NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • May 2009

2009: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr
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.

•

A four-digit number means it's conventionally grown.

•

A five-digit number beginning with 9 means it's organic.

•

A five-digit number beginning with 8 means it's GM.

The numeric system was developed by the Produce Electronic Identification Board, an affiliate of the Produce Marketing Association, a Newark, Delaware-based trade group for the produce industry. As of October 2001, the board had assigned more than 1,200 PLUs for individual produce items.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are food items that have had their DNA changed through genetic engineering. What this does is create food that is better suited to withstand environmental forces such as drought and bugs. In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% maize were genetically modified varieties.[1]

GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was a tomato (called FlavrSavr), which was modified to ripen more slowly by Californian company Calgene.[2] The most common modified foods are derived from plants: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil.

Here is how some of these foods become GM. Let's take soybeans for example, my father-in-law is a large scale farmer in Iowa. The corn and beans he purchases have been soaked in RoundUp. RoundUp is a commercial weed killer. When the weeds grow they spray the entire field with RoundUp and the crops are resistant to the weed killer, and only the weeds die. The farmers know this is a problem, but here's the catch, they can only purchase RoundUp ready seeds.

The issue with GM food lies with a problem called Gene Transfer. This happens when genetic material from the crop can be found in the human.

Currently there are only a few dozen peer reviewed studies completed on the health effects of genetically modified foods. The results of many of these studies strongly challenges the industry and government standard of substantial equivalence. As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had their small intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM Soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the human gut bacteria.[3] Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soy transferred into their gut bacteria. "This transgene was stable inside the bacteria and appeared to produce herbicide-tolerant protein... In the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM crops, long standing assumptions that genes would not transfer to human gut bacteria were overturned.

It's a catch 22, clearly millions of people around the world would die if we didn't produce food on a large scale, but the side-effects are still largely unknown. I choose to avoid GM food as much as possible. The fact is if you live in America, the chances of you consuming GM is great.

References

1. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. USDA ERS July 14, 2006.

2. Martineau, Belinda (2001). First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods. McGraw-Hill. pp. 269. ISBN 978-0071360562.

3. Netherwood et al., "Assessing the survival of transgenic planic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004):2.

Agriculture bio-tech boost in the works

Vietnam News Service, 30 May 2009. By To Nhu:
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=01AGR300509

HA NOI ó Viet Nam is striving to make its agricultural bio-technology one of the best in Southeast Asia, with the aim of having the sector become world class in some fields by 2020, said the Chief Administrator of the Bio-technology Programme, Pham Van Toan.

According to the plan, new crop varieties developed by bio-technological techniques will account for between 70 per cent of cultivated areas across the nation, of which genetically modified plants will account for between 30 and 50 per cent. In addition, 70 per cent of all breeds will be resistant to diseases while bio-fertilisers will be used for at least 80 per cent of the agricultural industry.

By applying bio-technology, the production value of key fisheries products such as prawns, tra catfish, tilapias, garrupas and sea crabs will be increased by 30 per cent. Toan said that means bio-technology will play a key role in national agricultural growth.

Achievements

Viet Nam has made initial steps in the field and bio-technology development and application in agricultural production has achieved positive results over two years of implementation, said Toan.

The country succeeded in creating genetically modified soybeans resistant to insects and long droughts. The research was made on two domestic breeds and two imported strains.

In regards to forestry, two to four short-term keo and eucalyptus breeds which have high production value, rapid growth and high resistance to insects were successfully cultivated.

Micro-organism and plant protection products were produced to control 10 dangerous epidemics.

According to Associate Professor Le Huy Ham, director of the Agricultural Genetics Institute under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), the institute has implemented a National Flower Breeds Programme aimed at creating high quality flowers.

Three new daisy breeds have been planted in Sa Pa. Flowers for export have been in trial production in Ha Noi's south west district of Tu Liem and in the northern province of Hung Yen's Van Giang District on areas of 1,000 to 2,000sq.m in each location.

Ham said that the application of bio-technology in agriculture will help reduce production costs by two to three times.

Farmers such as Le Dinh Quang, head of the Thuong Nong Agricultural Collective Farm in Tam Nong District in the northern province of Phu Tho are already seeing the benefits.

Quang said his farm grows almost 300ha of khang dan rice variety, developed by bio-tech that has resulted in an extra tonne of harvested rice per hectare. The variety's resistance to insects and high quality also allows Quang to sell it for more than other rice varieties he had previously cultivated.

Difficulties ahead

Ham said bio-technology plays an important role in a range of fields around the world, but for a country like Viet Nam, which has lost large areas of agricultural land to industrialisation and urbanisation, it is especially vital.

As many as one-quarter of the national income comes from agriculture and two-thirds of the nation's labour force works in the agro-forestry and fisheries sectors.

However, bio-technology in Viet Nam is still in its early stage of development. There are many challenges and difficulties ahead, according to Ham.

The country's investment of VND150 billion (US$9 million) in bio-tech is modest compared to Thailand's investment of $40 million a year, he said.

A lack of infrastructure, such as laboratories, equipment and workshops, has resulted in ineffective research and application.

"A common difficulty in training in the bio-technology sector is a lack of infrastructure and equipment for students to use," said Vu Dinh Hoa, Head of the Agriculture University No 1's Bio-technology Faculty.

"It is difficult to buy expensive machines for training centres."

This lack of facilities can be seen at institutes around the nation.

"Each aquaculture institute has only one laboratory that is used for all the necessary research related to aquatic products," said Deputy Director of Aquaculture Breeding Institute No II Nguyen Tien Luc.

"This really slows down the development of bio-technology."

In addition, Viet Nam is short of scientists and staff in the field. Most scientists do not specialise in the latest technologies and techniques in bio-tech.

People who work in the bio-technology sector need to be provided with long-term training in well equipped and modern laboratories. Viet Nam has not met this demand yet.

Master plan

To overcome the current difficulties, the country has planned to invest in education and training as well as research centres.

The industry plans to train 20,000 university graduates and 2,500 post-graduates and to send 400 scientific workers abroad to the United States, Japan, Taiwan, France and mainland China, where they can study in advanced bio-technology sectors.

Under the programme to develop bio-technology in agriculture by 2020, approved by Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai in 2006, Viet Nam needs to train 60 to 80 PhD degree holders, 200 to 250 Masters of Science, 500 to 1,000 technicians as well as retraining 50 officers during the 2006-10 period.

From 2011 to 2015, the Government will build a number of scientific research centres for bio-technology development, which will be of regional standard.

To meet demand for equipment, MARD is rushing to finish building two laboratories specialising in animal and plant cells under the Breeding Institute and Agricultural Genetics Institute, said Deputy Minister Bui Ba Bong.

A new genetics technology laboratory will also be built in the south. A major objective is to set up a network of small and medium-sized bio-technology enterprises in all fields of agriculture.

In an effort to foster bio-technology development, the Vietnamese Government has encouraged all economic sectors to invest in the industry by offering incentives, which include preferential rates on taxes and land rentals and bank loans to help the industry to promote, transfer and import modern technology.

29 May 2009

Irish food safety system condemned after pork dioxin scandal

Food Production Daily, 29 May 2009. By Rory Harrington:
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/Irish-food-safety-system-condemned-after-pork-dioxin-scandal/?c=iDk96DJImGL4jdSAqnBbEA%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

The current system for monitoring and tracing Irish pork is inadequate and should be overhauled urgently, a highly critical report from the country's Parliament has said.

The body's agriculture committee delivered its damning verdict on Ireland's food safety systems in the wake of the dioxin contamination of Irish pork products at the end of last year which cost the domestic industry EUR 100 million, according to the Irish Association of Pigmeat Processors.

Committee Chairman Johnny Brady TD said the Irish pigmeat industry was hugely important. In 2007, 188,000 tonnes of pigmeat were produced valued at EUR 368 million, while the industry employed 7,000 people.

"It is because of this significance that the Committee decided to undertake this investigation into the dioxin contamination incident, with a view to identifying lessons for the future," he said.

System ineffective

The report declared that the present traceability regime operating for Irish pork products was simply not working. It said an effective traceability system would have been able to ensure only contaminated meat was recalled after dioxin-tainted animal feed was given to pigs on just 10 of Ireland's 500 pig farms. Instead, the "absence of an effective traceability scheme necessitated a 100 per cent recall of product for a 10 per cent contamination rate", said the group.

A committee statement said: "The present system for monitoring and tracing Irish pork products is ineffective and significant changes are required in order to avoid a repeat of the total recall of Irish pork products."

Government rethink needed

In a wide-ranging review, the committee urged the government to rethink its proposal to amalgamate the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) with the Irish Medicines Board and the Office of Tobacco Control amid fears the merger "could endanger the reputation and focus of the organization".

The current arrangement of numerous agencies responsible for food safety operating under service level agreements with the FSAI was dismissed as "not satisfactory" by the members, who also called for the remit of FSAI to be extended to cover both animal feed and food.

It also condemned as "unacceptable" that the food recycling centre owned by Millstream Recycling, the firm at the centre of the contamination incident, was not inspected at all in 2008. It is believed the contamination was caused by the use of improper oil to power the drying process in production of animal feed.

However, the committee said it was particularly concerned that even if the plant had been inspected the problem would not have been discovered because HACCP programmes have not included oil contamination as a potential hazard, and there are no EU regulations requiring the sampling of oil used in feed processing.

"The Committee is at a loss to understand this, and would urge the rectification of the situation as a matter of urgency", said the report.

Members also condemned some retailers who have attempted to seek compensation from producers for loss of profit as well as cost of products recalled.

---

Comment by Robert Pocock of VOICE (Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment):

Isn't it ironic that the [Joint Oireachtas (Parliament & Senate)] Agriculture Committee is questioning the imminent amalgamation of the FSAI [Food Safety Authority of Ireland] with the Irish Medicines Board as a result of a failure in food safety during the dioxin in pork scandal?

The logic behind the move in the first place would seem extremely shaky, unless it is another example of the Government giving as much power as possible to the huge jobs creator in Ireland - big pharma - while down-grading consumer protection of food and food supplements, just when the need to sharpen procedures in food safety is becoming more urgent (e.g. with the effect of GM on animal feed which - like dioxin in pork feed - would entail 100% recall of all animals fed GM feedstuffs).

Each of these two bodies have an equally shameful record on the addition of hazardous fluoride waste to public drinking water:

•

The Irish Medicines Board permits an unauthorised drug in everyone's drinking water in clear defiance of European legislation. VOICE has called for the resignation of its Chairman, Mr. Pat O'Mahony.

•

The FSAI's 'Scientific' Committee changed the minutes of a meeting that agreed to warn parents not to make up baby bottles with fluoridated tap water in 2001, only to retract this responsible advice after being got at by the fluoridistas who permeate public health policy in Ireland.

The FSAI's about-to-depart Chief Executive, John O'Brien, told the FSAI's public consultation meeting earlier this year that it had no responsibility or role in water fluoridation... conveniently forgetting this shameful episode ever since its modified 'scientific' advice has continued to mislead parents of bottle-fed babies in Ireland. To make matters worse, Ireland has the highest rate of bottle-feeding in Europe with about 60% of babies exclusively bottle-fed !

Both these public bodies are a disgrace over fluoridation ...and the victims are the hundreds of kids who get unsightly and incurable dental fluorosis.

