www.icppc.pl www.gmo.icppc.pl www.eko-cel.pl

GM maize fails to produce

The Times (South Africa), 20 March 2009. By Bobby Jordan:
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=964062

A mysterious maize crop flop in three provinces has sparked a fresh row over the government's backing of genetically modified agriculture.

Three varieties of genetically modified maize did not pollinate properly this season.

Worst affected are farms in the Free State and North West.

GM maize is touted by the government as an effective way to boost production.

Biotech giant Monsanto will compensate farmers who suffered losses due to the failure of their GM maize varieties, but the company denied the problem was related to genetic modification.

Grain SA this week estimated the failed harvest at between 80000 and 150000 tons. About 280 farmers were affected, out of 1003 who bought the maize.

Grain SA spokesman Nico Hawkins said despite the losses, most farmers were happy with higher yields from GM maize seed.

But the anti-GM lobby warned that the losses may be a sign of worse to come. "We regularly come across unintended side effects from plants that have been genetically engineered," said spokesman Andrew Taynton.

CSIRO Plans Limited Release of GM Wheat Varieties

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), 20 March 2009:
http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/sentarticle/default.asp?ID=3884

Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has submitted an application to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) for the limited and controlled release of up to 16 genetically modified wheat varieties. Grain characteristics, particularly carbohydrate and protein composition, were altered in the transgenic lines. These characteristics influence baking qualities and nutritional characteristics, such as glycemic index and metabolic health. The GM wheat lines also contain a selectable marker gene (nptII) which confers resistance to certain antibiotics.

If approved, the release will take place in the Australian Capital Territory on a total area of up to 1 hectare between 2009 and 2012. OGTR has prepared a Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) which concludes that the release poses negligible risks to people and the environment. OGTR seeks comment on the prepared RARMP.

For more information, contact ogtr@health.gov.au or http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir092

21 March 2009

Why we need GM crops
• As the world's population soars, they may not be the least-bad option

The Times (UK), 21 March 2009. By Mark Henderson:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5944685.ece

The world is already a crowded place. Today's population of 6.8 billion represents more than 5 per cent of all the people who have ever lived, andthe figure is growing at a dizzying rate. The US Census Bureau recently revised its estimate for the global population in 2050 upwards to 9.4 billion. In 40 years there will be almost 40 per cent more of us.

Population growth is perhaps the biggest challenge the world faces today, touching on all sorts of issues. We will have to meet intensifying energy needs while curbing global warming. Competition for minerals and water - both potent sources of conflict - will increase. And it will force us to re-examine how we ensure that everybody has something to eat.

The last of these challenges will have to be resolved in one of three ways. The first option is to bring more wilderness under cultivation. The second is to transform yields from existing farmland, and the nutritional value of crops. The third, of course, is widespread starvation.

Almost everybody agrees that the second course is the most desirable, but that is where agreement generally ends. As a pamphlet published by the independent trust Sense About Science argues persuasively, this solution may require increased use of genetically modified crops.

Genetic engineering is often seen as something freakish and hazardous, as meddling with nature. That, however, is no reason to dismiss it. As the Making Sense of GM report says, farmers have been meddling with Nature for as long as there has been farming. The staples that are cultivated today, such as wheat and rice, are wholly unnatural. They differ from their wild relatives because they have different genetic profiles, altered either by selective breeding or by mutagens such as radiation.

Modern biotechnology allows scientists to achieve this genetic change in more targeted fashion. It is now possible to isolate genes that promote drought tolerance or bigger seeds and insert them into crops that are known to grow well in particular environments. All that has changed is the precision, power and speed of the techniques involved.

Like any technology, GM has risks. It is quite possible to use it to transfer allergens or toxins that might be harmful, or to create crops that damage biodiversity. The fact that a plant has been genetically engineered, however, says nothing on its own about how safe it is to eat or its impact on the environment. That all depends on which genes have been altered - and the same is true of so-called conventional varieties.

To ask whether GM crops are good or bad, therefore, is to ask the wrong question. What we should be aiming to assess is the quality of individual crops, GM or conventional, and their relevance to particular agricultural problems. Sometimes it may be possible to improve yields by educating farmers, better provision of credit, and innovative use of traditional varieties. On other occasions the GM product will turn out to be best.

Even when a new crop with enhanced yields does threaten biodiversity on the farm where it is grown, that may be no reason to rule it out. When more food is needed, the alternative will often be to plough up wilderness instead, at higher net ecological cost. The GM variety may sometimes be the least bad option.

There is much to be debated as the world learns to feed more mouths, and the answers will not always be straightforward. It would be wrong to claim GM as any sort of panacea, but equally wrong to shun a powerful technology because some of its applications might be harmful. Food security is not going to be easily achieved in a world of 9.4 billion people. We need every tool in the box.

---

Comment from GM Watch:

Over the last decade Mark Henderson, the science correspondent of The Times, has probably turned out more avidly pro-GM copy than any other journalist in the UK, and the following article remains true to form.

Henderson is extremely close to pro-GM lobby groups like the Science Media Centre and Sense About Science, and in this article he draws repeatedly on SAS's recent GM guide - partly ghost written, as we now know, by a former Monsanto director.

Here are just a few of the pro-GM headlines Henderson's articles have generated:

•

GM Resistance Is 'Threatening Cheap Food'

•

Europe's stand on GM crops 'hitting the poor'

•

BBC incited eco-terror on GM drama website

•

Scientists rebut writer's claim of GM conspiracy

•

Scientists condemn 'ill-informed, negative' Prince over GM crops warning

•

Blair condemns protesters who thwart science *GM crops are the only way to solve Britons' diet failings, say scientists

•

GM Tomato 'Reduces Risk of Disease'

•

GM Potato Vaccine Found For Hepatitis B

•

GM bean could help prevent heart attacks

•

GM mosquito bred to destroy malaria

•

Scientists aim to beat flu with genetically modified chickens

•

GM grass to put club golfers on par with the best

•

GM Food is safe to eat, says Royal Society

•

Attack on safety of GM crops was unfounded

•

'Scaremongering' Lancet accused of causing harm to health and wasting millions

•

Chief Scientist says atomic power and GM crops are the future

•

Eating GM Foods Will Not Harm You, Says Official Report

•

We Need GM Crops, Says New Chief Scientist

•

Trials give clear signal for China to cultivate GM rice

You get the picture.

---

Comment from GM free Ireland

Tell the lie often enough and it becomes the truth. There is no global food shortage, but unequal access to it. 30% of food is wasted in the North, and much of that which is not thrown out is overconsumed - there seem to be more obese people than malnourished ones in the world today.

As the U.N.'s International Assessment of Agriculture, Science and Technology found, agro-ecological and organic farming methods are the only sustainable way for the world to meet the food needs of its growing population. Industrial chemical monoculture agribusiness and GM crops are simply not the answer, despite the agri-biotech industry's propaganda and make-believe from writers like Mark Henderson who seems to be totally ignorant of the emerging global consensus on the future of food and farming.

Informed consumer

Personal Finance (South Africa) 21 March 2009. By Margarete King:
http://www.persfin.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=590&fArticleId=4900033

[Excerpt]

Levelling the paying fields

The Consumer Protection Bill won't utterly transform the landscape for buyers and sellers in South Africa, but there will be some interesting changes to our daily lives if all the Bill's provisions make it into law. The broadest and most far-reaching of the provisions have been dealt with in the newspaper version of Personal Finance and elsewhere, but there are a few gems tucked away.

One implication of the Bill if it passes into law unchanged is the disappearance of that standard of South African kitsch signage: "Nice to look at, nice to hold, but if you break it, consider it sold." Even if a shopkeeper stoically retains his or her sign, it's not going to help. The Bill is very clear: "A consumer or potential consumer is not responsible for any loss or damage to any goods displayed by a supplier ..."

That's as long as the damage is not a result of your gross negligence (which is not defined in the Bill), recklessness or maliciousness, or your indulging in criminal acts.

(...)

Hard to swallow

There is one very disappointing aspect of the Bill. The very first sentence of the section dealing with liability for damage caused by goods says: "This section does not apply to genetically modified organisms regulated in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997." So the message from the drafters of the legislation is this: we don't know if there will be long-term damage caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs) but we are specifically excluding consumers from the protection this Bill could have given them against possible damage.

Let's remember GMOs aren't only modified maize and soyabeans; they are also viruses and bacteria. GMOs contain genes from microbes that would never naturally occur in the plants. This makes some genetically modified (GM) plants resistant to weedkiller, while others have a built-in pesticide.

GMOs are excluded from the Bill even though the Bill provides protection for distributors and retailers if scientific discoveries in future show a product of any kind has adverse effects. The provision puts it this way: "Liability of a particular person in terms of this section does not arise if ... it is unreasonable to expect the distributor or retailer to have discovered the unsafe product characteristic, failure, defect or hazard, having regard to ... the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the goods were under the control of that person."

Now why would the Bill need specifically to exclude GMOs? Short- and long-term insurers are excluded from the ambit of the Bill because they already have Acts governing them. GMOs also have their own Act, but it holds only the user liable for any damage caused by the use or release of a GMO, and even this liability is limited. So again, why exclude GMOs in this Bill? To exclude the designers and producers of GMOs, such as Monsanto, perhaps?

Leslie Liddell, the director of Biowatch SA, an organisation that monitors and researches GM crops, says no food with GMO components currently qualifies for mandatory labelling in South Africa. In addition, a study conducted at the University of the Free State shows that of maize and soy products voluntarily labelled "non-GM" or "GMO free" or "organic", 71 percent of those tested contained GMOs.

So it seems you don't know when you are eating the products against which you have no protection enshrined in a Bill that proclaims its intention is to "protect consumers from hazards to their well-being and safety [and to] develop effective means of redress". It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Lost contact

It also does not sit well with me that Parliament allowed the public just 16 days (May 19 to June 3) to make submissions on the Bill. "Oh, and submit exactly where?" you may ask. Good question. It took a colleague and me 12 phone calls (not counting unanswered calls) to find that submissions should have been to Akhona Makuzeni, the secretary for the select committee on economic and foreign affairs. This info was available in the Government Gazette, issue 31 027, Makuzeni says.

So you wouldn't have seen adverts in your local newspaper asking for submissions, although Parliament's website suggests the public keeps an eye on the newspapers, because parliamentary committees, through advertisements, "often invite members of the public to make written submissions when they are considering a particular matter".

Not this time, it seems.

Along the way I discovered you could also have emailed submissions to info@parliament.gov.za. (Put "submissions" in the subject line if you use the system in future.)

This article was first published in Personal Finance magazine, 3rd Quarter 2008.

20 March 2009

Diverse farmer and public interest groups urge USDA to freeze approvals of genetically engineered crops
• Groups seek revamping of midnight Bush administration rules and demand more protections for farmers, the public, and the environment

Center for Food Safety (USA), 20 March 2009:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/APHISletterPR3_20_09.cfm

Washington, DC -- Today eighty-two farm, food, public interest, and environmental organizations delivered a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him to freeze approval of all new genetically engineered crops (GE) until the agency corrects serious deficiencies in how they are regulated. In the waning months of the Bush Administration, USDA released a proposal to overhaul its regulation of GE crops, significantly weakening oversight. The letter puts the new Administration on notice that the public demands a more thorough evaluation of GE crops, greater public input, and stricter regulation.

"Peoples' right to choose the food they eat and farmers' right to plant the crops of their choice is at risk with these proposed rules," said Bill Wenzel, Policy Advisor, Center for Food Safety. "USDA must engage in a new rulemaking process that makes significant revisions to protect the rights and livelihoods of farmers, the public, and the environment."

Over four years ago, USDA promised stricter oversight of genetically engineered crops but the improvements considered early on have vanished. Instead, the existing midnight rules offer less regulation and even more self-policing by the biotech industry. Although the initial comment period on the proposed rules ended in November 2008, the agency extended the deadline for comments after it received extensive criticisms from diverse stakeholders. USDA plans to host a public meeting in April to discuss key concerns and gaps in regulation before the rulemaking process continues.

The letter delivered to Secretary Vilsack identifies numerous gaps and problems in the proposed rules including the specific lack of protections against GE contamination of non-GE conventional and organic crops, a problem that has already cost farmers billions in lost markets and continues to threaten their livelihood. It criticizes the weakening of existing GE crop oversight provisions by waiving oversight of whole categories of GE crops. Perhaps most egregiously, the proposal would completely hand over the duty of determining whether GE regulations apply to a given crop to the biotech industry, without requiring USDA approval and without public participation or notice.

Given the comprehensive nature of the proposed rule revisions and the impact on the deregulation decision-making process, signatories to the letter call for an immediate freeze on all new GE crop approvals until final regulations are promulgated and until USDA addresses the critical concerns and regulatory gaps that have been raised.

View the Letter http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Final_APHIS-2008-2003%20Supplemental%20Comments.pdf

The Center for Food Safety is national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.orgf

Contacts:

Bill Wenzel, Center for Food Safety (202) 547-9359;
Lisa Bunin, Center for Food Safety, (415) 826-2770;
Heath Fradkoff, Goodman Media, (212)-576-2700

"Wartmongers" Thwarted as Bumpy Pumpkin Patent Goes Flat

ETC Group Update, 20 March 2009:
http://www.etcgroup.org

Last month, ETC Group reported on a patent application(1) under examination at the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) in which Siegers Seed Company of Holland, Michigan, claimed invention of a "warted pumpkin...wherein the outer shell includes at least one wart..." On February 13, the USPTO put its 9-page verdict in the mail, (2) rejecting all of the application's 25 claims.

"The good news is that the USPTO rejected all claims in the warty pumpkin patent application," says Silvia Ribeiro from ETC Group's Mexico office. "And also that in her decision, the patent examiner cited a catalogue from Seed Savers Exchange - a non-profit organization that preserves and distributes heirloom seeds. Seed catalogue entries demonstrated the pre-existence of warty pumpkins well before Siegers Seed's so-called invention. Thousands of years before that of course, indigenous peoples domesticated pumpkins and, no doubt, there have been bumpy ones since then."

"The bad news," says ETC's Kathy Jo Wetter, "is that the USPTO's rejection is 'non-final,' which means the applicant can make amendments to the claims and try for a monopoly patent again."

It can take years for a USPTO "non-final rejection" to become final. In the reexamination of the Enola bean patent (U.S. patent 5,894,079, granted in 1999, which claimed a bean variety of Mexican origin), the USTPO's rejection remained in non-final limbo for one and a half years (December 2003-April 2005) before the Office issued the first of two "final" rejections. The patent owner appealed the ruling and the patent is still under dispute,(3) so farmers in Mexico and bean sellers north and south of the border continue to be shut out of markets.

"The USPTO can act like a lousy partner in a dysfunctional relationship - a relationship that should end but painfully drags on and on," continues Wetter. "We hope that Siegers Seed recognizes that no matter how much the USPTO is willing to string them along, there is no merit to their monopoly claims and it's time to move on. Unlike the Enola bean, the warty pumpkin looks like it won't have a life beyond the patent application stage and we should all plant some warty pumpkin seeds to celebrate."

Contacts:

Silvia Ribeiro - ETC Group (Mexico City) silvia@etcgroup.org
Phone: 011 52 5555 6326 64

Kathy Jo Wetter - ETC Group (Durham, NC, USA) kjo@etcgroup.org
Phone: +1 919 688 7302

Notes:

(1) http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=721

(2) You can download the USPTO decision from this page using Application No. 11999153: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

(3) See ETC Group, "Hollow Victory: Enola Bean Patent Smashed At Last (Maybe)," 29 April 2008, available on the Internet: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=683

Monsanto scientist helped author SAS's GM guide

Private Eye (UK) No. 1232, 20 March - 2 April 2009.

A spat has broken out over a Times Higher Education article highlighting the failure of a new guide to GM food, 'Making Sense of GM', to disclose its industry connections.

Tracey Brown of Sense About Science, publisher of the guide, condemned the T.H.E. [Times Higher Education] article as "mischievous" and "rude" and claimed it relied on "tortuously indirect links" between the authors and the GM industry.

But the Eye has a copy of an unpublished draft of the guide - and it seems it wasn't just the industry links of some of its authors that didn't appear in the final published version. One of the guide's listed authors, Andrew Cockburn, is also missing. Who he? None other than GM giant, Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs, and a figure so controversial that when former PM Tony Blair invited him to author part of the government's official GM Science Review, it led to questions being raised in the House and the resignation of one of expert panellists.

No wonder Sense About Science felt erasure was the better form of valour.

Note:

The Times Higher Education piece referred to above may be found at
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2009/feb.php#corbyn

...

Comment from GM Watch:

Here's more about Andrew Cockburn, the Monsanto man who Private Eye (item 1) have just outed as an unacknowledged "ghost writer" of Sense About Science's GM guide: 'Making Sense of GM.'

Cockburn was Monsanto's Director of Scientific Affairs (Europe and Africa) - see here (2003)
http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/panel/members/cockburn.htm

Cockburn's also identified as a Monsanto employee in annex 4 of this RS doc (2006)
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=23615

He now seems to have his own consultancy: Director of Toxico-Logical Consulting Ltd
http://www.abtrnetwork.com/andrewcockburn.html

As Private Eye noted, Cockburn's involvement in the UK Government's GM Science Review back in 2002-2003 led to considerable controversy - see: Bias claim over panels looking at GM crops, Telegraph, 28 Nov 2002
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1414661/Bias-claim-over-panels-looking-at-GM-crops.html

And contributed to the resignation of one of the other panelists, Prof Carlo Lefeit:

"'The final straw came when he was told that Andrew Cockburn of Monsanto had been commissioned to write the first draft of its consideration of GM safety issues,' said the source. In the House of Commons on Thursday, Joan Ruddock asked the new Environment Minister Elliot Morley if he was concerned that the food safety section had been written by a Monsanto employee. Morley did not reply."

Dissenting adviser quits GM panel
Observer, 20 July 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jul/20/highereducation.foodanddrink

It seems Cockburn's worked with Sense About Science before. Here he's identified as one of the contribitors to 'Making Sense of Chemical Stories' but, interestingly, his employment by Monsanto (and before that agrochemical/pharma giants AgrEvo/Aventis) is not mentioned.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/45

For a document reassuring people about chemical risks not to mention that before founding Toxico-Logical Consulting Ltd., Cockburn worked for nearly 40 years in "Global food, pharmaceutical and crop protection industries, the latter involving both chemistry and advanced breeding/biotechnology", seems a little less than frank.
http://www.abtrnetwork.com/andrewcockburn.html

They obviously couldn't pull that stunt with the GM guide because with all the hoo ha previously about Cockburn's involvement in the GM debate, who he was would have been spotted straight away.

In the Times Higher Education article (item 2 below) it refers to speculation that SAS had not disclosed Professor Moses' directorship of an industry funded lobby group "because it was afraid of arousing public suspicion". How much more would that have been the case with a long-serving Monsanto employee!

So, it looks like instead of just airbrushing out his industry connections, as with Prof Moses' chairing an industry lobby group or Prof Leaver's biotech consultancies, SAS decided simply to airbrush Cockburn himself out!

Given that Private Eye has a draft of the GM guide which acknowledges his contribution, this would suggest that not only SAS were party to this. Even if they weren't consulted about it, the GM guide's other authors will inevitably have seen that Cockburn's details had been removed, yet they have remained silent about it during the controversy over contributors' industry interests.

Vatican cheers GM

Anna Meldolesi Nature Biotechnology 27, 214 (2009) doi:10.1038/nbt0309-214a (News):
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n3/full/nbt0309-214a.html

A closed door meeting to be held at the Vatican in Rome in May will see leading scientists gathering to discuss a campaign backing agricultural biotech. The study week has been organized by Ingo Potrykus, co-inventor of the fortified Golden Rice technology and president of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, on behalf of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Vatican has long been concerned about food security, and advisors from the academy, which holds a membership roster of the most respected names in twentieth-century science, have recognized that plant biotech has the potential to benefit the poor. "I think we are heading in the right direction with this meeting and it will help to dispel some of the myths about GM crops," argues Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis and an academy member. Participants are expected to issue a definitive declaration and work on a roadmap for science-based regulations for genetically modified (GM) crops. "I would hope the moral high ground of the Vatican is relevant at least in Catholic countries," says Potrykus, whose Golden Rice project has been held up by political hurdles. It will be particularly interesting to see reactions in Italy, where a nine-year ban on open field trials recently ended. Some of the 'regions', into which Italy is subdividided, "still jeopardize field studies by failing to identify [planting] locations," says Piero Morandini of the University of Milan.

---

Comment from GM Watch:

Everything in this Nature Biotechnology news piece - from the headline down - is outrageously spun. The fact that thanks to Monsanto's pet Raven on his gilded perch in St Louis, a pro-GM campaign meeting has been put together behind closed doors under the auspices of the Pontifical Academy, on which Peter Raven serves, means absolutely nothing in terms of Vatican approval. But that hasn't stopped the biotech brigade from claiming it gives their platform "the moral high ground of the Vatican".

The Pontifical Academy has regularly been hijacked to punt industry interests such as nuclear power, without it in any way reflecting official blessing. The news coming out of Africa, where the Pope has just released a working document highly critical of GMOs for this fall's Synod of Bishops for Africa, clearly shows that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5939789.ece

Note the critism of GM food and farming in the next item below - the working document for this autumn's Synod of Bishops for Africa - which strongly warned against thinking genetically modified crops would solve Africa's food crises.