For more info on Ireland's water fluoridation scandal see:

European Commission to investigate hazardous fluoride chemical in Irish drinking water
VOICE press release, 1 April 2009:
http://www.voiceireland.org/articles/waterEUapril09.htm

Mahyco fails to convince media on safety aspects

Express News Service [India], 29 May 2009:
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Mahyco+fails+to+convince+media+on+safety+aspects&artid=t0g|fJanhlI=

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -- [Monsanto's partner in India] The Mahyco (Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited), propagators of the controversial Bt Cotton and Bt Brinjal seeds, could not convince the media on the safety aspects of their technology, at a press conference held here on Thursday.

The company officials enumerated at least 25 different biosafety and food/feed safety studies on Bt Brinjal since 2002, but in a significant omission, they failed to mention that all of the studies were financed by Mahyco itself. The conflict of interest in such studies were not mentioned by neither the general manager Mahendra Sharma nor by their biotechnology head Dr.Bharat Char, who attended the press conference.

Even while the so-called safety studies were on, the company officials admitted that there was no way that they could test these products on human beings. "But you see, cotton oil is edible and cotton oil cakes are ingested by cattle. So these genes and their products have been in the ecosystem for quite a while now," justified Sharma.

While the major aim of using Bt Brinjal is to reduce the dependence on pesticides to fight the fruit and shoot borer, Mahyco officials explained that the pesticide dependence could only be reduced by 42 percent, as the crop would be susceptible to other pests too. So ultimately the farmer is left to deal with pesticide residue as well as Bt-toxin residue in the food crop.

Replying to a question whether they would be willing to label their brinjal as genetically modified, so as to enable a choice for the general public, the Mahyco officials were ambiguous stating: "We will do all that the Government requires us to do."

The ambiguity also extended to the question on antibiotics resistance transfer and the jumping of the bt-gene, Cry1AC, from plant to other systems.

Admitting the possibility of gene transfer through pollen from Bt Brinjal, Mahyco officials said that Bt Brinjal would have to be planted with a buffer zone of normal brinjal.

The company officials also admitted that the seeds that they sell is of hybrid nature and cannot be used for successive generations, leaving the farmer dependent on the company for his next crop, a case similar to that of the terminator seed.

Political engineering
Monsanto dropped a cool $2 million on lobbying in Q1 2009 [just in the USA]

Grist, 29 May 2009. By Tom Philpott:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-29-monsanto-lobby-2million/

Monsanto dominates the global market for GMO seeds like Microsoft dominates the operating-system software market.

You don't skirt around antitrust enforcement like that without having good friends in Washinton. And to make friends, you've got have guys in suits working the Hill and the agencies. La Vida Locavore's ever-enterprising Jill Richardson got her hands on Monsanto's first-quarter lobbying disclosure form (PDF). Turns out, the GMO-seed giant spent $2 million pushing its agenda in Washington the first three months of the year.

Conspiracy theorists fixated on a food safety bill called HR 875 - insisting that Monsanto is planning to seize the globe's farmland (why would a highly profitable transnational want to move into a low margin business like farming?) and ban organic agriculture - will be disappointed. The form makes no mention of food-safety bills.

Monsanto does, however, mention lobbying on Senate Bill 384 - the so-called Global Food Security Act - which would gear U.S. foreign aid policy to promote GMO seeds in developing countries.

As Jill points out, a Monsanto flack dropped by La Vida Locavore last month to deny that that the company had worked to shape the bill. Shame, shame.

Monsanto's other big legislative concern? Strengthening already-draconian patent protection for the GMO seed industry - the one it dominates like Microsoft dominate operating system software.

---

FACT FILE: Monsanto's global share of the area for:

•

GM soybeans: 91%

•

GM maize: 97%

•

GM cotton: 63.5%

•

GM canola: 59%

from graph at: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-29-monsanto-lobby-2million/

More from the Fact File:
http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/59-FACT-FILE-ON-GM-CROPS.html

EC accepts Polish GMO regulations

Polskie Radio, 29 May 2009:
http://www.polskieradio.pl/thenews/news/artykul109139_ec_accepts_polish_gmo_regulations.html

Polish farmers will have the right to block genetically modified foods, commonly known as GMOs, as Brussels has agreed to a proposal put forth by the Polish government after 8 years of conflict on the issue.

One of Poland's toughest negotiation points with the European Commission, before the 2007 elections, Civic Platform promised to make Poland a GMO-free zone, a promise supported by 66 percent of the population at the time.

However, the Polish government is not allowed to singularly ban GMOs from its territory without inciting reaction from the European Commission. European Union agricultural policy says that plants previously permissible on the single market (such as MON810 corn from the American concern Monsanto) can be grown on the terrain of the entire EU.

As such, the Polish government has been working to ban genetically modified foods from the bottom up by encouraging farmers to create 'goodwill declarations' that maintain that their fields will remain free of GMOs.

"A zone free from the growing of genetically modified plants creates an area of neighbouring parcels. Such a zone will create a group of farmers who, at their own iniciative [ban GMOs]," states the government's proposal.

If a particular community of farmers does not initiate such a declaration, the Polish government has set up a strict network of rules for them to fulfill before they can begin to grow GMOs. First, the farmer would have to register the GMO crop with the local government to inform neighbours who have the right to reject a GMO crop in their vicinity. Such rejection would preclude the farmer from acquiring a license to grow GMO crops. Secondly, the farmer will be required to cultivate the crop on an isolated terrain and provide five years of records documenting the crop or face a 20,000 zloty fine (about 4,500 euro).

Additionally, the government's regulation requires that after any GMO foods have been processed in a factory, storehouse or plant, all machinery that came into contact with the organisms will have to be thoroughly cleaned.

The government's regulation also reserves the right for the Ministry of Agriculture to withdraw a farmer's permit to cultivate GMOs if new information is released regarding negative health or environmental effects.

Not registering one's crop of GMO plants would result in a prison sentence of up to three years as well as a 3,000 zloty fine (about 680 euro).

"This regulation, even if it does not guarantee a 100 percent blockade of GMO cultivation in Poland, does lead to the result that Poland will, as a country, be a GMO-free zone," Environmental Minister Maciej Nowicki told the daily Gazeta Wyborcza.

It was not easy to convince the European Commission to accept the regulation and there were many changes made in order to make sure that it is in accordance with European law.

"The agreement underwritten by farmers must guarantee the possibility to back out of the GMO ban agreement and begin cultivating GMO crops. All farmers interested in cultivating GMOs must be notified of the fact that there are initiatives to create GMO-free zones in their region," stated Carine Jeukenne from the press bureau of EU Environmental Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

"The most important is that the EC affirms that the regulation is in agreement with European law, because, the current regulation from 2001 was not and Poland faced punishment from the European Tribunal," maintains Nowicki. "Up until the last minute, the regulation contained a clause that local governments have the right to declare GMO-free zones, but the Commission told us that it is absolutely illegal to pass such a regulation."

The Polish regulation not only addresses the issue of growing GMOs but also research on and trade of genetically modified organisms.

Gazeta Wyborcza reports that the regulation was accepted by the European Commission on Tuesday. The Polish Ministry of the Environment plans to submit the regulation to the lower house of parliament, the Sejm, after 23 June. If passed, it is expected to be signed into law by the end of the year.

Poland is not the only European country facing issues surrounding genetically modified foods. Recently, several other countries, including Germany, Austria, France and Hungary, have faced problems with the EC regarding regulations on GMO cultivation.

Consultation begins in effort to beat growing food security crisis

Business Scotsman, 29 May 2009. By Dan Buglass:
http://business.scotsman.com/fooddrinkagriculture/Consultation-begins-in-effort-to.5313900.jp

THE Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the UK's largest funder of agri-food research with an annual budget of £450 million, has launched a consultation on future efforts required to tackle the growing, but preventable food security crisis.

With a rapidly increasing population, global harvests threatened by climate change, the very real danger of exotic and endemic animal diseases and with a severe economic downturn disrupting the flow of trade, the world is facing a serious food security crisis.

The consultation, on behalf of the UK Research Councils, is seeking views on how research relating to production, supply and consumption of food for both the domestic and international markets can be developed. Responses to the consultation will shape a food security research road map. This will set out the research across a wide range of disciplines that will need to address the many challenges that lie ahead.

Professor Janet Allan, the director of research with BBSRC, said: "We need to increase global food supply by 50 per cent before 2030. This consultation is an opportunity for all interested organisations and individuals to comment on future research we need to deliver and avoid a growing food security crisis.

"We are looking for responses to questions that include research targets in food production and supply, ways to ensure knowledge transfer into practical application and public policy and providing the skill and training we need."

The consultation is now open and will close on 17 July. Full details can be found at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/consultations

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Have these fools not heard of the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agriculture, Science and Technology http://www.agassessment.org) – or are they just pretending to ignore it?

Argentina pressed to ban crop chemical after health concerns

Financial Times, 29 May 2009. By Jude Webber in Buenos Aires and Hal Weitzman in Chicago:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d74344c-4be8-11de-b827-00144feabdc0.html

Argentina's government is coming under pressure to ban the chemical used in the world's best-selling herbicide, which has helped turn the country into an important world food exporter in the past decade, after new research found that it might be harmful to human health.

A group of environmental lawyers has petitioned the Supreme Court to impose a six-month ban on the sale and use of glyphosate, which is the basis for many herbicides, including the US agribusiness giant Monsanto's Roundup product.

A ban, if approved, would mean "we couldn't do agriculture in Argentina", said Guillermo Cal, executive director of CASAFE, Argentina's association of fertiliser companies.

Argentina has become a world food-exporting powerhouse, largely through the use of genetically modified seeds that have been engineered to resist glyphosate. That has allowed soya farmers to boost yields dramatically by sowing directly without clearing the land, and then spraying the herbicide to kill weeds without affecting the new crop.

The country is the world's top exporter of soya oil and ranks second in exports of corn, third in soyabeans and seventh in wheat. Glyphosate is its most widely used herbicide and farmers spend some $450m on it a year and use 150m litres annually on their crops, Mr Cal says.

Any ban on the use of glyphosate could have dire fiscal consequences: the already cash-strapped Argentine government relies heavily on tariffs levied on agricultural exports. It is expected to rake in some $5bn this year, although that is about half the previous year's level after a longrunning conflict with farmers, a bitter drought and lower prices have slashed production of the country's main cash crop, soya.

"We know we're taking on a Goliath," said Mariano Aguilar, executive director of the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers, which in April filed suit before the Supreme Court seeking a nationwide ban on the sale and use of glyphosate, pending an investigation by a commission of experts set up in January by the government. No one was available to comment at the Agriculture Secretariat and the court has yet to rule.

Mr Aguilar's action followed an investigation by Andrés Carrasco, a scientist at Conicet, a government-funded research institute. According to Mr Carrasco's research, even tiny quantities of glyphosate could cause embryonic malformations in frogs and thus, by extrapolation, may have implications for humans.

"I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low ... in some cases this can be a powerful poison," Mr Carrasco told the Financial Times in an interview. He says residents near soya-producing areas began reporting problems from 2002, a couple of years after the first big harvests using genetically modified seeds, which were approved for use in Argentina in 1996.

Research by other Argentine scientists and evidence from local campaigners has indicated a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. One study conducted by a doctor, Rodolfo Páramo, in the northern farming province of Santa Fé reported 12 malformations per 250 births, well above the normal rate.

Mr Carrasco said his research used pure glyphosate as well as herbicide containing some 500g per litre of glyphosate - about the standard concentration in many fertilisers on the market - which he then diluted 5,000 times.

Monsanto says its Roundup preparations contain between 360g and 540g per litre, and 680g to 720g per kilo in the case of solids. It notes, however, that it has only a third of the Argentine market, since glyphosate has been off-patent for several years and other producers offer generic products with varying concentrations of the chemical.

Hugh Grant, chief executive, told the FT: "I'm not too worried about the study. I think the science is shaky."

The company maintains the chemical is safe to humans and has been used without harmful side-effects for decades.

Mr Carrasco said four people from CASAFE were sent to try to search his laboratory and he had been "seriously told off" by Lino Barrañao, Argentina's science and technology minister. "There are very many millions of dollars at stake, but the only thing I couldn't do was shut up when I found this out," he said.

Mr Carrasco acknowledged there were "too many economic interests at stake" to ban glyphosate outright. But, he said, officials could start ring-fencing the problem by enforcing effective controls where crops are sprayed.

World Future Council meets international law community
Crimes against Future Generations need to become taboo

World Future Council press release, 29 May 2009:
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org

Montreal / Hamburg -- How can we prevent and prosecute activities today that severely threaten the living conditions and health of those living in the future? This was the theme at the symposium of 120 international law experts in Montréal on May 28-29, where the World Future Council (WFC) presented its pioneering work on Crimes against Future Generations for discussion.

"We are today using international law in a heartless fashion, for we think only of those who are alive here and now and shut our eyes to the rest of the vast family of humanity who are yet to come. This forecloses to future generations their rights to the basic fundamentals of civilized existence: acknowledging them as holders of rights in the eyes of our law" says Judge C.G. Weeramantry, former Vice-President of the International Court of Justice and WFC Councillor.

In international declarations, the global community has already emphasised the duties of current generations to conserve the environment, to use natural resources with caution and to create a healthy environment for future generations. But the legal enforcement of these agreements is still very limited. "If the half-life of some of the radioactive elements that are being tinkered with deliberately when building nuclear weapons is 24,000 years, can any responsible legal system permit such acts to be committed, which will so grievously affect a thousand generations to come?" continues Weeramantry.

The consequences of many of our decisions and actions today endanger the health and livelihoods of future generations of life. Over-fishing our oceans or destroying our rainforests and local communities when oil-drilling, to name a few examples, breach fundamental human rights to health, food, and a safe environment.

"The fundamental rights of future generations need to be recognized in international justice. Investigating the concept of Crimes against Future Generations is a very important initiative to support this", says Prof. Dr. Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, WFC Councillor and Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development Law hosting the symposium.

The Hamburg based World Future Council works to end this disregard of the long-term consequences of criminal acts: "It is not a matter of compensating for the damage. We work to raise the consciousness of humankind, so that knowingly destructive acts with damaging consequences on living conditions in the future become taboo" explains WFC programme director Dr. Maja Göpel. "This is the goal of the WFC program on Future Justice. It will involve a huge effort, but the level of engagement among this group of highly distinguished legal experts fills me with optimism!"Ý

---

The World Future Council brings the interests of future generations to the centre of policy making. Its 50 eminent members from around the globe have already successfully promoted change. The Council addresses challenges to our common future and provides decision-makers with effective policy solutions. In-depth research underpins advocacy work for international agreements, regional policy frameworks and national lawmaking and thus produces practical and tangible results.

Media Contact North America

Dr. Maja Göpel
Director Future Justice
Mobile:Ý +49 (0) 178-617080
maja@worldfuturecouncil.org

Media Contact Europe

Anne Reis
Media & Communications Officer
World Future Council
P.O. Box 11 01 53
D-20401 Hamburg
Phone: +49 (0)40 30 70 914-16
Fax: +49 (0)40 30 70 914-14 Mail: anne.reis@worldfuturecouncil.org
Skype: anne.worldfuturecouncil

http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org

World Future Council - A global forum working to protect the rights of future generations.

Genetically Modified Monkeys: Progress or a Step Too Far?

FRAME - Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (UK), 29 May 2009:
http://www.frame.org.uk/news_details.php?news_id=36

While much of the media coverage about the new GM monkeys is revelling in the prospects of cures for Parkinson's disease, motor neuron disease and other devastating disorders, very little space is being given over to the vast ethical and welfare issues surrounding this development. Neither are the associated scientific/methodological problems being addressed that need to be considered before the establishment of GM primate breeding colonies can even be conceived as plausible.

Perhaps the most problematic factor is that in this protocol the genes insert into random sites on the target DNA this could result in unforeseen functional, anatomical or cognitive mutations with serious welfare implications for the animals. Until targeted insertions can be made it is also difficult to envisage how this could be used to study specific diseases that affect specific systems and areas of the body. Furthermore, unless the insertion sites and consequences of insertion are fully characterised, each animal may potentially suffer harm before any changes are obvious to the researcher. However, given that age is often important in when genes become active and cause many human diseases and that some genes cause rapid onset of disease-like symptoms in young animals or, indeed, cause miscarriage, being able to turn the inserted genes on and off (inducible gene expression) is desirable.

Before claiming that this will lead to more relevant models of human disorders it must be considered that evolutionary similarity to humans does not immediately equate to biological correlation. It is highlighted that mice engineered to express human disease genes do not always develop the typical symptoms of those diseases so will this also be the case in primates, where the ethical and welfare consequences of failure are perceived as more severe.

Moreover, the common marmoset is listed under CITES Appendix II, which means that trading them has to be strictly regulated to prevent them from becoming in danger of extinction. This may limit the sharing of data and the movement of GM animals. Containment would have to be to be relatively high as there must not be any opportunity for defective genes to entire wild population gene pools. It also rises the question of how will breeding colonies be maintained. Will excess animals be produced to keep lines going or is cryopreservation an option and if so how will movement of frozen gametes be affected by transportation regulations.

The technique described in this research is relatively efficient and does strongly suggest the possibility of breeding GM marmosets rather than having to create them from scratch each time. While this would be desirable if it avoids additional experimental procedures for the animals that are used it is important to discuss not only colony maintenance as outlined above, but more importantly the long term fate of these animals which can live for upward of 10 years and may continue to suffer from the effects of the inserted disease genes.

Science is moving at a speed at which laws, ethics and society finds difficult to keep pace. Each year, research in animals raises the hopes of patients around the world. Often these claims are not realised. Instead, many millions of animals, a large proportion of which have been genetically modified, are created only to be shelved at a later date. For this reason, it is imperative that the societal value, welfare implications and ethics of developing and using GM primates in research and testing be thoroughly debated. After all, just because science can does not mean that it should.

Poland wins battle with EC to limit GMOs

Warsaw Business Journal, 29 May 2009:
http://www.wbj.pl/article-45637-poland-wins-battle-with-ec-to-limit-gmos.html?typ=pam

In one of the most difficult negotiated issues with the European Commission, government representatives managed to convince officials in Brussels to limit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMO).

The Civic Platform still in 2007 wanted to change the law so that Poland would be GMO free, however the EC did not agree to this. The government decided that the prohibition of cultivating GMO will be carried out on the basis of declarations from farmers themselves, which will have the right to call their land "free from GMO."

According to the latest poll, 49% of the public wants the introduction of GMO free terrains even if this would mean a rise in food prices.

Source: Gazeta Wyborcza

28 May 2009

Court denies Monsanto injunction on German ban

Forbes / Associated Press, 28 May 2009:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/28/ap6478242.html

Associated Press, 05.28.09, 06:48 PM EDT

A German court on Thursday rejected a bid by Monsanto Co. to have a government ban of its genetically engineered MON810 corn suspended.

Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner banned the sale and planting of the corn last month, citing studies that she said show it poses a danger to the environment.

St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto ( MON - news - people ) sought to have the ban suspended pending the outcome of a lawsuit seeking its permanent reversal. That lawsuit is still pending.

A court in Braunschweig rejected its petition for a suspension on May 4, and that decision was upheld Thursday by a higher state administrative court in the northern town of Lueneburg.

The court found that there was no evidence German authorities had overstepped their powers.

The genetically engineered seeds produce a toxin to ward off insects. Monsanto says that genetic trait reduces the need for chemical pesticides, but opponents fear the seeds will spread and alter the natural surroundings.

Although the European Union has authorized the corn, Aigner said when she announced her decision that EU members Austria, Hungary, France, Greece and Luxembourg have imposed similar bans.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

On the one hand it is nothing but more of the same. The German appeals court rejects Monsanto's appeal against a lower court's decision handed down last month, in which the company's request for a temporary injunction against the German Federal Government was already turned down. This situation now is a very strong indicator that the decision in the actual lawsuit later on can be expected very much along the same lines.

In addition, the Greek Government extends its ban on planting MON810 by another two years. - So Ýwhat else is new?

New is, on the other hand, that these two events are now continuing a trend, a trend that may have the potential to lay ground for a tradition founded by six important EU Member States. Already two of the three powers in a healthy rule-of-law scenario have declared the planting of a GM variety illegal.

The bets are open which next step happens first - additional Member States or the third power, by way of formal legislation, getting on the wagon of declaring the planting of GM varieties illegal.

DIR 092 - Limited and controlled release of wheat genetically modified for altered grain composition

SeedQuest.com, 28 May 2009:
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2009/may/26328.htm

NOTIFICATION OF DECISION

ISSUE OF LICENCE DIR 092 TO CSIRO FOR A LIMITED AND CONTROLLED RELEASE OF GM WHEAT

[Australia] -- The Gene Technology Regulator has made a decision to issue a licence in respect of application DIR 092 from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The applicant has received approval for the limited and controlled release of 16 wheat lines genetically modified for altered grain composition. The release is expected to take place at one site in the ACT on a maximum area of 1 ha between July 2009 and June 2012. None of the GM wheat plants will be permitted to enter the commercial human food or animal feed supply chain. However, some products made from the GM wheat may be fed to rats and pigs in controlled laboratory experiments.

The decision to issue the licence was made after extensive consultation on the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) with the public, State and Territory governments, Australian Government agencies, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, as required by the Gene Technology Act 2000 and corresponding State and Territory laws.

Issues relating to the health and safety of people and the protection of the environment raised during the consultation process on this application were considered in finalising the RARMP and in making the decision to issue the licence.

The Executive Summary, Technical Summary and complete finalised RARMP, together with a set of Questions and Answers on this decision and a copy of the licence, can be obtained on-line from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator's website or requested via the contacts detailed below.

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator MDP 54 GPO Box 9848 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Telephone: 1800 181 030, Facsimile: 02 6271 4202 http://www.ogtr.gov.au

DIR 092 - Notification of decision to issue a licence on application - posted 28 May 2009 (PDF 44 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir092-3/$FILE/dir092notific.pdf

DIR 092 - Questions and Answers (PDF 14 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir092-3/$FILE/dir092qa3.pdf

DIR 092 - Risk Asessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) Executive Summary (PDF 64 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir092-3/$FILE/dir092execsum.pdf

DIR 092 - Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) Technical Summary (PDF 82 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir092-3/$FILE/dir092techsum.pdf

DIR 092 - Full Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) for limited and controlled release of wheat genetically modified for altered grain composition (PDF 611 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir092-3/$FILE/dir092rarmp.pdf

DIR 092 - Licence Application Summary (PDF 74 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir092-3/$FILE/dir092appsumm.pdf

DIR 092 - GM Wheat Licence Conditions (PDF 161 KB)
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir092-3/$FILE/dir092lic.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

Glowing Green Monkeys Illustrate Important but Controversial Advance

Washington Post, 28 May 2009. By Rob Stein
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052701798.html?hpid=topnews

Scientists have created the first genetically modified monkeys that can pass their new genetic attributes to their offspring, an advance designed to give researchers new tools for studying human disease but one that raises many thorny ethical questions.