Using GM crops risks "ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies" selling their genetically modified seeds, it said.

The document said no one should overlook the real agricultural problems on the continent, which include a lack of cultivatable land, water, energy, credit, local markets and infrastructure for transporting products.

19 March 2009

Embrapa against cultivation of transgenic rice

Valor Econômico (Brazil), 19 March 2009. By Mauro Zanatta:
http://www.valoronline.com.br

For the first time since the beginning of the discussions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Brazil, the Brazilian Research Company on Agriculture and Husbandry (Embrapa) raised its voice against the cultivation of a transgenic variety.

On a public hearing about the transgenic rice "Liberty Link", produced by the German multinational Bayer, Embrapa classified the approval of this seed as a "threat to the food safety in Brazil" and recommended to the National Technical Commission of Biosafety (CTNBio) to "analyze carefully the introduction of genes" of resistance to herbicides based on ammonium glufosinate.

Representing the executive-directorate of this state company, the researcher Fl·vio Breseghello stated that the transgene of this rice would cause "even bigger agronomical problems in the country" if it was released now in the environment.

Embrapa sustains that the gene would transform the much feared red rice weed into a superweed resistant to herbicides. "The transgenic red rice would become dominant with the use of this herbicide (glufosinate) and could harm the Brazilian wild rice varieties", said Breseghello. "After cultivation it will be impossible to remove this gene from the environment. There's no possibility of recalling this technology".

The researcher of Embrapa "Rice and Beans", located in Goi·s, defended that the combination of glufosinate with the "clearfield" technology, which has been utilized to exterminate the red rice weed, would have the opposite effect and would lead to the resistance of this weed to both herbicides. The "technical and not ideological" position, as Breseghello pointed out three times, caused surprise to the small auditorium of the Deputies Chamber, where around 130 people gathered for four hours to listen to the specialists.

Even more surprising was the position against this rice from the rice producers, in theory the most interested people in the eventual advantages of its commercial release. "We are not favourable to the release of this rice at the moment. There's no market for the transgenic rice and exports are vital for us", said the president of the federation of rice producers (Federarroz), Renato Rocha. By announcing a joint position with the state federation of agriculture (Farsul) and the research institute Irga, the spokesman stated that the "release would put at risk the internal and external market and would compromise the profitability of the production chain" by impeding exports, since no other country in the world authorized the cultivation of this transgenic rice. In 2008 the country exported 790 thousand tons of rice.

The manager of Bayer technology, AndrČ Abreu, defended the economic and environmental benefits of this transgenic variety. According to him, "Liberty Link" reduces the residues on the soil and does not contaminate the water used for irrigation. "It would be a great step forward to use it in irrigated areas because of the rate of degradability of the product". "But we will only make it available when the producers find it is the right time". The executive also defended the risk evaluation studies conducted in Rio Grande do Sul and rejected accusations that part of the research data delivered to CTNBio were suppressed.

During the hearing, independent experts underlined the flaws and inconsistencies of the studies presented to the European Commission.

"There's no technical basis because data from field testing is lacking", said Gabriel Fernandes, from the environmental NGO ASPTA.

The president of CTNBio, the biochemical doctor Walter Colli, stated that this transgenic rice would be similar to the technology "clearfield" already in use in the Brazilian rice production: "There's already clearfield doing the same job that a GMO does, but nobody is talking about it. That is my conclusion".

---

Comment by TraceConsult®:

It is an entirely new tune we get to hear from Embrapa http://www.embrapa.br/english/, Brazil's prestigious, semi-governmental, yet state-owned, corporation affiliated to the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, which is devoted to pure and applied research on agriculture. Not only has it developed an acidic-soil adapted soybean plant, which may help Brazil to become the world's number one soybean exporter, it also serves as a multiplier for all types and varieties of seeds, including GM soybeans developed by international suppliers. Its mission is to provide feasible solutions for the sustainable development of Brazilian agribusiness through knowledge and technology generation and transfer.

To hear an Embrapa spokesman utter the words "...transgenic red rice would become dominant with the use of this herbicide (glufosinate) and could harm the Brazilian wild rice varieties" can truly be called a rare occasion and may be considered a field day by some environmental NGOs.

At the same time it means that food producers should listen up and review such statements for compatibility with their own guidelines for sustainable and ethical production. Nobody knows Brazil's agriculture as well as this organization with more than 8,000 staff in almost 40 research centers throughout Brazil. That is undoubtedly the reason why Valor Econômico has covered this story.

Synod working document seeks ways to promote justice, peace in Africa

Catholic News Service, 19 March 2009. By Carol Glatz:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901274.htm

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The working document for this fall's Synod of Bishops for Africa called for a united effort among Catholics to help end the rampant injustices fueling conflicts on the continent and to usher in an era of peace.

The document said the synod would have to find ways to better prepare the faithful in Africa for a more visible and active role in promoting unity in the church and in society and in working for the common good.

Pope Benedict XVI released the 62-page document, called an "instrumentum laboris," March 19 during an outdoor Mass in Yaounde, Cameroon. The Vatican published the document the same day.

The Second Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Africa will be held in the Vatican Oct. 4-25 and will focus on the theme "The Church in Africa in Service to Reconciliation, Justice and Peace."

The working document was highly critical of the effects of globalization effects on the continent, saying it "infringes on Africa's rights" and tends "to be the vehicle for the domination of a single, cultural model and a culture of death."

But it also pinned the blame for many of Africa's ills on the evil in people's hearts, which makes them thirsty for riches, power or revenge.

Following up on the first African synod, which was held in 1994 and looked at evangelization through personal witness, the second assembly was to allow church leaders to address the continent's changing religious, demographic, social and political scenes and discuss new ways to proclaim the Gospel by being "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world."

The overall goals of the synod, the working document said, are to assess what has been accomplished since the post-synodal papal document "Ecclesia in Africa" ("The Church in Africa") presented its recommendations in 1995 and to look at what remains to be done in response to the changing situations in Africa.

While the 1995 document has been put into action and continues to be a timely and useful guide for the church on the continent, it has not been adequately distributed and implemented in some places, the working document said.

The working document, based on responses to a questionnaire sent out to dioceses in 2007, listed a number of shared expectations for the synod:

•

Finding ways the Gospel can be inculturated or better grounded in local cultures.

•

Helping Catholics get a firmer grasp of their faith so as to make Christ more a part of their lives and inspire them to bring his transforming message to the world.

•

Paying greater attention to and developing a more creative pastoral response to the spiritual and moral needs of couples and families.

•

Underlining the need for greater investment in education, especially in establishing higher education programs to train not just workers but also future entrepreneurs and business people.

•

Better integrating women and the laity into the church's leadership and pastoral planning.

•

Getting the church more involved in using traditional and new media.

•

Helping the bishops be more effective agents for overcoming ethnic and tribal divisions by being united in denouncing injustices and being a voice for the voiceless.

The document said that being a Christian and belonging to the universal church helps each Catholic put aside his or her differences of origin or ethnicity and brings people closer together as brothers and sisters.

The church's sacraments, especially the sacrament of reconciliation, help form individuals' consciences, inspire them to share God's love with others, and guide them to replace fear with hope and the logic of revenge with reconciliation and forgiveness, it said.

Despite many signs of renewal and reform, Africa still faces many problems, said the text.

Political instability and selfish leaders continue to compromise peace in parts of Africa, it said. Some politicians foster divisions among their people, violate human rights or use religion to pursue their own agendas, it said.

The loss of respect for common traditional African values has led, in some parts of the continent, to relations between people of one religion and another "degenerating into a true Christian and Muslim rivalry."

Political and social disputes are sometimes resolved with violence and fledgling democratic processes can sometimes disintegrate into "scenes of fratricide orchestrated by rival parties," it said.

Decades of armed conflict in Africa have led to "a culture of violence, division and warrior heroes," and the continued sale of arms by rich nations to ruling oligarchies fuels numerous wars, the document said.

"In some places, a true slavery still exists" because salaries are insufficient or sporadic and international aid often comes with "unacceptable conditions," it said.

In addition, the document said, international financial programs aimed at restructuring the African economy "seem to be having a dire effect."

The forced restructuring has led to an extremely fragile economy and the breakdown of society as can be seen by increased crime, the widening gap between rich and poor and massive migration to already overcrowded cities, said the text.

The document was especially critical of the economic and social effects of globalization.

It criticized multinational corporations that continue to "systematically invade the continent in search of natural resources," adding that Africa's rights are infringed upon by nations seeking control of its enormous mining reserves.

These outside interests together with "the abundance of natural resources on the African continent continue to pose a threat to peace, justice and reconciliation," it said.

Globalization risks seriously harming societies with its "logic of the world economy which disregards what is truly a part of the human person," such as the spiritual, moral and cultural values and gifts of local African traditions and religious faith, said the text.

"A process organized to destroy the African identity seems to be taking place under the pretext of modernity," it said. Because of rampant illiteracy and a lack of investment in education, people -- especially the young -- are more vulnerable to "the false values propagated by the mass media" and political propaganda.

It also strongly warned against thinking genetically modified crops would solve Africa's food crises.

Using GM crops risks "ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies" selling their genetically modified seeds, it said.

The document said no one should overlook the real agricultural problems on the continent, which include a lack of cultivatable land, water, energy, credit, local markets and infrastructure for transporting products.

Concerning endemic diseases and HIV and AIDS, the document highlighted the church's dedication to the sick.

The document stressed the important role the church can play in being a model for peace, justice and reconciliation. By becoming more just and united itself, the church can become a sign and instrument for justice and peace in wider society, it said.

Peace is something that is "born from within" when there has been a conversion of heart because a new spirit transforms people's outlook, mentality and behavior, it said.

The church is also a beacon of hope for those suffering from war, poverty and injustice, it said, because in Christ they can "find hope and a taste for living."

Broilers without biotech
[German poultry producer] Stolle converts production

HNA Online, 19 March 2009:
http://www.hna.de/breakingnews/00_20090319144800_Grillhaehnchen_ohne_Gentechnik.html

Gudensberg. 9,000 to 10,000 broiler chickens per hour are converted into food products by Gudensberg-based producer Stolle, that is 480,000 broilers per week. From the beginning of May they will be fed without genetic engineering - guaranteed - with certification.

Scientifically, the jury is still out on whether genetically modified compound feed can travel through the animal in the food chain to a human, says Albert Focke, Stolle's spokesman. But the conversion made sense and was technically possible.

The manufacturing of animal nutrition for the feeding of broilers is subject to stringent criteria and quality controls. One of the group's feed mills already uses exclusively grain and soy that are planted GM-free.

95 percent of the almost completely domestic farmers who supply chickens to Stolle use the feed manufactured here. The finished food product will then be allowed to carry the label "NON-GMO" (non-genetically modified). This means it is free of bioengineered components.

...

Comment from TraceConsult®

It seems the ice is broken: Germany's #2 in poultry production, Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG, will soon be #1 in applying the country's still relatively new law on positive "GM-free" claims on broiler chickens. This would make them the first major supplier of animal products to come out with this new claim.

Already certified last autumn under Intertek's Non-GMO standard, a fact the company already announced at the InterMeat trade show in Cologne in October*), they seem now set up to take the claim to the actual product. Under German law, that would require the words "ohne Gentechnik" (without genetic engineering) to be used. In this regard, the reporting above is not entirely correct. But Stolle is probably well advised about this.

Things promise to become exciting now as to who will follow next - and with what type of product.

* See TraceConsult eNews of 14 October 2008.

German farm minister wants GM-free zones

Agra Europe Weekly, 19 March 2009:
[Requires subscription: http://www.agra-net.com/portal/]

German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner is aiming to apply the 'subsidiarity principle' to decisions about the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops.

This would mean transferring responsibility for such decisions from federal level to the country's regional governments, the minister said in an interview with the Bavarian newspaper Bayernkurier. She also wanted to explore whether it was possible within national law to define GM-free regions.

A general ban on GM crops was not politically achievable in Germany at present, Aigner said. If she and her CSU Party took such a stance they would be unable to get majority support at national level.

She stressed that, before approval was granted for GM seeds, it must be scientifically demonstrated that there would be no negative effects on human health or the environment, including in the long term. On the other hand, the government should not rule out the possibility of approval in advance.

"If the characteristics of GM plants are transferred to other cultivated or wild plants, it may not be possible to reverse this," Aigner warned. "We need sound science and must not rely on the information from the manufacturers."

She added that the GM maize variety MON 810 was coming up for approval again. In Germany at present, it may only be grown under strict monitoring conditions. A report investigating whether this monitoring plan should remain in place is due to be published later this month.

...

Comment from GM Watch:

This follows on from Germany's farm minister, Ilse Aigner, previously saying that "Genetic engineering for agriculture has no benefits" and that she wanted to ban it. She's also been reported as saying that whether or not a blanket ban could be achieved, she would want to ban Monsanto's MON810 maize - the only GM crop that can legally be grown in Germany.

The Bavarian environment and health minister, Markus Soder, has said he doesn't just favour a MON810 ban, he also wants a stop to all GM field trials. The Bavarian government is already opposed to any field trials with Bt maize being conducted in Bavaria.

Organic food sales continue to grow strongly despite recession 11% year on year growth

Irish Organic Farmers & Growers Association (IOFGA) press release, 19 March 2009.

The Irish Organic Farmers & Growers Association (IOFGA) reports that sales of organic food continue to grow strongly in Ireland despite the recession. Feedback from members of IOFGA that sales have continued to grow this year have been supported by the latest survey figures released by Bord Bia. These compared sales of organic food in shops and supermarkets for the 12 week period to the end of January 2009 with those for the same period to the end of January 2008. This indicates that sales have grown in value terms by 11% year on year. This compares with 2.7% growth for non organic food. The fact that people who purchase organic food are committed to the organic option was confirmed by the results of a survey that indicated that two thirds of those who purchase organic food said that their purchases would stay at the same level or grow this year despite the downturn.

The experience of organic farmer Jimmy Mulhall who is based in Co Laois near Carlow town backs up these figures. He produces organic pork, lamb and beef on Coolanowle Organic Farm. He sells his produce at seven markets in Contarf, Ranelagh, Leopardstown, Skerries, Carlow, Kilkenny and Portlaoise and also at http://www.organicmeat.ie. He reports that after a slight dip in November sales are up since Christmas and his sales are growing ahead of the rate reported by Bord Bia. He puts this down to people purchasing top quality organic meat as they substitute dining in for eating out in restaurants as they watch their budgets more closely. The Mulhalls also use their home produced meat to supply visitors to their guesthouse and self catering accommodation for which they won the Best breakfast in Ireland Award in 2008 from Good Food Ireland.

Kate Carmody Chairperson of IOFGA stated,"Organic food sales continue to grow as people look for quality produce even when money is tight. It confirms that the organic message of support for the highest standards of animal welfare, pesticides free farming, supporting biodiversity and sustainable farming is increasingly important to Irish consumers even in difficult economic times. It also points to opportunities for conventional farmers to explore the organic option. The success of organic farmers like Jimmy Mulhall illustrates the potential which exists for finding new ways of selling produce direct to the consumer cutting out he middleman."

Note to editors

The Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA) is the largest organic certification organisation in Ireland representing approx 1,000 farmers, growers and processors. It is responsible for certifying the organic provenance of its members produce and the IOFGA symbol indicates that a product has met the highest standard or organic integrity. IOFGA also works to inform the public about the benefits or organic food and to support the development of organic food production in Ireland. Further information on IOFGA is available on www.iofga.org. IOFGA publishes six times a year its popular magazine Organic Matters. Articles from back issues of the magazine may be found at www.irishorganic.ie

For further information contact:

Kate Carmody tel 086 8239582
Jimmy Mulhall www.coolanowle.com 0872738061
Issued by John O'Neill Tel 087 612 5989 or john.oneill@iofga.org

Fischer Boel eyes food security tools

Agra Europe Weekly, 19 March 2009:
[Requires subscription: http://www.agra-net.com/portal/]

Biofuels, genetically modified (GM) crops and an open trade policy will be key tools in the fight to ensure that Europe's food and environmental security do not suffer from the financial crisis, the EU's Farm Commissioner said today (Thursday).

Speaking at a conference in Brussels on the potential impact of the global economic crisis on food and environmental security in the EU, Mariann Fischer Boel outlined her action plan to tackle the effects of the downturn.

She emphasised that the farm sector enjoys support not available to other sectors, in the form of direct payments, market instruments and rural development funding.

While she said she did not want to 'insulate farmers completely against the rigours of the market', and that the sector must continue to restructure to keep up with a changing marketplace, if agriculture were too exposed it would mean 'gambling with the security of our food supply and our environment.'

...

Sustainable biofuels, GMs

The EU must turn to renewable energy sources, and biofuels will play an important role in the future of energy supply in Europe, she said - adding that establishing the right sustainability criteria for biofuels production will be crucial.

On the question of GMs, Fischer Boel said: "It is beyond question that we must authorise only GMOs which are safe for people, animals and the environment. But within this framework, let's be open to what GM technology can do for us, for example, GM crops which are more resistant to heat or drought."

The geneticist in the garage
• Citizen scientists are setting up their own gene laboratories in the hope of inventing new and useful organisms. But are they a danger to us all?

The Guardian, 19 March 2009. By James Bloom:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/19/biohacking-genetics-research

Meredith Patterson is not your typical genetic scientist. Her laboratory is based in the dining room of her San Francisco apartment. She uses a plastic salad spinner as a centrifuge and Ziploc plastic bags as airtight containers for her samples. But the genetically modified organism (GMO) she is attempting to create on a budget of less than $500 (GBP350) could provide a breakthrough in food safety.

The 31-year-old ex-computer programmer and now biohacker is working on modifying jellyfish genes and adding them to yoghurt to detect the toxic chemical melamine, which was found in baby milk in China last year after causing a number of deaths, and kidney damage to thousands of infants. Her idea is to engineer yoghurt so that in the presence of the toxin it turns fluorescent green, warning the producer that the food is contaminated. If her experiment is successful, she will release the design into the public domain.

"I haven't had a huge amount of success so far," says Patterson. "But science is often about failing until you get it right." She has decided to invest in an electro-porator she found on eBay for $150, which should speed things up. "It's actually not that hard. It's a bit like making yoghurt. And if there's material left over from the experiment, I can eat it," she says.

Evolving community

Patterson is just one of dozens of citizen scientists setting up their own gene laboratories in the hope of inventing new and useful organisms. A community is evolving to take advantage of low-cost, off-the-shelf genetic parts and increasing knowledge in biological engineering. International competitions such as the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) and io9 Mad Science contest have already produced a number of stars, with practical innovations in medicine, agriculture and biocomputing.

However, Helen Wallace of GeneWatch in the UK thinks biohacking could be dangerous. "It is increasingly easy to order genes by mail," she says. "Something like smallpox is hard to get, but there are other organisms that could become harmful. If you change a living organism's properties, you could also change its interactions with the environment or the human body." She adds: "Scientists are notorious for not seeing the unintended consequences."

Reshma Shetty is part of the team behind Ginkgo Bioworks, a Massachusetts-based company aiming to make DIY biotechnology a reality. She says: "Nowadays, biotechnology is like a medieval guild. Firstly, you have to get a PhD, but if you want to practise you then need venture capital, otherwise you don't have the tools." Ginkgo aims to make the process easier by offering off-the-shelf biological components and a third-party service for rapid prototyping. "This will take power away from patent owners like Monsanto and pave the way for more people to have a positive impact," she says.

Ginkgo has already constructed GMOs that release the odour of bananas, turn red or glow in the dark, and is developing a host of new organisms that will all be in the public domain. "They're not harmful pathogens," she says. "Complex organisms make use of the same components to do all this incredible stuff without any harmful chemicals š In 10 years, all sorts of new stuff will have been done."

Jim Thomas, of the environmental thinktank ETC Group, says: "The risk is we have limited knowledge of how these things work. GM crops have out-crossed [bred with non-GM plants] after we were told they wouldn't. GM biofuels have also been shown to damage surrounding food crops. Where is the oversight?"

MacKenzie Cowell is a founding member of Boston-based DIYbio, which provides tools and advice to biohackers. In May they will co-ordinate the first "Flash Lab", sending out 1,000 volunteers to take swabs from pedestrian crossing buttons around Boston. The data will be analysed to produce a BioWeatherMap of bacteria roaming the city.

Outbreak

"We think we'll pick up all sorts of surprising stuff," says Cowell. "I was sick for three days with the symptoms of salmonella last year, before finding out there had been an outbreak in New York where I was staying." This inspired him to start the project, which has been nicknamed "Google Flu". "We hope to get out and do these once a month," he says, "but it could happen far more frequently."

Benefits may come from increased access and transparency in science, but sometimes the authorities have difficulty recognising it. In 2004, the art professor Steve Kurtz was arrested as a suspected bioterrorist because Petri dishes with bacteria in them were found at his home in New York state, after his wife had died of a heart attack. Last year Victor Deeb, a retired chemist, had his basement laboratory taken apart by US environmental officials after a fire in the apartment upstairs. He was trying to make safe surface coatings for food containers using chemicals less hazardous than those found in household cleaners.