In this case, Japanese researchers added genes that caused the animals to glow green under an ultraviolet light -- and beget offspring with the same spooky trait -- to test a technique they hope to use to produce animals with Parkinson's, Huntington's and other diseases.

The work, described in today's issue of the journal Nature, was hailed by some medical researchers as a long-sought milestone that could lead to crucial insights into many ailments and provide invaluable ways to test new treatments.

But because the work marks the first time members of a species so closely related to humans have had their genetic makeup permanently altered, the research set off alarms that it marked a troubling step toward applying such techniques to people, which would violate a long-standing taboo.

"It would be easy enough for someone to make the leap to trying this on humans," said Lori B. Andrews, who studies reproductive technologies at the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law. "If you make this kind of change, it's passed on to all future generations. Many people think it's hubris to have people remaking people in this way."

The approach could tempt some to use the technique to try to engineer desirable traits in people, creating a society of genetic haves and have-nots, Andrews said. Others worried that the work could have additional disturbing implications, such as potentially blurring the line between species.

"It's hard to put your finger on what is it about this research that is likely to stimulate ethical debate besides the sort of gut feeling that this is not the right thing to do," said Mark A. Rothstein, a bioethicist at the University of Louisville. "But I think we'd better contemplate where this research is going and develop policies to deal with it before it slaps us in the face."

Scientists have genetically engineered many other species to be research tools. Mice in particular have been created with a wide assortment of characteristics and diseases that mimic human ailments. But because mice are so genetically different from humans, scientists have long sought to breed primates to provide better disease "models." Although scientists have been able to genetically modify individual monkeys, they had never been able to make the new traits hereditary -- a crucial step for breeding large enough numbers of research animals.

In humans, researchers have tried to correct genetic defects in individual patients, but there has always been a strict prohibition against making changes that would be passed on.

In the new work, Erika Sasaki of the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Kawasaki and her colleagues conducted experiments using marmosets, small monkeys common in South America that mature and reproduce quickly.

The researchers modified a virus called a lentivirus to carry a jellyfish gene known as GFP (green fluorescent protein) into the genetic material of the marmosets' cells. The gene is widely used in research because it is easy to track -- cells in which the gene is active glow green when exposed to ultraviolet light.

The researchers used the genetically engineered virus to insert the jellyfish gene into 80 marmoset embryos, which they then transferred into the wombs of 50 females. Seven pregnancies resulted in five offspring, four of which showed signs of the jellyfish gene in their hair roots, skin, blood cells and other tissues. Under ultraviolet light, the skin on the soles of their feet glowed green.

Most important, eggs from one of the females and sperm from one of the males had the gene, and the researchers reported that the male's sperm was used to produce at least one second-generation offspring with the gene -- a male named Kouichi whose skin glowed green under the light.

In a telephone briefing for reporters yesterday, the researchers said they had produced four offspring -- two from the male and two from the female. Three of the offspring glowed green.

"We believe this is the first case that is ever established in the world that has an introduced gene that is successfully translated to the next generation in a primate," said Hideyuki Okano of Keio University School of Medicine.

Several researchers deemed the research landmark work.

"I think it's a pretty big advancement," said Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon Health and Science University, who co-authored an article published with the Japanese paper. "Primates are the only species you can faithfully use to make models of some very important human diseases involving higher brain function and neurological functions."

But others criticized the work. Animal rights advocates said it paves the way for producing colonies of primates conceived expressly to suffer cruel illnesses and undergo potentially painful and dangerous medical experiments.

"Instead of manipulating the genes of marmosets or other non-human primates, why aren't scientists harnessing the power of the human genome or any of the other technology that has exploded over the last 10 years?" said Eric Kleiman of In Defense of Animals, an international animal protection organization based in San Rafael, Calif. "This is a step backward, not a step forward."

Even some who do not necessarily oppose the use of animals in research said the work raised other concerns.

"At some point, how many human genes in a marmoset or rhesus monkey or macaque or whatever does it take to form a new species -- a species that is part human at its basis?" bioethicist Rothstein said.

And although there has long been a taboo against making genetic changes in people that could be hereditary, the new work makes that prospect more likely, others said.

"This is proof of concept in a closely related species," Andrews said.

"Some in the future might want to put a gene into humans to give them the running speed of a cheetah, for example, or maybe create the potential for night vision." Andrews noted that reproductive technologies are largely unregulated in the United States.

"This is just another reason why we need to go behind the doors of the [fertility] clinics and create an oversight mechanism that works," Andrews said.

Other researchers dismissed such concerns, saying marmosets were much more distantly related to people than other primates, such as chimpanzees. And although several researchers agreed that animal research should be limited, they said it is impossible to get answers to many key questions any other way. Creating better animal models could reduce the number of animals needed for research, they said.

"In the end, if we have good models, we may end up using less animals and we may end up having better answers," said Anthony Chan, a geneticist at Emory University who helped to create a rhesus monkey with Huntington's disease.

But Chan agreed that steps should be taken to make sure the technology is not used on people.

"We should never do it in humans," Chan said. "We don't want to change our evolutionary path. That would have a profound impact on the next generation."

Ohio Farmers Looking At Old Crop to Help with New Economic Problems

WCPN ideastream, 28 May 2009:
http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/news/26357/

The combination of rising costs of herbicides and falling food prices paid to farmers for many crops is causing some Ohio farmers to go back to basics ...at least when it comes to soybeans. ideastream's Mhari Saito has our story about farmers returning to a crop they had once given up.

Steve Waddle's dusty boots are as gray as the dried corn stalks he stands on, here in his corner of the corn belt about an hour west of Columbus. For over ten years, Waddle has alternated his corn plantings with genetically-modified soybeans because they are easy to grow, safe and had been cost-effective...until recently. Last year, agribusiness giant Monsanto raised prices on Round Up herbicide and genetically modified soybean seed citing growing demand. The price of production for Waddle and other farmers suddenly skyrocketed.

Steve Waddle: Because of the economic conditions last year when our expenses rose drastically and that carried over to into this year and then grain prices dropped, we needed to find other ways to make a profit.

So this year, for the first time in years, he's back to planting conventional soybeans - ones that haven't been genetically modified. That's a real niche market given that only five to ten percent of Ohio's soybean production is of the non-genetically modified variety.

Steve Waddle: These are food grade beans and they carry an incentive along with them. We'll get up to $2 extra per bushel, based upon how well we do, over what the regular beans would bring.

These conventional soybeans fetch a higher price, according to Ohio State University agronomist Jim Beuerlein because of global demand. He says customers in Japan and Europe prefer non genetically modified soybeans even though there is no scientific data to show any health benefit.

Jim Beuerlein: There's not very many of them around, there's a big demand, so companies are paying farmers extra to grow that crop.

One of the biggest buyers of conventional soybeans in Ohio will surprise you. Honda Motor Company used to send its shipping containers home empty after delivering car parts. Employees in Marysville, Ohio decided to ship back soybeans in the containers. And why not? The US is the world's largest soybean grower. Joe Hanusik is plant manager at Honda subsidiary HAPI Ohio. He signed a record number of farmers this year to plant non genetically modified soybean seed.

Joe Hanusik: This year we are producing roughly 45 thousand acres of non GMO soybeans. Last year we were right around 25 thousand acres.

And that interest is spreading to seed companies. John Suber runs Ebberts Field Seeds in western Ohio. He says his company usually has booked all its seed orders by January. But he was surprised when he sold out of non genetically modified soybean seed early.

John Suber: Well we've had calls clear through February and March of people wanting them and we have upped acreage for next year's sales - doubled it - so we anticipate that demand continuing to grow.

Back at the Waddle's farm, Steve's son Mark is getting started on 200 acres of non genetically modified soybeans. The family figures they'll spend about $350 to $400 an acre.

Steve Waddle: You know the current bean price is $9...I just called this morning, it's $9.38. If I get a $2 premium that'll actually be all the profit I'll have. So that's why we're doing it: To try and get a little bit of extra money.

Waddle is considering this year's foray into non genetically modified soybeans an experiment. He's curious to see if he can control the weeds without too much extra work and still make money. He'll have to wait till September when the beans are harvested to find out for sure but he's hoping it's a good bet.

Interview with Marie-Monique Robin

Slow Food Interntional, 28 May 2009. By Laura Stefani:
http://sloweb.slowfood.com/sloweb/eng/dettaglio.lasso?cod=3E6E345B0ce4928709NxO1498347

Marie-Monique Robin doesn't like to stick to comfortable topics. This indefatigable Frenchwoman with 25 years of investigative journalism under her belt has produced an impressive range of hard-hitting books, reportages and documentaries. They include Voleurs d'yeux (Eye Thieves) on organ trafficking, which won her the prestigious Albert London prize in 1995 and Escadrons de la mort, l'école franÁaise (Death Squads: The French School), on the links between the French secret services and the Argentine and Chilean dictatorships, which was described by the French Senate as "best documentary of the year" in 2004.

But Marie-Monique Robin is also proud to be the daughter of small farmers. She explains why she decided to dedicate four years of her life to investigating the leading global company in the transgenic industry, Monsanto, which now owns 90% of GMOs grown worldwide (mainly soy, corn, cotton and canola). "I have always been interested in human rights and agriculture. More recently I began to work on the dangers facing biodiversity: here the three issues are interlinked to an incredible extent". The result of this work was The World According to Monsanto, an investigative book which covers the history, hidden strategies and true objectives of the controversial multinational.

Now published in Italy, it has been translated into 13 languages and the DVD film version has been distributed in 22 countries. In the year since its first publication in France it has unleashed a massive international debate, but no official reaction from the biotech colossus, apart from the creation of a blog which confined itself to denying the points made in the book: yet another, if inadvertent, admission of the credibility and seriousness of Robin's work.

In the book you show how Monsanto, when it was one of the most important chemical companies in the world, deliberately lied on many occasions, particularly regarding the toxicity of its products, from PCBs (polychlorobiphenyls) to dioxin, and Agent Orange used in Vietnam. It is now genetically manipulating seeds entering our diet. Can we trust them?

Absolutely not. They lied in the past and are continuing to do so, even if their website says things like "we help small farmers to produce healthier food with reduced environmental impact". In fact none of this is true, just look at Roundup Ready seeds (RR). GM soy, for example, the first GMO launched on the market, now constitutes 90% of all soy grown in the US. It has been manipulated to resist a powerful glyphosate-based herbicide called Roundup which has been produced by Monsanto since the 1970s (since 1988 there has also been a version for home gardens). The multinational maintained that it was a 100% biodegradable herbicide that was completely harmless for humans and the environment. Too bad that it has been found guilty, first in the US and recently in France, for misleading advertising. Last year a confidential Monsanto study was made public where it was stressed that only 2% of Roundup decomposes in the soil, and then only after 28 days! A far cry from the concept of biodegradability. This is a crucial lie, since 70% of GMOs currently grown in the world have been genetically manipulated so they can be sprayed with Roundup.

Can Roundup adversely affect health?

It is very toxic and over the long term can cause cancer, as I show in the book on the basis of several scientific studies, but it also leads to sterility, abortions and genetic malformations. It acts as an endocrine disruptor, altering the male and female reproductive system. In Argentina I have met people living very close to enormous soy plantations which have been sprayed from the air. The immediate effects of acute intoxication are dermatitis, inflammation to the eyes, vomiting and respiratory difficulties. To think that Roundup is the most sold herbicide in the world: Denmark is the only country not to permit it.

What is Monsanto's position on the possible "side effects" of GMOs?

Very reassuring. According to the company, genetic manipulation has been thoroughly studied and there is absolutely no risk to health. This is not true: it has never been seriously investigated. We have no idea what consequences GMOs may have on human health in 20 years time.

There are 100 million hectares of land growing transgenic crops around the world. 70% of food sold in American shops contains genetically modified organisms and there has been no proper scientific study. How is that possible?

To understand what has happened you need to look at the regulation of GMOs in the US, where everything began. The central revelation in my book concerns the enormous influence exercised by Monsanto within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency in the US responsible for ensuring the safety of foods and drugs released onto the market. The mechanism used, the so-called "revolving doors" situation (where people move to and fro between the private and government sector Ed.), is very common in the US and extensively exploited by Monsanto. It highlights the collusion between industrial lobbies and political authorities. In this specific case, I discovered that the basic document of 1992 that regulates-or rather, doesn't regulate-GMOs, was drawn up by Michael Taylor. This person was a lawyer for Monsanto who entered the FDA just to deal with this issue and later returned to Monsanto as Vice President. The text signed by Taylor is based on the "principle of substantial equivalence", according to which a GMO is grossly similar to its natural counterpart, i.e. the conventional plant. So it is unnecessary to subject it to any study. This is a massive fraud, because the principle is not based on any scientific data: it was a political decision to favor the interests of multinational companies, as was candidly admitted in an interview by James Maryanski (a microbiologist who worked for the FDA and then moved to the top management of Monsanto, Ed.). What is more, in 1992 they couldn't have carried out tests to support the hypothesis even if they'd wanted to, because GMOs were still being created in the laboratory.

What has been the reaction of the scientific world since that time?

As was later revealed, many FDA scientists and researchers at that time opposed the principle of substantial equivalence and asked for studies to be carried out to prove it. But they were all forced to keep quiet. It's very strange: whenever scientists have decided to start a serious toxicological study on the effects of GMOs, they have lost their jobs. This happened to the biochemist Arpad Pusztai in Scotland and Manuela Malatesta when she was a researcher at the University of Urbino. It is a recurring phenomenon. It is alarming, people wonder, what will happen to me? Monsanto has silenced academics, journalists and anyone who has ventured to criticize or expose them. That's why I say there is a real problem with GMOs, otherwise there would be transparent and accessible studies.

An equally controversial situation is the question of intellectual property rights for seeds. What is Monsanto's global strategy?

Their objective is to control the entire food chain using the valuable tool of patents and royalties, otherwise Monsanto would never have entered this market. From being a chemical multinational, the company has transformed itself into the leading seed producer in the world. It has been in the top spot since 2005. Since 1995 it has bought more than 50 seed companies in various countries. Whether in the US, India or South America, it is almost impossible to find a non-transgenic seed because Monsanto first bought the main seed companies and then imposed its patented seeds. This is a crucial development: if a seed is protected by a patent, farmers who buy it have to first sign a contract undertaking not to save part of their harvest for reseeding the next year, as they have always done in the past. Now farmers have to buy new seeds and Roundup pesticide each year, and you can guess who from. As the economist Peter Carstensen, professor at the University of Madison in Wisconsin explains: "The company no longer sells seeds, but leases them out for a season, while always remaining the owner of the genetic information contained in the seed. The seed is no longer a living organism but has become a simple product". And the market for seeds is huge: don't forget that everything we eat exists because a farmer planted a seed in the earth.

What happens to people who don't respect the contract?

Monsanto has a control agency called the "gene police". It's an outrageous system: these are private investigative agencies who go on to farmers' fields and take samples, they ask farmers to show their invoices for purchases of seed and herbicide from Monsanto and if they are not forthcoming, the farmers get sued. The company always wins in court, because not respecting a contract is considered a breach of Monsanto's intellectual property rights. They not only win when a farmer has intentionally saved part of the harvest, but even when GM seeds from a neighbor's property, or through chance, are found in the fields of a farmer who doesn't grow transgenic seeds. This happened to Hendrik Hartkamp, a Dutchman who bought a farm in Oklahoma: he was sued and forced to pay a big fine which led to him having to sell his property. The judge's justification? It's irrelevant how the seeds got there, the farmer is responsible for what is in his fields. So he is guilty ... It's incredible.

But shouldn't seeds be the "heritage of all human beings"?

They used to be. This madness started in the 1980s with the concept of the privatization of life and living things. It all began when a researcher working at General Electric applied for a patent on a bacterium which he had genetically modified. The Patents Office in Washington turned down his application. According to the law, since the bacteria were living organisms they couldn't be patented. He appealed and lost, appealed again and in the end the US Supreme Court pronounced the fateful words: "anything under the sun that is made by man" can be patented. From that moment there was an unstoppable rush, patents were granted for genes, seeds and plants. To give an idea, the patents office in Washington currently grants more than 70,000 patents annually, 20% of which are for living organisms. Between 1983 and 2005 Monsanto alone obtained 647 patents for plants, almost all from the Global South.

A company that patents species selected by humans over the centuries. It seems a form of biopiracy ...

Certainly, and following their reasoning there is something that doesn't make sense: Monsanto introduced a gene, in this case the gene giving resistance to Roundup, but in the contract maintains it is owner of the whole plant. It is totally illogical, a complete disregard of the law, which hasn't changed since the 1980s. How can it claim intellectual property rights over the whole plant when it is introduced only a single gene?

At the beginning you mentioned biodiversity. Is it now at risk?

Genetic contamination is causing damage everywhere. The most obvious example is in Canada. Monsanto introduced transgenic Roundup Ready Canola in 1996. As a result of open pollination, conventional canola is now at serious risk and organic canola has completely disappeared. Organic farmers in Saskatchewan have therefore taken a class action against Monsanto to demand damages. In Mexico, Roundup Ready Corn is threatening hundreds of varieties of criollo corn (150 in the region of Oaxaca alone) which have been cultivated for 5000 years. These traditional varieties are considered a staple food and were sacred for the Maya and Aztecs. It is an unstoppable phenomenon which is causing a distinct reduction in biodiversity. And biodiversity is of course a necessary condition for food security.

So food security is also at risk, but one of the main arguments in favour of GMOs is that they can defeat world hunger. It is claimed that the benefits of these seeds include their moderate costs and high yields. Is this true ?

It is criminal propaganda and I say this quite openly. In fact the opposite is happening: GMOs are leading to hunger, if not death, as is the case in India, where small farmers' movements condemn the "genocide" caused by introducing Monsanto's transgenic Bt cotton. It is very expensive, four times as much as the conventional variety, and requires the same use of pesticides and fertilizers. Indian growers who change to Bt incur debts to buy these products and if the harvest is lower than expected, they find themselves in a desperate situation, squeezed by loan sharks. Furthermore it has been shown that yields from transgenic plants are always lower (between 5% and 12%) than those from conventional ones. The idea of ending world hunger was invented by Burson-Marsteller, the large public relations and communications agency. At the end of the 1990s Monsanto was struggling and faced problems on various fronts, particularly from the opposition to GMOs in Europe. So it contacted Burson-Marsteller, which developed a pro-GM publicity campaign to mainly run in France, Germany and Britain. The message they created and have repeated since then? Thanks to GMOs we can build a better world for everyone.

But in spite of all the propaganda, it was soundly defeated on one occasion.

Yes, in 2004, over the introduction of Roundup Ready Wheat in the US and Canada. For the first time in its history it had to drop a product launch. In manipulating the cereal that accounts for almost 20% of crops worldwide and is a staple ingredient in the diet of one in three humans, Monsanto had encroached on a cultural, economic and religious symbol dating back to the birth of agriculture: our daily bread. But it got a long way. In economic terms, opposition in Europe played a key role (in Italy through the efforts of Grandi Molini Italiani, the largest milling group in the country) along with objections from Japan, the main importer of US and Canadian wheat. As a result the large American cereal growers categorically refused to use the GM product and this was decisive. In Canada, for the first time they were fighting together with consumer associations and even Greenpeace, with whom they had previously always disagreed. And to this time there are no transgenic cultivations of wheat anywhere in the world.

Do you think it is too late to turn back?

For Roundup it is very difficult. Argentina has 14 million hectares growing RR soy: it has impregnated and polluted the soil, which is destined for sterility because the herbicide gets rid of all the bacteria and microorganisms, even the useful ones. The first step is to inform people about its effects. After my investigations, various cities in France decided to stop using it. Many citizens' committees were formed explaining to families what they were using in their gardens. If we could eliminate it we would resolve part of the problem. But at the same time we need to boycott GMOs and support organic agriculture, create a market which enables growers to return to organic methods. It is something that concerns us all because Roundup is served on our plates together with the main course: the meat we eat comes from European farms, from animals fed with US, Argentine or Brazilian transgenic soy. A campaign is now under way in France and Germany to require the labeling of meat, milk and eggs produced by animals given feed containing GMOs. But there isn't just Roundup, there are many other dangerous pesticide residues on our tables.

But in Italy, as in Europe, there has always been a fairly high level of awareness.

Yes, consumer opposition is clear, but the situation is different at an institutional level, though things have recently been changing. For example, in March the EU Council of Ministers for the Environment supported Austria and Hungary's refusal to grow Monsanto's GM corn Mon 810, in opposition to the European Commission's request to lift the ban. But the European Community's problem is EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority: 80% of its members have very strong links to the biotech lobby. Here we come back to the question of a lack of scientific independence and the pressure of experts: a conflict of interest in other words.

Monsanto was supported by the Republican governments of Bush father and son, but also by Bill Clinton's Democrats. Will it be different with Obama?

Unfortunately Michael Taylor is in Obama's transition team. While we are talking, the American President is considering making him Director of the Food Safety Working Group. It was Taylor who proposed nominating Tom Vilsack as the new Secretary of Agriculture. From 1998 to 2006 Vildack was Governor of Iowa, the leading soy-producing state in the US: he always supported the interests of agribusiness and biotechnology. It seems pretty clear that policies will remain the same.

What was the most difficult part of your investigation?

Something I hadn't considered: persuading Monsanto's victims to give evidence. They were all afraid. It was very strange - usually when you work in the area of human rights, people want to talk and appreciate the interest you show in their story. That didn't happen in this case. They were frightened of the consequences. There were frightened you weren't what you said you were, because sometimes Monsanto sends fake journalists and fake TV crews. I managed to gain the trust of many people because now I am well-known and people can check that I really am a journalist.

Translated by Ronnie Richards

Laura Stefani is a freelance Italian journalist specialized in biodiversity and sustainability.

'Genetic engineering can be used as a tool for economic domination'
• Food can be used as a weapon, says Sudhir Vombatkere
• 'Regulatory agencies have admitted to the global risks in genetic engineering'

The Hindu [India]:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/28/stories/2009052852040300.htm

MYSORE: Maj. Gen (retd.) Sudhir Vombatkere of the National Alliance for People's Movement has cautioned that genetic engineering can be used as a tool for economic domination. Food can be used as a weapon.

The caution comes in the wake of the growing tendency to test and admit genetically modified crops and products in India by the policy holders and the lobby in support of it.

Delivering a talk on "Genetic engineering and how it affects us" here recently, Maj. Gen. Vombatkere said the biotechnology industry had entered the realm of food production from farm to table using genetic engineering for crops, claiming higher production of food to meet shortfall in food production to prevent hunger.

However, he pointed out that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) declared in 2008 that hunger was not a crisis of food production because there was enough and more food produced for the world's population and underlined that the regulatory agencies in most countries admitted to the global risks in genetic engineering by harmful genes self-propagating irrevocably into the environment and the food-chain. "But what is paradoxical is that it is declared safe without adequate and transparent testing," he said.