In Britain, regulations are far stricter. Chris French, a lecturer at Edinburgh University and local biological safety officer, says: "There's very little that can be done at a home address š GMOs are very strictly regulated by the Health and Safety Executive ą and for sound reasons. Working with living things which can potentially escape and grow offers potential hazards."

Surgical tasks

This hasn't stopped UK university teams from developing a host of useful biological innovations over the last few years. One of the winners of last year's iGEM competition was Bristol University's Bacto-Builders project, using teams of E. coli bacteria to perform surgical tasks that single organisms would find impossible. Its project is moving forward in collaboration with the TiGEM genetics laboratory in Italy.

"We are in the nascent stages of some kind of DIY biotechnology network in the UK," says Kim de Mora, a biology PhD student at Edinburgh University. "But š it's going to be hard to set up a garage industry because of the regulations."

De Mora was part of a team that developed an arsenic detector for contaminated water in Bangladesh. E. coli bacteria were modified using BioBrick components to produce a warning signal in the presence of arsenic. If their working prototype is developed into a commercial product, it will be much cheaper than existing technologies. "The real potential of biotechnology will explode in the UK after people are given access at home," predicts De Mora.

In the meantime, iGEM's global Registry of Standard Biological Parts is doubling the size of its catalogue of organic building blocks every year. Within the next decade, millions upon millions of new synthetic organisms are sure to be created. The question is: who will be allowed to create them? At the moment, it looks like the future of biotechnology could be more diverse and volatile than anyone had imagined.

USA in Brief: Ireland's GM stance of concern to US

Irish Farmers Journal, 19 March (dated 21 March) 2009. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.

Ireland's failure to vote in favour of GM crops in 2008 was noted in Washington. Highly placed US contacts that I met openly quizzed me about the fact that Ireland abstained in important EU votes on GM corn varieties such as Herculex.

Ireland had traditionally voted in favour at such votes, but the voting stance has changed since the arrival of the Green Party in government.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

At a meeting with President Bill Clinton in the White House on St. Patrick's Day 1998, Ireland's then Prime Minister Bertie Ahern agreed to reverse our country's anti-GM food and farming policy under pressure from the US Government. (See Fianna Fáil Lies: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/documents/IRL/politics/FF/lies.php)

The above article - published 2 days after this year's St. Patrick's Day meeting between our current Prime Minister Brian Cowen and Barack Obama - clearly signals a new US attempt to force Ireland to reverse our current GM-free policy.

Ireland abstained from voting to approve the importation of Herculex GM maize for animal feed in the EU, after a Greenpeace / GM-free Ireland investigation discovered thousands of tonnes of imported US animal feed contaminated by the falsely labelled and illegal GM product being unloaded by R. H. Hall in Dublin port and entering the EU food chain in 2007. The scandal damaged the reputation of Irish food exports, and led to a temporary emergency embargo of US maize imports across the EU. The then US Ambassador Tom Foley made repeated attempts to get the Irish Government to "justify" its voting abstention. Under pressure from the US Government, the GM maize was subsequently approved by the European Commission against the wishes of the majority of member states.
For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac/index.php

Read each peer review paper critically and weigh its merit

Irish Farmers Journal (Letters), 19 March (dated 21 March) 2009:

Dear Sir,

A peer-reviewed paper recently appeared in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (Dona and Arvavnitoyannis, 2009) which contains a number of scientific flaws.

In the course of preparing a critique of this paper which I intend to submit to the editor, I did a search to determine the extent of dissemination of the false conclusions drawn in the paper. I found that the paper had already found its way into a letter in the Irish Farmers Journal. It was referred to by Nick Cullen in his letter of 28 February 2009.

I would like to point out for the record, that the paper cited by Mr Cullen is nothing more than a compendium of all the anti-GM myths promulgated over the years by the anti-scientific opponents of GM technology.

The paper cites unpublished papers and websites of anti-GM individuals and groups but fails to cite numerous peer-reviewed articles that contradict these spurious claims. The practice of selective citation to prove a point may constitute scientific misconduct per se on the part of the authors. I would, therefore, strongly urge Mr Cullen to base his arguments on the entire body of the scientific literature and not just on the papers that prove his intended point. The practice of selective citation is one of the several major flaws of the paper in question.

The editors of CRFSN appear to have published a paper that does not meet the quality and ethical standards for peer reviewed publication. It is interesting to note, parenthetically, that the peer reviewed papers which Dona and Arvanitoyannis chose to cite are mostly reports based on flawed studies that should not have found their way into the peer-reviewed literature. It is an unfortunate fact that peer-review is not perfect; one must learn to read each paper critically and weigh its merits. Simply citing those who conform to one's beliefs is not scientific.

Bruce M Chassy PhD
Professor of Food Safety and Nutritional Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [USA]

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Bruce Chassy's rant against peer-reviewed scientific papers and "selective citation" of evidence on the dangers of GM crops is hypocritical but not surprising. He is the Executive Associate Director of the Biotechnology Center at the University of Illinois (where he works at the National Soybean Research Lab), Assistant Dean for Science Communications in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences ("science communication" seems to mean "spin doctoring"). From 1995-1998 he served on the Food Advisory Committee of the FDA (which legalises GM crops based on dodgy risk assessments provided by the applicant companies), and is a former member of a Task Force of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a Washington-based lobby group funded by the agri-food-biotech industry to promote GM crops, GM food, and GM tobacco.

ILSI has been widely criticised for using false Non Governmental Organisation credentials to infiltrate and shape the food safety policies of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). According to The Guardian (9 January 2003), some of the strongest criticism of transnational corporate co-optation of international and governmental policy has been levelled against the ILSI for its efforts to get the WHO to downplay the links between high levels of sugar in junk food and childhood obesity and diabetes. (Note that a former member of ILSI's Board of Directors, Dr. John O'Brien, presided over the 2008 dioxin meat scandal as the CEO of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, a post he still holds today.)

The paper which Prof Chassy finds so upsetting - "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods", by Artemis Dona and Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis [1] - is summarised in the following abstract:

"As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety. These concerns as well as the limitations of the procedures followed in the evaluation of their safety are presented. Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems. The review of these studies should not be conducted separately for each GM food, but according to the effects exerted on certain organs it may help us create a better picture of the possible health effects on human beings. The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer." [2]

The paper's findings pose a major threat to the agri-biotech industry and the European Commission which repeatedly call for GMO risk assessments to be limited to case-by-case studies, denying the growing scientific evidence that all GM foods are intrinsicaly dangerous because current scientific knowledge makes it absolutely impossible to understand or predict their long-term systemic impacts on the modified organisms and their surrounding ecosystems and consumers.

Professor Chassy's "scientific" claims include:

•

"After extensive safety testing and some five years of experience with such crops in the marketplace, there is not a single report that would lead an expert food scientist to question the safety of such transgenic crops now in use." [3]

In reality, dozens of papers have found that GM food and animal feed are dangerous. [4]

•

"Biotechnology in agriculture was essentially aimed at preserving the environment as well as to produce genetically engineered/modified GMOs which are resistant to herbicides, pests and insects. It is a big success story as it is safe for people and for the environment." [5]

GM crops are patented and designed primarily to enable giant agri-biotech companies like Monsanto to seize control of the global food chain. [6]

•

"We are able to produce best seeds and get more yields per hectare." [7]

Even the USDA admits that GM crops have lower yields! [8]

•

"It took almost 100 years of experiments to transform wild plants to carefully genetic implementation." [9]

Farmers have been breeding crops for around 10,000 years - not 100!

•

"Now it is a completely human made product. It is safer than conventional harvesting and is more sophisticated." [10]

The claim that GM crops are "completely human made" displays a fundamental ignorance of science: over 99 per cent of their genetic code, organisational structure, metabolism and agronomic traits are the product of 3.5 billion years of natural evolution.

•

"[Bt crops in rural India] will double the economy with the first crop. Insects and weeds will be managed better. Farmers will be benefited with consistently better yields." [11]

The introduction of Bt cotton in India has resulted in crop failures, death of livestock, poisoning of farm workers, bankruptcy and farmer suicides. [12]

•

"I have tried to spread the message of the benefits of Biotechnology. It has done a remarkable service to mankind. It is a viable, real gold product." [13]

GM crops have contaminated conventional and organic farmers in 57 countries around the world, dramatically increased the use of toxic herbicides, caused widespread ecological damage including massive deforestation in the Amazon basin, and led to rising food and animal feed costs via GM agrofuel crops. [14]

•

"Activist groups opposed to agricultural biotechnology portray the [Golden] rice as "fool's gold." Golden rice is a problem for them, because it has such potential for good. So, they ignore the benefits and focus on perceived problems in an effort to discredit the project. They say golden rice would not provide the recommended daily requirement of vitamin A or iron, so why bother? And they portray it as a deception cooked up by industry to take the heat off biotech. This is a great insult to the scientists and their project, which is not industry-funded and was initiated 11 years ago... The truth is that golden rice is already a success if we see it for what it really is - an amazing scientific achievement that shows us the possibilities that biotechnology places within our reach." [15]

Golden rice - described by the New York Times in 2001 as "The Great Yellow Hype" [16] - is a notorious agri-biotech industry scam. Its proponents have been internationally condemned for violating the Nuremberg Principles following recent revelations that Tufts University has been using children as guinea-pigs in an unethical experiment to promote its use. [17]

Prof Chassy's accusation that scientists who oppose GM food and farming are "anti-scientific" goes to show that university professors who don't understand the scientific method also have an infinite capacity to believe their own lies.

Notes:

1. Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods, Artemis Dona (Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Medical School, University of Athens, Greece) and Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis (School of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Agriculture Ichthyology and Aquatic Environment, University of Thessaly, Greece), DOI: 10.1080/10408390701855993, Published in: journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Volume 49, Issue 2 February 2009 , pages 164 - 175.

2. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/2088386031-13353824/content~content=a905128938~db=all~order=page

3. Food Safety Evaluation of Crops Produced through Biotechnology, Bruce M. Chassy, PhD, Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 21, No. 90003, 166S-173S (2002), published by the American College of Nutrition.

4. A check list of key references relating to the health dangers of GM crops can be found at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php

See also: "GM Crops - the health effects", Soil Association, Feb 2008:
http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/saweb.nsf/cfff6730b881e40e80256a6a002a765c/ 62b3b08dfb6cdaea80256a9500473789/$FILE/gm_health_effects.pdf

5. No One Should Die From Hunger, Bruce M. Chassy, Kalinga times and AgBio View, 6 August 2008: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Cx0rAoIDZwYJ:www.truthabouttrade.org/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D12208+Bruce+M.+Chassy&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

6. Who Owns Nature? New report warns of corporate concentration, commodification of nature; highlights global resistance grounded in "Food Sovereignty". ETC Group press release, November 2009: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=706

Download report (7MB pdf file:
http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/707

7. See reference in note 5 above.

8. Yield and environmental resilience are multigenetic traits, and there is no GM crop currently engineered for high yields. Genetic engineering so far has only achieved transfer of single gene traits such as herbicide resistance and Bt. toxin production.