He said scientific literature showed that BT industry's studies were not adequate to identify most of the side-effects of gene insertion and consequent gene expression.

Scientists in a storm over day-glo monkeys

Independent [Ireland], 28 May 2009. By John von Radowitz:
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/scientists-in-a-storm-over-dayglo-monkeys-1753255.html

A QUINTET of glowing monkeys threatens to engulf scientists in new controversy over the ethics of animal experiments and genetic engineering.

The five marmosets carry a fluorescent protein gene that causes their skin to glow under ultraviolet light.

Scientists were able to show that the gene could be inherited by offspring.

The Japanese breakthrough opens up the prospect for the first time of monkeys being used -- like mice -- as research tools for the study of numerous human diseases. But it also raises major ethical concerns about the use of primates in animal experiments, and scientists tiptoeing towards a "brave new world" of genetically modified humans.

Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert, said: "I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings. It is clear to me that the scientific community wants at the very least to keep that possibility open.

"'Slippery slope' is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward."

The research, led by Dr Erika Sasaki, from the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Japan, was published yesterday in the leading scientific journal 'Nature'.

Viruses were used to carry the green fluorescent protein (GFP) gene into 91 marmoset embryos. Five of the embryos developed into offspring delivered by surrogate mothers.

They included a pair of twins named Kei and Kou. The word "keikou" means "fluorescence" in Japanese.

The GFP gene was shown to be active in all of them, causing their skin, hair roots and various other tissues to glow when exposed to ultraviolet light.

The picture shows two of the monkeys with an inset of their glowing limbs under ultraviolet light.

Glowing monkeys threaten to spark ethical storm

Irish Examiner, 28 May 2009. By John von Radowitz:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/glowing-monkeys-threaten-to-spark-ethical-storm-92779.html

A QUINTET of glowing monkeys threatens to engulf scientists in a new storm of controversy over the ethics of animal experiments and genetic engineering.

The five marmosets carry a fluorescent protein gene that causes their skin to glow under ultraviolet light.

Most dramatically, the scientists were able to show that the gene could be inherited by offspring.

The Japanese breakthrough opens up the prospect for the first time of monkeys being used - like mice - as research tools for the study of numerous human diseases.

But it also raises major ethical concerns about the use of primates in animal experiments, and scientists tiptoeing towards a "brave new world" of genetically modified humans.

Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert, said yesterday: "I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings. It is clear to me that the scientific community wants at the very least to keep that possibility open.

"'Slippery slope' is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward."

The research, led by Dr Erika Sasaki, from the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Kawasaki, Japan, is published today in the leading scientific journal Nature.

Viruses were used to carry the green fluorescent protein (GFP) gene into 91 marmoset embryos.

Five of the embryos eventually developed into offspring delivered by surrogate mothers.

They included a pair of twins named Kei and Kou. The word "keikou" means "fluorescence" in Japanese.

The GFP gene was shown to be active in all of them, causing their skin, hair roots and various other tissues to glow when exposed to ultraviolet light.

It is not the first time scientists have introduced a foreign gene into monkey DNA. But the Japanese researchers went a major step further by successfully producing second generation offspring with the fluorescent protein gene.

Conventional In-Vitro Fertilisation was used to create the first baby using Kou's sperm. Two more glowing second-generation marmosets were born, one of which was killed by its mother.

Engineering glowing monkeys is only proof in principle of a much more important concept.

If a fluorescent protein gene can be introduced into the monkey genome and passed onto future generations other genes could be too. That opens up a world of possibilities for medical research, such as the generation of specific monkey colonies containing genetic defects that mirror human diseases.

Mice and rats are already used extensively in this way, providing human "models" that can be experimented on in the search for cures and treatments. However monkeys, being much closer in evolutionary terms to humans, would arguably provide more realistic models.

This is especially true for brain disorders such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, both of which pose serious medical challenges.

At the same time many people are likely to find the routine use of monkeys in medical research far less acceptable than that of rodents.

Altering inherited DNA in monkeys may also be seen as a step too far towards using the same technology to create genetically enhanced "designer" babies.

27 May 2009

Genetically modified monkeys give birth to designer babies
• Controversial work paves way for scientists to breed primates that are born with the genetic faults responsible for human conditions such as Parkinson's and motor neurone disease

The Guardian [UK], 27 May 2009. By Ian Sample, Science Correspondent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/27/genetically-modified-gm-monkeys-germline

Genetically modified monkeys that glow in ultraviolet light and pass the trait on to their young have been created by scientists in Japan in controversial research that "raises the stakes" over animals rights.

The work paves the way for scientists to breed large populations of primates with genetic faults responsible for incurable human conditions, but could also spark an ethical backlash for introducing harmful genes into the primate population.

Researchers hailed the feat as a major step towards understanding the development of inherited diseases, such as Parkinson's and motor neurone disease, from the cradle to the grave. But the work is likely to dismay animal rights groups as it could lead to a rise in the number of primates used in research labs.

The work also raises the possibility of genetically modifying humans, although such work is outlawed in most countries, including Britain.

In a proof of principle experiment, Erika Sasaki and her team at the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Kawasaki, Japan, added a gene to marmoset embryos that made them glow green under ultraviolet light. The embryos were transferred into surrogate females, which led to five live births.

All of the newborn monkeys carried the green gene somewhere in their bodies, and two were able to pass the gene on to their own offspring. In April, a male GM marmoset was born using sperm from one of the monkeys, called Kou, and two more glowing marmosets have been born since. One died after being bitten by its mother.

All the monkeys are healthy and do not glow under normal lighting conditions.

The scientists now plan to create families of monkeys that develop neurodegenerative diseases similar to those seen in humans.

"Our method for producing transgenic primates promises to be a powerful tool for studying the mechanisms of human diseases and developing new therapies," the authors write in the journal Nature.

An editorial accompanying the study, however, warned that it "promises to raise the stakes in the long-standing controversy over animal rights", by "intentionally introducing a harmful gene into the primate gene pool".

Scientists commonly use GM mice to learn about human diseases, but in some cases recreating diseases in primates will be more informative.

"This is potentially very exciting for the future of research into the causes of Parkinson's disease," said Kieran Breen at the Parkinson's Disease Society. "Because non-human primates are much closer to humans than mice, the successful creation of transgenic marmosets means that we will have a new animal model to work with."

There are major hurdles ahead, however. Scientists still need to prove that the technology can recreate human diseases in GM monkeys, and that they are more effective models than other animals. In addition, a European directive on the use of animals in research may prohibit the technique by blocking the use of primates in basic research.

"It is too early to tell whether it will lead to a rise in the use of monkeys," said Vicky Robinson, chief executive of NC3Rs, an organisation that campaigns for the reduced use of animals in research.

"We cannot assume that a transgenic marmoset will be better for disease research than, for example, a transgenic mouse," she said. "Any researcher proposing to take this approach will need to demonstrate that the added scientific value of using a monkey outweighs the significant ethical considerations that accompany their use. This is true whether the monkey is transgenic or not, but the genetic transformation can raise additional welfare concerns."

Glowing monkeys 'to aid research'

BBC News, 27 May 2009. By Jason Palmer, Science & technology reporter:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8070252.stm

Genetically modified primates that glow green and pass the trait on to their offspring could aid the fight against human disease.

Though primates that make a glowing protein have been created before, these are the first to keep the change in their bloodlines.

Future modifications could lead to treatments for a range of diseases.

The "transgenic" marmosets, created by a Japanese team, have been described in the journal Nature.

The work raises a number of ethical questions about deliberately exposing a bloodline of animals to such diseases.

Scientists have managed to modify the genes of many living organisms in recent years, ranging from bacteria to mice.

Mice have been particularly useful experimental models for studying a wide range of human diseases as modified genes are passed on from parents to progeny.

However, mice are not useful for some human diseases because they are not sufficiently similar to produce effects that are meaningful to human disease. Studies of mice with Alzheimer's disease, for example, were stymied simply because their brains were too small to scan at sufficient resolution.

Jellyfish gene

Now, Erika Sasaki of the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Japan, and her colleagues, have introduced a gene into marmoset embryos that allows them to build green fluorescent protein (GFP) in their tissues.

The protein is so-called because it glows green in a process known as fluorescence.

GFP was originally isolated from the jellyfish Aequorea victoria, which glows green when exposed to blue light.

The protein has become a standard in biology and genetic engineering, and its discovery even warranted a Nobel prize.

From 91 embryos, a total of five GFP-enabled transgenic marmosets were born, including twins Kei and Kou ("keikou" is Japanese for "fluorescence").

Crucially, the team was able to show that their method is maintained in the family - or germline.

They used the sperm from a member of the first generation of transgenic marmosets to fertilise an egg from a normal animal. A significant proportion of the resulting offspring also glowed under ultraviolet light.

Until now, efforts to establish transgenic lines of primates have been unsuccessful. In 2001, a team at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, US, succeeded in creating a rhesus macaque that expressed GFP.

Last year, a team at Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Atlanta, US, created a rhesus monkey with Huntington's disease. But the disease failed to incorporate into the monkey's reproductive cells, making it impossible to produce a transgenic line from these monkeys.

Fitting in

The new method improves on previous work using so-called "retroviruses".

These virus "vectors" were added to a soup of sugary solution and this was in turn injected into the monkey embryos.

Although the work demonstrates the principle that a gene can be introduced into a primate bloodline, study co-author Hideyuki Okano of the Keio University School of Medicine said it may not be suitable for studying all diseases.

"We can just introduce genes by virus vectors," he told BBC News, "so the limitation comes from the sizes of genes that can be carried by the retroviruses."

That limitation is about 10,000 bases, or letters, of the genetic code. That upper bound will constrain the diseases that can be studied.

Genes implicated in Parkinson's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a form of motor neurone disease) may well be suitable.

However, genetic regions implicated in Huntington's disease might not fit into a retrovirus.

The work has raised a number of ethical questions about the use of primates in disease research.

Marmosets are New World monkeys and therefore more distantly related to humans than, for example, chimpanzees. But they are particularly useful for the study of disease because they reproduce often and from a young age.

Jarrod Bailey, science consultant to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), says he is "disappointed" both ethically and scientifically with the results.

"This sort of research on animals as sentient as monkeys and apes does not have public support," he told BBC News.

Furthermore, he thinks the underlying science is flawed. Animal researchers, he said, "have failed in research to find treatments for Aids, for hepatitis, for malaria, for strokes. Many treatments for strokes work in monkeys but don't work in humans."

"Monkeys do not predict human response and do not tell us about human disease," he added.

However, scientists argue that, because primates are more similar to humans than mice, they present a more refined model of human disease. This would allow scientists to test treatments more effectively, meaning that fewer animals need be experimented on in the long run.

"This experiment is reminiscent of the exciting early days of transgenic research where it was initially difficult to fully know what the potential applications and future research directions might be," said Mark Hill, a cell biologist at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

"As always in this area of research, there needs to be a close linkage between the scientific work, ethical issues and regulatory guidelines."

Chamber of Deputies: Genetically modified organisms may enter market

CheckBiotech.org, 27 May 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/chamber_deputies_genetically_modified_organisms_may_enter_market

Source: http://www.financiarul.ro [Romania]

The deputies passed the draft bill on the approval of the Ordinance 43/2007 on the deliberate introduction of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the environment and the market, by 182 votes, two cons and 12 abstentions on Tuesday.