New Soil Association report shows GM crops do not yield more - sometimes less, Soil Association press release, 14 April 2008: http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/195e597ae6f23abc80256ada0051a50f/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument]

A University of Kansas study by Prof. Barney Gordon, published in the Better Crops journal in April 2008, found that GM crops do NOT have higher yields, undermining repeated claims that GM crops are needed to solve the growing world food crisis. The three-year study carried out in the US grain belt found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent (see Exposed: the great GM crops myth - Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent", The Independent (UK), 20 April 2008).

An April 2006 report from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that "currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety... In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars". (Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Caswell, 2006)

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's 2004 report on agricultural biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields (FAO, 2004). This is not surprising given that first-generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are not intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.

A 2003 report published in Science stated that "in the United States and Argentina, average yield effects [of GM crops ] are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative". (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). This was despite the authors being strong supporters of GM crops.

Yields of both GM and conventional varieties vary - sometimes greatly - depending on growing conditions, such as degree of infestation with insects or weeds, weather, region of production, etc. (European Commission, 2000)

9. See reference in note 5 above.

10. See reference in note 5 above.

11. See reference in note 5 above.

12. See Bt Cotton: weaving a web of infertility, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, press release, 24 February 2009: http://www.navdanya.org/news/25feb09.htm

Comparison of Bt Cotton and Organic Farming in Vidharbha, By K. Jalees, Navdanya, September 2008: http://www.navdanya.org/news/25feb09a2.pdf

13. See reference in note 5 above.

14. See the GM Contamination Register at http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org

15. Imagine a Healthier World, by Bruce M. Chassy, Chicago Tribune, 11 March 2001. Re-published by the American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture: http://www.ageducate.org/biotech/golden_rice2.html

16. The Great Yellow Hype, by Michael Pollan, New York Times Magazine, 4 March 2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/magazine/04WWLN.html?ex=1237608000&en=5730ba9ecd9acf82&ei=5070

17. Golden Rice Humanitarian Board admits to human feeding trials. Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 14th March 2009: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice14mar2009.htm

British scientists condemn using children in GM food trials as unacceptable. Daily Mail. By Sean Poulter. 17 February 2009. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1147635/British-scientists-condemn-using-children-GM-food-trials-unacceptable.html

Tufts University Involvement in Golden Rice Feeding Trials, Open Letter to Tufts University relating to a severe breach of medical ethics, co-signed by 22 senior scientists, 12 February 2009: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter12Feb2009.html

The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants, by David R. Schubert, Journal of Medicinal Food 11 (4) 2008, published on line http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.2008.0094?prevSearch=allfield%3A(schubert)

Urgent: Progressive Fasting for a GMO Free Poland

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, 19 March 2009.


Warsaw, Poland -- Edyta Jaroszewska, 42 year old organic farmer and the chairperson of the Organic Farmers Association, started hunger strike against GMO cultivation in front of Ministry of Agriculture, Warsaw, Poland two days ago.

Two days ago Danuta Pilarska, another organic farmer and chairperson of The Organic Farmer's Union, joined her. Yesterday, both women, together with other members of the Coalition for a GMO Free Poland, joined a meeting of the Polish government's Agricultural Committee in the Senate in Warsaw. The committee was discussing the future of GMO in Poland.

After a few hours of debate Edyta concluded "There's no political will within the Polish government to stop corporations from illegal planting of the GM maize variety MON 810 - and to ensure that Poland is kept GMO free. This opens the possibility of the widespread planting of MON 810 during this year. So we don't have another choice other than to stay here and fight!"

Today, the fasting ladies, supported by other members of the Coalition, have been protesting in front of the Ministry of Agriculture in Warsaw.

See photos http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/index.php?id=470

* Dear friends - we and they need your support!! Please send your personal letter of support for Danuta and Edita's brave action to the Polish Ministers (see below). The goals of our fasting ladies and the Coalition for a GMO Free Poland are:

1. To reinforce the BAN of all GM plants and - and as a fast-track - ban the maize MON 810.

2. To introduce labelling of all GM foods and gradually withdraw these foods from the market.

3. To introduce a BAN of GM animal feeds.

4. To use social/public funds (tax payer's money) to support traditional and organic farming.

Please send a copy of your letter to:

The Prime Minister - Donald Tusk
The Chancellery of the Prime Minister
Al. Ujazdowskie 1/3
00-583 Warszawa, Poland
e-mail: cirinfo@kprm.gov.pl
fax. +48 22 6252637

and a copy to us, please!

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside,
Miedzynarodowa Koalicja dla Ochrony Polskiej Wsi
34-146 StryszŪw 156, Poland tel./fax +48 33 8797114
biuro@icppc.pl www.icppc.pl www.gmo.icppc.pl www.eko-cel.pl

18 March 2009

Non-GMO Soy is worth R$2,30 more in Paran·

Gazeta Mercantil (Brazil), 18 March 2009. By Norberto Staviski:
http://www.gazetamercantil.com.br/GZM_News.aspx?parms=2396451,7,10,3

Curitiba (Brazil) - The main players for disseminating the growth of GMO soy in the state of Paraná (Brazil), the large cooperatives, are having to pay a premium in 2009 of up to BRL 2.30 (about USD 1.00) per 60kg-bag, to meet client needs; these are mainly Europeans and Asian customers that do not accept genetically modified soy. The largest coop in the country, Coamo, of Campo Mourão, is paying BRL 2.00 more per bag of conventional (non-GMO) in the current harvest, according to its president, José Aroldo Galassini. Last year, 900,000 tons out of the 2.4 million the coop traded, were non-GMO.

"We have to attend to European customers that use soy for food and do not want the modified product. This premium is mandated by contracts that demand conventional soy. Out of the total (premium), 40% is kept by the coop and 60% is shared with the farmer", says Galassini. "We have done this for many years, but earlier on the premium was lower, varying between BRL 1.00 and BRL 1.40", he added. According to Galassini, part of the premium is kept by the coop "because of the investments made to segregate the product, mainly in the new silos".

Just as Coamo is doing, Cocamar and Integrada, besides other large cooperatives such as C.Vale, Copacol and Cocari, also implement segregation to meet specific customers' expectations. According to Luis Yamashita, commercial manager for Integrada, the cooperative opted for a different model to remunerate the farmer, "Up to last year we used to pay a premium of BRL 2.00 for each contract with Europe and Asian countries, but now we put everything into one pile. At year's end, we account for our conventional soy earnings and pay the farmers. Last year, 40% out of the 500,000 tons commercialized were non-GMO", he said.

According to Silvio Krinski, technical manager at OCEPAR (Organization of Paraná Cooperatives), conventional soy has become a niche, but a very important one at this stage in the marketplace. "What is happening is that the GMO soy is losing its main attraction, that is lower production cost. With the premium being paid and the higher price of glyphosate, other costs are basically the same", he says. Also, there are regions in Paraná, such as Center-South, where GM varieties are less productive than the conventional (non-GM) ones.

Because of this scenario, the transgenic product is not taking off in Paraná, and actually may lose space. According to Apasem (Paraná Association of Seeds and Seedlings), for the 2008/2009 harvest, there has been a lower demand for the transgenic soy. From the 4.07 million bags of seed available in the market, 56% were conventional and 44% transgenic. Apasem is comprised of 82 seed producers, producing 95% of the soy seeds available in the market. The numbers gathered last year for the 2007/2008 harvest, indicated that out of the 4,324 million bags of soy seed available, 48% were conventional and 52% transgenic.

---

Comment by TraceConsult®:

This article documents at least two things to Brazil's soy customers overseas - (1) a large portion (i.e. USD 17 per metric ton) of the Non-GM premia they pay do go to the agricultural growers and (2) the cooperatives mentioned clearly have additional Non-GM capacity to expand into. That is, provided buyers increase their Non-GM demand. Why should coops set up IP systems for segregation when they cannot be certain that they will be able to recover the extra costs incurred by this measure?

Particularly in regards to the EU market, the article leads to an additional issue, the definition of the term "Non-GMO". Since 2004, wide circles in the soy trading and consuming industries have been wasting premia for "Hard IP, max 0.9 percent" meal or beans while neither they nor their customers can reap any commercial benefit from this type of material. Repeatedly, the EU Commission and, in particular, its Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) have pointed out that staying below 0.9 percent alone doesn't do the job. Adventitiousness is the additional criterion that is hardly ever met in such contracts. ABRANGE soy crusher members in Paraná and in other states know this and supply material that is certified at less than 0.1 percent. But does Coamo?

Readers who want to probe more deeply into this issue of wasted premia and how to avoid them, including the legal obligation to label their product as containing GMOs, can download http://www.traceconsult.ch/Download%20Docs/Our%20Opinion/Supplying_Raw_Materials_GM-free_2008_09_30c.pdf an article on the subject from our website. - Upon individual eMail request to info@traceconsult.ch, this paper is also available in Portuguese and German.

Government launches bid to allay fears over GM food
• PM hopes to gather enough evidence to prove genetically modified crops are safe

The Independent (UK), 18 March 2009. By Andrew Grice, Political Editor:
http://tiny.cc/k5IbH

The Government has asked its top scientist to investigate the merits of genetically modified food in the hope that his verdict will allay public fears about so-called "Frankenstein foods".

Officially, Gordon Brown and his ministers remain neutral on the issue of GM because of public hostility, saying that they will be "guided by the science". But they have quietly ordered a major research project, which they hope will provide the launchpad for a campaign to persuade people that GM food is safe.

The study will be led by Professor John Beddington, the Government's Chief Scientific Officer, and carried out by the Foresight Institute, a science and technology think-tank that looks into long-term issues for the Government.

The group's remit - how to feed a world population which could rise to nine billion by 2050 - makes no mention of the GM issue. But Jane Kennedy, the minister for Farming and the Environment, told The Independent yesterday that the group's work would include the potential for GM crops and food.

She said that she was "cautious" about allowing GM products in Britain, but added: "My own opinion is less important than what John Beddington might come up with. When the public are deeply concerned and hold strong views, they tend not to listen when ministers express a view. But they will listen to those who have the experience and knowledge to be able to offer solid advice."

Ms Kennedy said that she would welcome GM crop trials in Britain. None is currently taking place because all projects have been vandalised by opponents but the Government may fund an experiment at a "secure" location.