The law is aimed at the achievement of a functional system regarding the introduction of the GMOs to the market through clarifying the responsibilities incumbent on all the elements involved in the field as well as the existence of a strict registration of the organisms entering the market.

The draft bill stipulates the existence of the Commission for biological security made of 12 full and 4 alternate members who hold academic and/or university degrees and are well known scientific personalities.

Thus the Commission's members are to come from the following institutions: three titulars and an alternate member from the Romanian Academy and/or the institutions it coordinates, three titulars and an alternate member from the Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences and/or the institutions subordinated to it, three full and an alternate members from the Academy of Medical Sciences, three full and one alternate members form the biology, agriculture or medicine universities or research institutes.

The Commission for biological security is to cooperate and co-work with the similar bodies of other member countries and with Romanian and foreign experts.

During the plenary sitting on Monday May 25, all the officials of the parliamentary parties admitted and acknowledged the usefulness on the Ordinance.

The future belongs to the great scientific discoveries and achievements, opined the chairman of the Commission for Agriculture Deputy Valeriu Tabara.

It is the Chamber of Deputies to decide in the case of this law that the Senate approved in 2007.

Scientific report of EFSA prepared by the GMO Unit on Public Consultation on the Updated Guidance Document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed.

EFSA - European Food Safety Authority, 27 May 2009:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902545663.htm?WT.mc_id=EFSAHL01

Question number: EFSA-Q-2009-00500

Background

On 22 May 2008, the EFSA Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) adopted the draft updated version of its Guidance Document for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed ( See Annex A: Updated Guidance Document for the Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants and derived food and feed), in the light of several years of experience in the risk assessment of GMO applications and of the outcome of the Panels' self-tasking activities. In line with EFSA's policy on openness and transparency, and in order to allow the scientific community and stakeholders to comment on its work, EFSA consulted the public on this document. On 21 July 2008 the draft updated guidance document was published for public consultation until the 21 of September 2008.

The updated guidance document formed the basis for the establishment of a legal framework for EFSA's GMO assessment by the European Commission (EC) and the Member States. In the frame of enhancing that process, the comments received during EFSA's public consultation were forwarded to the EC. EFSA committed to publish an evaluation report on the comments received.

A draft working document for the establishment of this legal framework was prepared by the EC based on the updated guidance of the GMO Panel, on comments of stakeholders and Member States which were provided during the public consultation of EFSA as well as further discussions. EFSA was formally consulted on this document by the Commission on 23 February 2009 and adopted the document with proposed modifications (see Annex B: Answer from EFSA to the consultation of DG SANCO on Rules for applicants for the preparation and presentation of applications to be submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on GM food and feed) [1].

Comments received

At the deadline of its public consultation EFSA had received 357 submissions, from 19 interested parties (non-governmental organisations, industry organisations and national assessment bodies and competent authorities). EFSA has taken into account and answered all comments provided in the electronic template in a summarized form in its Scientific Report on "Public Consultation on the Updated Guidance Document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed". The list of the comments received can be found - without reference to individual submitters - as Annex C of this report.

Report of EFSA on public consultation_GMO guidance.pdf application/pdf (0.2Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/Report_of_EFSA_on_public_consultation_GMO_guidance.pdf?ssbinary=true

Annex A application/pdf (1.3Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/Annex_A.pdf?ssbinary=true

Annex B application/pdf (0.4Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/Annex_B.pdf?ssbinary=true

Annex C application/pdf (0.8Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/Annex_C.pdf?ssbinary=true

Weed resistance to glyphosate in genetically modified soybean cultivation in Argentina

First Science News, 27 May 2009. By By Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona:
http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/weed-resistance-to-glyphosate-in-genetically-modified-soybean-cultivation-in-argentina_64483.html

The article written by Rosa Binimelis, Walter Pengue and Iliana Monterroso, is the product of collaborative work among the Autonomous University of Barcelona, University of Buenos Aires and the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences in Guatemala. The article describes the geographical advance of the invasion beyond the Pampas, it reviews the environmental history of the invasion process to discuss the major drivers and pressures in the context of the changes of the agriculture of Argentina in the last twenty years. It discusses how the process of agricultural modernization in Argentina has resulted in the intensification of crops via sophisticated technological packages including an increase use of inputs and the adoption of GMOs.

In 2007, the historical records for soybean yield and price in Argentina were reached, to some extent due to the sharply escalating biofuels demand. Nevertheless, if more genetic-resistant weeds appear, the benefits derived from the model could be lost. Results highlight the socio-economic impacts and responses associated with invasive species affecting agro-biodiversity. They indicate that no preventive strategies are deployed against the invasion of johnsongrass. Instead, the reactive measures are based on "gene-stacking" that allows the use of still more glyphosate or new combinations of herbicides, thus combining the pesticide treadmill with a novel "transgenic treadmill".

The article also evidences the need to further analyze how policies in other regions affect the management of a biodiversity issue, for instance the EU Directive 2003/30/EC (8 May 2003) on the promotion of the use of biofuels for transport. Therefore, this study has policy relevance also for the European Union. The EU is a large importer of soybeans from Argentina. European awareness of the local impacts of imported soybeans (as feedstuffs and/or agro-fuels) should not focus only on deforestation. It should take the findings of this study into account.

###

This article was written as part of the research conducted at ICTA-UAB and FLACSO-Guatemala for the European project ALARM (2004-2009), on risks to biodiversity.

Greece extends ban on US biotech corn seeds

The Associated Press, 27 May 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gd9QOkgL9djCHTSvWvQhr9YURT5Q

ATHENS, Greece - Greece extended its ban on a genetically modified strain of corn seed developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto Co. for another two years, the Agriculture Ministry said Wednesday.

The ban on importing and cultivating MON810 has also been expanded to include 100 types of the seed - up from 70 last year, the ministry said in a statement.

The strain is genetically modified to produce a toxin that repels insects, thus reducing the need for farmers to use insecticides. The European Union authorized their use five years ago.

But Greece, which has banned MON810 since April 2005, argues the seeds could harm human health while the crops contain pollen that could threaten the country's beekeeping industry. Greek produces about 16 per cent of Europe's honey.

France, Germany, Austria and Hungary have also banned MON810.

Monsanto stumbles

Financial Times, 27 May 2009:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/59c90ea6-4ac6-11de-87c2-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F1%2F59c90ea6-4ac6-11de-87c2-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=

[Excerpt only: Subscription required for full article]

Investors who dumped Monsanto after its profit warning on Wednesday should rest assured the agricultural science company is hardly going to seed. The reason for the shortfall is lower gross profit for its blockbuster herbicide. Roundup should make $2bn this year, down from a forecast of $2.4bn due to unfavourable weather and worldwide oversupply. Increased generic competition should cut that to $1.9bn next year, estimate analysts at Morgan Stanley, but clever new products such as drought-resistant corn are the company's future.

Chief executive Hugh Grant has reassured investors about dependence on Roundup, predicting the volatile cash cow will just be a "hum in the background" by 2012. It is hardly immaterial at 36 per cent of sales last fiscal year, up from 33 per cent in 2005. Its importance should shrink as promising new genetically modified products make Monsanto less directly dependent on the herbicide. "Directly" is the key word as Monsanto's seed business depends on Roundup-resistant varieties that help drive herbicide sales. Another threat comes from alleged intellectual property infringement, currently the subject of litigation against rival DuPont, which also markets Roundup-resistant seeds.

Monsanto developing non-GMO soybeans for food use

The Organic & Non-GMO Report, May 2009:
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may09/monsanto_non-gmo_soybeans_for_food.php

Monsanto Company, developer of genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans that account for more than 90% of US soybean acres, plans to introduce non-genetically engineered soybeans for food use.

According to Monsanto project leader Neal Bringe, Monsanto has been exploring the potential to improve the protein composition of soybeans for food for years because of the rapid growth in soyfoods and interest from food companies.

Using advanced, conventional breeding methods, Bringe says Monsanto developed soybean varieties that have better properties related to taste and health. They tested soybeans to identify varieties that had better solubility related to maintaining the smooth "mouth-feel" of soymilk. Monsanto then tested those lines to identify ones that best inhibited fat accumulation in fat cells after digestion. The aim being to produce soyfood products that help people reduce body fat while maintaining muscle mass. The soybean lines that best expressed the desired traits of solubility, bioactivity related to controlling body fat, and low flavor-producing properties are the ones Monsanto calls Sovera soybeans.

Bringe says the first small-scale commercial production of Sovera soybeans will be done after 2010.

"We are in discussions with potential commercial partners who are excited about the potential for a product like Sovera soybeans," Bringe says.

Sovera soybeans will be identity preserved to ensure they meet non-GMO and other specifications that processors demand. Though Bringe says GM traits such as Roundup Ready 2 Yield could be added if a customer wanted it.

Suspicion, acceptance greet Monsanto's non-GMO plans

The entrance of Monsanto, the leading developer of genetically engineered crops, into the market for non-GMO crops and foods is surprising to say the least. The reaction from suppliers of non-GMO grains and oilseeds ranged from skepticism and disbelief to a surprising welcoming attitude. Here are some reactions:

"I think they should not introduce non-GMO soybeans; they are involved in too many areas already and will only want more control."
Bob Ridzon, owner, Ridzon Farms, New Waterford, OH

"I don't think I would chance contamination problems of buying seed from them."
Lon Baldus, owner, Meadowland Seed, Grand Meadow, MN

"What will be gained if Monsanto produces non-GMO soybeans for food use and continues producing GM soy for making enormous volume of soy meal for feed, soy oil, and lecithin for food? Maybe a greenwash of their image for consumers who do not know better."
Augusto Freire, CEO, Cert ID Brazil, Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil

"It's a little surprising because they are so pro-GMO, but I could see them looking at the (non-GMO) market. They wouldn't be good managers if they didn't look at it.
Craig Tomera, production agronomist, Northland Organic Foods, St. Paul, MN

"It does not surprise me to see Monsanto entering the food soybean market... I think Monsanto has seen the re-birth of this market and would like to tap into it... Within several more years Monsanto will see their GMO technology market share decline. They are thinking of future strategy so as to not lose their position. Monsanto has all of the resources to develop food quality soybeans."
Patrick Marc Ham, director of international development, Semences Prograin, St. Césaire, Canada

"We would welcome Monsanto being involved in developing some new non-GMO soybean food varieties, and the sooner the better. The biggest problem we have for non-GMO food-grade soybeans is that there are not many new varieties being developed. If they can develop something with comparable yields to recent GMO varieties, and can incorporate some of the quality and size traits we are looking for in food-grade soybeans, farmers and food manufacturers are going to love it as well."
Chip Daniels, who runs the specialty grain business at Grain Millers, Eden Prairie, MN

"I welcome anyone providing non-GMO soy varieties to farmers. I would even welcome Monsanto starting an organic farm. These are activities that merit support."
Lynn Clarkson, president, Clarkson Grain, Cerro Gordo, IL

eMerge Genetics launches "non-GMO revolution"

The Organic & Non-GMO Report May 2009:
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may09/eMerge_genetics_launches_non-GMO_revolution.php

Company aims to develop high-quality soybean varieties for food use to meet growing demand for non-GMO soybeans in US and overseas

With major seed companies phasing out non-GMO soybean seed in favor of genetically modified varieties, one company recently emerged to help fill the void for farmers who want to grow non-GMO. Schillinger Genetics, based in West Des Moines, Iowa, is focusing on developing and distributing high-quality, non-GMO food-grade soybean seed varieties under its recently introduced eMerge Genetics brand.