The minister said another reason why the issue had to be addressed was that animal feed, such as soya, was increasingly made using GM products. "The options for those countries which want to stay GM-free are reducing, therefore the price of non-GM animal feed is going up. If that trend continues, it means meat products in countries which choose not to use GM becoming more and more expensive. There are clear implications for the UK," she said. Britain is backing moves by the European Commission to relax EU rules on importing GM animal feed but a majority of member states remain cautious.

Several Cabinet ministers are convinced that GM technology will help to solve the world's food crisis. One said: "Gordon Brown wants a debate about the issue. But he wants it to be led by the scientists, not by politicians. We have now put the ball in the scientists' court."

Environmental groups accused the Government last night of trying to sneak in GM food, despite accepting the findings of a four-year international study involving 400 scientists last year which failed to give GM the green light.

Clare Oxborrow, the senior food campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "[The Government] is obsessed with GM as a techno-fix solution to problems in food and farming which are much more complex."

The official remit for the Government's study says that "the project will look out to 2050 and take a global view of the food system [and]... how new science, policies and interventions could best address future challenges".

Also on the agenda will be the pressures on land used for non-food purposes such as biofuels.

17 March 2009

Do GM Crops Increase Yield?

www.opednews.com, 17 March 2009. By Brad Mitchell:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Do-GM-Crops-Increase-Yield-by-Brad-Mitchell-090316-227.html

Recently, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don't increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops.

Both claims are simply false.

In agriculture, desirable crop characteristics are known as traits. One of the most important traits is yield. Improving crop yield can be accomplished through both breeding and biotechnology. GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology.

Germplasm

Germplasm is the basic genetic information in a seed that influences the growth and development of the plant. For example, germplasm for different varieties of tomatoes may vary in pest and disease resistance, drought tolerance, color, size, yield potential and many other characteristics.

Breeding

Starting long before modern biotechnology, plant breeders have worked to improve germplasm--for example, to develop seeds with the best mix of characteristics to deliver the best yield possible for the soil and climatic conditions where they will be grown.

Today, plant breeders use a mix of both traditional and modern methods to improve plants. Modern methods include marker assisted breeding, which enables breeders to use a blueprint of the genome to select seeds with the most desirable properties. Marker assisted breeding in effect helps speed up the time it takes to do traditional breeding--breeders can better select whether to cross tomato A with tomato B, or C, or D, or E, or F, or ...--you get the idea--to get the desired improvement.

Biotechnology

Biotechnology is a more direct approach than breeding since it allows you to incorporate genetic material directly into the germplasm. This allows you to create plants with traits that would be difficult or impossible to achieve through breeding. In some GM crops, the genetic material originates from another species. The most common traits in GM crops are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). HT plants contain genetic material from common soil bacteria. IR crops contain genetic material from a bacterium that attacks certain insects.

Yield

Yield can be increased by breeding and through the addition of GM traits.

Germplasm improvements from traditional breeding have contributed to modest but steady increases in yield. Marker-assisted breeding has nearly doubled the rate of yield gain when compared to traditional breeding alone.

GM traits, such as insect and herbicide tolerance, help to increase yields by protecting the yield that would otherwise be lost due to insects or weeds. The degree to which a farmer enjoys increased yields because of insect and herbicide tolerance traits will in large part be determined by how effective the farmer's weed and insect control programs were before planting a crop with these traits. If weeds and insects had been controlled well, then the insect and herbicide tolerance traits will not be the primary factor in increasing yield.

In developing countries, where resources to effectively control weeds and insects are often limited, these traits have increased yield substantially. The same is also true for developed countries where there are particular pests that are hard to control--such as the corn rootworm complex or some perennial weeds.

The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:

•

Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.

•

Romania - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.

•

Philippines - average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.

•

Philippines - average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.

•

Hawaii - virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.

•

India - insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.

Even where insect and herbicide tolerance are not the primary factors in increasing yield, they provide many other benefits. Analysis by PG Economics also show that GM crops are credited with decreasing pesticide and fuel use, and with facilitating conservation tillage practices that reduce soil erosion, improve carbon retention and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Decreased inputs aren't just a savings and convenience for farmers; they offer significant environmental benefits for everyone:

•

The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with GM crops for 2006 is estimated to be equal to removing more than half a million cars from the road.

•

On average, the volume of herbicide used on corn has dropped 20 percent since herbicide tolerant corn was introduced in 1996.

Approximately 95 percent of the soybeans and 75 percent of the corn in the United States are GM. More than 95 percent of the soybeans in Argentina and half the soybeans grown in Brazil are GM. Where given the choice, farmers have consistently adopted GM crops quickly and widely because they see the improvement these products deliver. Whether it is increases in yield, or other benefits, farmers clearly see value in GM crops.

Misinformation and Setting the Record Straight

Irresponsible journalists and activists continue to misrepresent data and claim that GM crops actually reduce yields. For example, Geoffrey Lean recently published a story in the UK newspaper The Independent entitled Exposed: the Great GM Crops Myth. Lean concluded that yields were lower with GM crops based in large part on a study published by Dr. Barney Gordon of Kansas State University. Lean failed to understand or explain that the purpose of Gordon's research was not to examine yields, but to look at how certain GM soybean varieties respond to manganese levels. Dr. Gordon has since published a response which characterizes the article as "a gross misrepresentation of my research and a good example of irresponsible journalism".

Despite Dr. Gordon's clarification and statements, some anti-GMO activists continue to reference the Gordon study and the Lean article as evidence of lower yields with GMOs. Dr. Mae Wan Ho of the Institute for Science in Society cited the Gordon study as evidence that biotech crops do not increase yields. The Center for Food Safety also referenced the study as evidence of decreased yields.

Monsanto and other agricultural technology companies continue to improve germplasm, and to develop GM traits that are designed to directly increase yield, and more. In 2009, Monsanto will release a line of soybeans that has been shown in field trials to increase yields by 7-11 percent. We've made a public commitment to double yields in key crops by 2030. Equally important to increasing yield, we've committed to doing so with one-third fewer resources, such as fertilizer and water, per unit of output.

---

Comment from GM Watch:

This article's been posted on OpEdNews, which normally carries a lot of comment critical of Monsanto.

It's supposedly by Brad Mitchell and was posted yesterday, but Mitchell's a PR guy at Monsanto - a Director of Public Affairs, and this article, as Bill Patterson who's posted a comment at OpEdNews notes, is simply a cut and paste job of a Monsanto article posted last year on Monsanto's own site: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/gm_crops_increase_yields.asp

What's going on here seems to be the latest step in Monsanto's new social media campaign to get its message circulating on blogs and other social media. It follows on from the launch of Monsanto's own blog and twitter feed for that purpose, and the posting of videos off the Monsanto site onto YouTube.

Here's the rest of Patterson's comment:

"I didn't realise that OpEdNews was intended for the dissemination of corporate propaganda by MNCs. Surely they have more than sufficient resources and outlets of their own, given their multi-million dollar PR budgets, without colonising independent media.

It's typical that this Monsanto PR guy attempts to back up his claims with the findings of PG Economics. They're basically just 2 fervent biotech supporters, Barfoot and Brookes, who produce reports more or less to order for the biotech industry, including Monsanto. You can find out more about them in this detailed profile here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050226063125/http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=308&page=P

There is no convincing evidence that GE herbicide resistant crops increase yields. Farmers can achieve effective weed control in other ways and more recently these GE Roundup Ready crops have been giving rise to Roundup resistant weeds.

If they're popular with commodity farmers it's because they're convenient, noit because they have bigger yields. Recent news reports have also suggested that famers in the U.S. and Brazil have also been moving away from GE crops because they're so expensive. Monsanto have had some massive price hikes."

DuPont tests market for healthier GMO soy oil

Reuters, 17 March 2009. By Carey Gillam:
http://www.reuters.com/article/FoodandAgriculture09/idUSTRE52G79E20090317

CHICAGO (Reuters) - DuPont Co (DD.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) hopes to roll out this year what could be the world's first genetically modified soybean seed aimed at health-conscious consumers and the food companies that serve them, company officials said.

Regulatory approval is pending, but DuPont is already testing the product with food processors to gauge demand and pricing.

A small-scale introduction is projected later this year, Jim Borel, DuPont group vice president for agriculture, said at the Reuters Food and Agriculture Summit in Chicago on Tuesday.

Assuming the company wins regulatory approvals, "We're going to be launching this year ... the first transgenic product that has health benefits to humans," Borel said.

High oleic soybeans have an elevated level of oleic acid and 25 percent less saturated fat, with a health profile similar to olive oil. The product could compete with palm and other vegetable oils.

The oil is designed to offer better frying characteristics for food preparation and there are also industrial applications where it could replace petroleum-based products.

Testing by food industry players is evaluating a range of characteristics for a U.S. introduction.

"Food companies are very interested. They clearly see the value," said Borel.

DuPont is launching the new bean in conjunction with Bunge Ltd (BG.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

The high-oleic soybean product is among many new biotech and conventional crop products DuPont's agriculture and nutrition business unit is developing, Borel said.

The company last year spent about $700 million in research and development for its agricultural and nutrition platform and plans to exceed that in 2009.

DuPont has projected that its pipeline will produce technology enhancement that can increase corn and soybean yields by 40 percent over the next decade.

Corn seeds that now average about 150 bushels per acre could be at well over 200 bushels an acre, for example.

The company has just launched its "Y-series" soybean seed, which marks the largest product launch in the company's history.

DuPont expects Y-series beans to be planted on 9 million acres in the United States this year.

Borel said the Y-series family of soybeans averaged a 5 percent increase in yield, with some 6-10 percent higher yielding.

In corn, the company has new herbicide-tolerant corn coming to market, along with a type of insect-resistant corn that will allow farmers to avoid setting aside acreage to refuge.

(Reporting by Carey Gillam, editing by Matthew Lewis)

Bill to protect traditonial seeds stalls again in Senate

The New Mexican (USA), 17 March 2009. By Staci Matlock:
http://www.cibolabeacon.com/articles/2009/03/17/news/doc49bfb35f19887170808280.txt

A bill designed to protect farmers from liability if their fields are cross-pollinated by patented, genetically modified seeds isn't going anywhere in this year's Legislature.

But the proponents of Senate Bill 560 said they will keep pushing for the protections in future sessions. "By no means is this going away," said Joshua Cravens, a Monticello farmer and organizer of the Arid Lands Seed Cache that collects seeds adapted to dry-land farming.

The bill would make the manufacturers of genetically modified seeds liable if the plants end up on a non-customer's property. It also provides protections for the companies in some cases.

Proponents say the bill provides a measure of protection to traditional seed farmers without harming the rights of farmers who want to use genetically modified seeds. In addition, it requires the state to keep a databank of where genetically modified plants are grown.

The New Mexico Department of Agriculture claims the bill would be expensive to carry out and that three federal agencies already oversee and regulate seeds.

Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, carried the bill for a coalition of farmers, ranchers, seed growers and acequia groups called Cuatro Puertas.

Their concern: the ability of agribusiness companies like Monsanto to sue farmers whose fields become cross-pollinated from patented genetically modified plants.

"We don't want to have people get sued if these seeds end up in farmers' fields," said Isaura Andaluz, an Albuquerque bee keeper and organizer for Cuatro Puertas. "A watch or gadget can be patented, but can't contaminate other people's watches or gadgets. A patented genetically modified plant can contaminate other farmers' fields."

Monsanto has filed suit against several farmers in the past claiming the farmers knowingly collected the cross-contaminated seeds and violated the company's patent rights. Courts have found in the company's favor several times, and Monsanto dropped at least one case. Farmers who buy Monsanto's patented seeds sign contracts agreeing not to save seeds for replanting.

Monsanto did not respond to a call for comment about the bill.

"We feel this is a really a pressing threat to local agriculture, kind of the advent of this particular kind of GMO technology," said Michael Reed, president of the New Mexico Farmers Market Association, representing 50 markets across the state.

Dr. Miley Gonzalez, head of the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, said his concern with the bill is that it penalized farmers who choose to use genetically modified seeds. He said traditional seed growers need to be protected, but "not at detriment of some other part of our industry."

Big three nations combine for biotech wheats

CheckBiotech.org, 17 March 2009. By Colin Bettles:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/big_three_nations_combine_biotech_wheats

Leading wheatgrower representative groups in Australia, Canada and America are joining forces to prepare for the introduction of biotech wheat varieties into the world's export markets.

The long-term collaborative effort is designed to minimise disruption and ensure a smooth transition into sensitive export markets for the biotech wheat varieties currently under development.

The US Wheat Associates (USW) is responsible for expanding US wheat markets around the globe.

USW has already spoken about the collaboration with several Australian and Canadian farm groups and begun planning the link up.

The move is also being supported by the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), the Washington-based political lobby group for the US wheat industry.

It is understood both the USW and NAWG have broached the subject with the Grains Research and Development Corporation and the Grains Council of Australia.

The partnership would see a joint statement released between wheat producers in Australia, the US and Canada.

The statement would send a common message to export markets and biotechnology providers, informing them about farmers' willingness to work with them collectively to develop the technology.

The collaboration would also seek to create a simultaneous and co-ordinated release of any GM wheats when they become available.

Speaking to Farm Weekly last month, USW president Alan Tracy said the co-ordinated strategy was designed to avoid any serious disruption in wheat export markets common to all three countries.

Mr Tracy said a staggered approach to market entry could see wheat markets disrupted, raising the potential for mixed messages to customers.

After taking an outspoken role in the single desk debate, the USW was now looking to work productively with Australian farmers and build a strong relationship, he said.

(Source: Farm Weekly [Australia])

New FAO book: "Socio-economic impacts of non-transgenic biotechnologies in developing countries: The case of plant micropropagation in Africa"

CheckBiotech.org, 17 March 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/new_fao_book_socio_economic_impacts_non_transgenic_biotechnologies_developing_countri

ROME, Italy - FAO has just published a 75-page book entitled "Socio-economic impacts of non-transgenic biotechnologies in developing countries: The case of plant micropropagation in Africa".

The first of the three chapters is by A. Sonnino and co-authors, and it discusses some approaches used in impact assessment of innovations and presents a general overview of the literature about the impacts of non-transgenic biotechnologies.

The second, by Z. Dhlamini and co-authors, surveys the extent of micropropagation application in Gabon, Mali, Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

The third, by P. Warren and co-authors, reports the findings of two field studies, on micropropagation of banana in Uganda and of sweetpotato in Zimbabwe, aimed at better understanding the process of adoption of micropropagated planting materials and its impacts on livelihoods.

The book can be downloaded from the web at http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0340e/i0340e00.htm or contact charlotte.lietaer@fao.org to request a copy, providing your full postal address.

Download the book here [PDF, 1086Kb] ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0340e/i0340e.pdf

16 March 2009

Critics sow doubt as 'Farmer Protection Act' hearing nears

Great Falls Tribune (USA), 16 March 2009. By John S. Adams:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20090315/NEWS01/903150311

Arlo Skari's family doesn't grow genetically modified crops on their farm north of Chester, but Skari said he doesn't want multinational agricultural biotechnology companies suing him to prove it.

"I've been aware for quite some time of companies like Monsanto coming down hard on farmers when they find these patented genetically modified seeds growing in a farmer's field when the farmer didn't know they where there," Skari said.

That's why he is supporting House Bill 445, dubbed the Montana Farmer Protection Act.

Depending on which side of the issue people stand, HB 445 is either a measure designed to protect innocent Montana farmers from legal harassment by major corporations or it's part of a plot by environmentalists to undermine the use of biotech crops in the state and legalize seed piracy.

On Tuesday, the Senate Agriculture Committee will hear all sides of the argument when its takes up the measure, introduced by Rep. Betsy Hands, D-Missoula.

Hands said her bill lays out a legal framework by which companies such as Monsanto Company - the world's largest producer of genetically modified seeds - can pursue accusations of seed piracy while protecting farmers who unknowingly end up with patented genetic materials on their land.

"It actually gives access to patent holders to sample crops," Hands said. "I think that's really important to recognize. We're not restricting patent holders. We're actually giving them a legitimate way to sample crops that they suspect may have their patents."

The industry sees the bill in a far different light.

"It restricts the ability of patent holders and the legal system to enforce patent-protection laws," said North Dakota farmer Al Skogen, president of Growers for Biotechnology and a major supporter of Monsanto's biotech products. "It really opens the door for farmers to pirate patent seeds and then claim innocence and be exempt from liability."

An Indiana farmer who found himself on the receiving end of Monsanto's accusations of seed piracy said that if it wasn't for a farmer protection law in his state, he may have faced legal costs that would have buried his family farm.

David Runyon spent years fighting accusations that he illegally planted Monsanto's patented Roundup-Ready soybeans on his 900-acre farm. The seeds were modified to resist Monsanto's popular and widely used herbicide Roundup. Runyon said he never planted Monsanto's genetically modified seeds on his property, adding he has records and receipts to prove it.

He said the Indiana farmer protection law did two things to help save his farm. First, it prevented Monsanto's investigators from coming onto his property to sample crops without his permission. Secondly, it required any legal action against him or his family to take place in an Indiana federal court rather than a courtroom in St. Louis, where Monsanto's headquarters are located.

"Indiana has a farmer protection bill that passed in 2003. Before that bill, all they would have done is filed out in St. Louis in federal court," Runyon said.

Runyon said that without the farmer protection law, the legal fees, travel expenses and time away from his young family would have been enough to destroy his farm.

He said that after Monsanto investigators visited his home in July of 2004, he tested his soybean crop to see if it had any Monsanto genetics. It turns out it did, but not because he planted Monsanto's seeds.

"I'm using public varieties. One variety comes out of the state of Illinois and two varieties from Ohio State University," Runyon said.

It's difficult – if not impossible – to prevent the genetics of crops in one field from contaminating the genetics of crops in another one. Cross pollination by wind, insects, animals or major weather events can contaminate non-genetically modified crops with patented genetics. That's why Runyon said it's important Montana pass a bill protecting farmers who unknowingly or unwillingly end up with patented material on their land.

"If you're contaminated and you don't have the law, they will take you to federal court and pull you in to St. Louis, where you'll have to pay $300 to $400 per hour for a lawyer," Runyon said. "Who can afford that?"

In Runyon's case, Monsanto eventually gave up its pursuit.

"They never had any evidence other than the receipts I gave them," he said.

Skogen said backers of HB 445 are trying to legalize seed pirating. He said companies such as Monsanto have no interest in suing the very customers it is trying to sell its products to. He said companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars introducing genetic traits into crops in order to create higher yields and higher profitability for farmers, so they have to protect their investment from illegal piracy.

If HB 445 passes, Skogen believes it will have a detrimental impact on Montana farmers who might otherwise benefit from the private genetic research conducted by companies such as Monsanto.

"The public cannot afford to fund all research. We need private investment. This research is extremely expensive. If the laws prohibit (companies) from protecting their patents and recouping the costs of research, they will simply refocus their efforts somewhere else," Skogen said.

Skari said he plans to travel to Helena on Tuesday to support HB 445.

"Legal logic tells you that if somebody affects your grain or your property negatively, then they should be the ones held liable, but what has happened is that the companies have taken it and put the liability on the farmer, an unknowing recipient of someone else's actions," Skari said. "This bill just protects the farmer from liability from seed companies."

The House passed HB 445 by a wide margin last month. The Senate Agriculture Committee is scheduled to hear arguments on the measure at 3 p.m. Tuesday in the Capitol.

Biotech companies limiting independent GM analysis

Farm Weekly (Australia), 16 March 2009. By Jacqui Fatka:
http://tiny.cc/7Pkwn

There is an increasing area of transgenic crops being grown in the United States, but university researchers sometimes find themselves unable to provide unbiased feedback to both regulatory agencies and growers on the efficacy and environmental impact of specific biotech events. The issue came to light recently when 24 leading corn insect scientists working at public research institutions in 17 corn-producing states sent a statement to the Environmental Protection Agency saying that data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is "unduly limited".

All those who signed the statement support the use of biotechnology.

At the centre of the scientists' concerns are technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed that explicitly prohibit research.

"These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry," according to the statement.

"As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM (insect resistance management) and its interactions with insect biology."

Unlike other inputs such as pesticides or conventional seeds, scientists cannot go through regular commercial channels to purchase a bag of biotech seed and do independent research, explained Elson Shields, professor and extension entomologist at Cornell University and one of the scientists who signed the statement.

Professor Shields said an array of other problems researchers have faced include companies refusing to approve data found in trials for publication and threatening lawsuits if a scientist wants to publish without company approval.

Frequently, companies have tried to change research protocols to better suit information they want released.

"That kind of control has the potential to bias research. We, as scientists, are fiercely protective of our reputation of being unbiased," Shields said.

Ken Ostlie, professor and extension entomologist at the University of Minnesota, experienced a company restriction firsthand this year when he attempted to examine how transgenic corn events fared in combating northern corn rootworm.

With most of the research directed at western corn rootworm, it was important to explore transgenic corn impacts on northern corn rootworm in his state.

In 2007, he conducted the studies with permission from three companies.

In 2008, he said Syngenta withdrew its permission to repeat the study two weeks after corn planting began, saying it didn't need additional performance data on the events.

"I suspect that this was a knee-jerk response to slightly poorer performance d