With more than 92% of soybeans grown in the US now Monsanto's GM varieties, John Schillinger, president of Schillinger Genetics, says many farmers want alternatives. "Farmers get nervous about having only one technology to choose from. They need alternatives and value to help their bottom line. We want to offer non-GMO alternatives."

Schillinger Genetics wants farmers to "Join the Non-GMO Revolution," as the company slogan says.

Passion for food soybeans

John Schillinger has a wealth of experience-more than 40 years-in soybean breeding. Interestingly, he helped to develop the first Roundup Ready soybean varieties in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1999, he left a position as president of Asgrow Seed Company to breed non-GMO food-grade soybeans for the soyfoods market.

"My vision and passion was to develop soybeans for food use," Schillinger says.

In 2000, Schillinger founded Heartland Fields, LLC, a soyfoods company. His work with Heartland Fields provided a good connection to and understanding of the food industry. "My experience gave me the opportunity to connect with food companies and understand their soybean product needs," her says.

Online networking

Schillinger has continued developing food-grade soybean varieties, and last December he launched eMerge Genetics as a way to link food manufacturers with seed distributors, grain handlers, and farmers. eMerge's website allows farmers to search for premium prices growing non-GMO soybeans, locate seed distributors in their area, and find contact information for locations seeking eMerge seed. Grain handlers and food manufacturers can work together to find needed acres of a specific non-GMO soybean variety and post opportunities for farmers within specific regions. The site even has a "GMO vs. Non-GMO Value Calculator" that allows farmers to compare the costs for growing the two different types of soybeans. The online service is free.

"This is a new marketing concept and has the potential to help all parties," Schillinger says. "We are still building the network, but we're off to a good start."

Non-GMO varieties

The key to eMerge's success will be its non-GMO soybean seed varieties. eMerge offers three categories of varieties. The first is a clear hilum, medium level protein soybean, such as 389F.YC, used to make soyfoods such as tofu and soymilk. "This is as good a yielding soybean as any in the market," Schillinger says. The second category is a dark hilum variety that is 15% to 20% higher in protein than commodity soybeans, making them good for snack foods, tofu, or soymilk. The third category is ultra low linolenic soybean varieties used to make cooking healthier oils.

eMerge works with Asoyia, LLC, a company producing low linolenic soybean oil for the food industry.

Farmers grow the non-GMO varieties in southern and central Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, areas near major rivers, which are used to transport soybeans to buyers in export markets, such as Japan.

New variety development is a major focus at eMerge. "We are continually pushing the lever back on variety development and field performance," Schillinger says.

In addition to Schillinger, eMerge's research team includes vice president of research Bill Rhodes, who has 30 years of soybean breeding experience.

eMerge's research team uses marker assisted breeding (MAB), a non-transgenic biotechnology breeding method, to develop new soybean varieties. MAB allows breeders to map genes and identify the traits they want to express. "It's a marvelous tool. It allows us to quickly make decisions on agronomic performance and yield," Schillinger says.

New soybean varieties in the pipeline include high-yielding varieties that can be used for both food and feed and low saturated fat soybeans and mid-oleic soybeans to make healthier cooking oils.

Growing demand for non-GMO

Schillinger sees increasing interest among farmers to grow non-GMO soybeans. "Farmers are looking at higher input costs with the Roundup Ready technology, and they will continually search for tools that will help their bottom line."

A big incentive to help farmers' bottom lines is attractive premiums paid to grow non-GMO soybeans.

In addition, Schillinger says more weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup herbicide, making weed control more difficult and expensive.

Schillinger expects farmers with small- to medium-sized farms to be especially attracted to growing non-GMO varieties.

eMerge is investing its future in non-GMO soybeans."We're investing in research to fill the need for non-GMO varieties that perform as well as GM and are offered at a good price," Schillinger says.

Schillinger sees a bright future for non-GMO soybeans. "I'm counting on it. There is a big enough market and opportunities in other countries, such as Japan, to help us succeed."

Benn urged to take tougher line on GM crops

Farmers Weekly Interactive [UK], 27 May 2009:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/05/27/115790/benn-urged-to-take-tougher-line-on-gm-crops.html

Organic farming groups have called on Westminster to follow the Welsh and Scottish governments in taking a strong stance against genetically modified crops.

Representatives of the Organic Trade Board and the Soil Association, along with 10 organic businesses, met DEFRA minister Hilary Benn in London last week to urge him to stop voting in favour of GMs at policy-making meetings in Brussels.

The groups condemned Mr Benn for voting to try and stop countries like Germany from banning Monsanto's GM maize - a decision taken by the German government after concerns were raised over the crop's environmental impact.

Mr Benn was asked to support the strong GM-free position adopted by the Scottish and Welsh governments.

And the organic lobby highlighted the proposal by the Welsh Assembly government to make GM companies liable for any damage their GM crops cause.

Mr Benn acknowledged the benefits of organic farming in terms of reducing emissions emissions. He also agreed to pass on a request to Prime Minister Gordon Brown to follow the lead set by White House staff in Washington where an organic garden has been established.

Soy irresponsible: WWF picketed by its peers

The Guardian (Eco Soundings) [UK], 27 September 2009. By John Vidal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/26/wwf-holland-soy

Last week, the WWF became, to the best of Eco Soundings' knowledge, the only international green group to have been picketed by other international environment groups.

The problem is the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), a talking shop that was set up a few years ago by the WWF to give companies, especially in Latin America, "the opportunity to jointly develop solutions leading to responsible soy production".

Ho-hum, say 60 environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth International, the Soil Association and Via Campesina, who say the RTRS is just greenwash - especially as it is about to vote to include GM soy as "sustainable". The environment groups from around the world are incensed.

"This GM soy is responsible for massive use of pesticides, as well as deforestation and driving small farmers from their lands", they say in response to the WWF's claim that it can exert more influence inside the RTRS than if it were to abandon the process.

To make the point, WWF Holland suffered the ignominy of being picketed last week by its peers for their controversial stand.

---

Comment from GM Watch:

For great pics of the weeping panda with the Monsanto ringmaster on its back, etc., see:
http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2009/05/59556.shtml

More pics and info in English at
http://www.corporateeurope.org/agrofuels/blog/nina/2009/05/19/action-wwf-against-responsible-soy

Take action: sign the petition against toxic soy:
http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/irresponsible.html

Public warned over "green soy" scam
• New standards for growing soy will destroy forests, livelihoods and the climate

Friends of the Earth International press release, 27 May 2009:

Campinas (Brazil), Brussels (Belgium) - A new initiative to re-brand the intensive and damaging farming of soy as "responsible" is nothing short of green-wash and will con the public, said Friends of the Earth International today.

The warning comes as the so-called Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) meets on 28 May in Campinas, Brazil to agree new voluntary standards on the cultivation of soy. Even environmentally-damaging genetically modified soy will be called "responsible". [1]

Over half of the world's soy is grown in South America and Europe is the largest importer. Nearly all soy is used as cheap animal feed but soy oil is increasingly being used as a biofuel. Its well-documented expansion in recent years has led to widespread deforestation, social conflicts, high pesticide use and huge releases of greenhouse gases. [See notes below for key soy facts]

Adrian Bebb from Friends of the Earth said:

"This scheme is nothing short of green-wash and should be abandoned. The standards they are developing will legitimise a devastating system of soy cultivation that is wiping out forests and destroying small farmer livelihoods for the benefit of a handful of very big landowners and multinational corporations. The only responsible soy is less soy."

"We need to tackle the real problems behind this damaging system such as over-consumption in industrialised countries and the inequitable distribution of resources like land and water. We urgently need real solutions that protect the environment and communities and promote food sovereignty over the interests of big business".

Friends of the Earth International claims that the RTRS is a green con because:

•

it will fail to stop the expansion of soy plantations which cause severe damage to communities, biodiversity and the climate. In doing so it promotes the interests of agri-business corporations which are expanding soy plantations and legitimizes their damaging industrial practices; [2]

•

it will not stop deforestation - soy grown on former forest and other unique ecosystems like savannahs, even if destroyed very recently, could be certified as "responsible" thus contributing to, rather than halting, deforestation;

•

genetically modified (GM) soy can be certified, even though there is clear evidence of how pesticide use increases with GM soy crops, and of damage to communities' health from spraying these chemicals;

•

small scale farmers, indigenous groups and civil society are largely excluded from the RTRS process and many oppose it;

•

consumers will be fooled into thinking food and fuel produced using "responsible" soy is helping the environment without realizing that the opposite is true, and that it is encouraging the expansion of GM crops in South America;

•

it is already being implicated in the attempted weakening of national laws on agrochemical use in Paraguay. RTRS criteria require compliance with national laws, but a new bill, introduced by allies of soy producers and other agribusiness companies, would weaken existing legislation making it easier to comply with [3].

To address climate change, global loss of biodiversity, human rights abuses, and to deal with the food price crisis, Friends of the Earth International is calling for:

•

reduced dependence on soy as an animal feed and a halt to the use of crops to produce biofuels;

•

increased political and financial support for greener forms of farming as recognized by the recently adopted UN International Agriculture Assessment; [4]

•

less and better meat consumption in industrialized countries which is good for the environment and for public health;

•

the scrapping of all biofuel targets that are contributing to the expansion of agriculture, wildlife loss and higher food prices;

•

sustainable and equitable farming policies that enable all regions and countries to feed themselves and their livestock and not be over-dependent on imports.

Over 80 organisations from around the world have signed up to a letter of critical opposition to the RTRS proposal. [4]

For more information contact:

Adrian Bebb - Friends of the Earth (Brussels/Europe)
+49 1609 490 1163 (mobile) adrian.bebb@foeurope.org

Clare Oxborrow - Friends of the Earth (London)
+44 20 7566 1716 (Direct) +44 7712 843211 (mobile) clare.oxborrow@foe.co.uk

Notes:

[1] See http://www.responsiblesoy.org final criteria are being published on 28 May. The latest draft (April 2009) can be obtained from Friends of the Earth.

[2] The main drivers behind the expansion of soy - agribusiness giants Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill and Bunge - are also very active players in the RTRS.

[3] The new Parguayan bill on the control of phytosanitary products for agricultural use would weaken clauses in existing legislation including the requirement to have a vegetation buffer between the sprayed crop area and neighbouring areas (which could be rivers, homes, or even schools) and the requirement to announce sprayings in advance in surrounding communities so that people can take action to protect themselves and keep their children at home.

[4] IAASTD - International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, under the auspices of the United Nations and the World Bank. The IAASTD is a scientific assessment, very similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which calls for more support for agro-ecological farming and traditional knowledge. 400 scientists and a wide array of difference stakeholders contributed to the 5 year assessment. Its conclusions have been signed up to by 58 governments (http://www.agassessment.org)

[5] http://www.bangmfood.org/take-action/23-take-action/36-letter-of-critical-opposition-to-the-round-table-on-responsible-soy

Key soy facts

Soy production in South America has more than doubled in the last 15 years. About 16% of the Amazon forests and 60% of the Cerrado grasslands have been lost already. After falling deforestation rates in 2007, the 2008 soy price boom fuelled an increase in deforestation, with more than 770,000 hectares of forest cleared between August 2007 and August 2008 alone. It is estimated that a further 9.6 million hectares of Cerrado could be lost to soy expansion by 2020 and 40% of Amazon rainforest by 2050.

Soy production for the European Union (EU) uses 14 million hectares of land, 87% of which is in Brazil and Argentina. Soy oil makes up an estimated 17% of the biodiesel used in the EU and this is set to increase.

Deforestation and livestock farming both account for about 18% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As a result of the expansion of soy the land area devoted to cultivating food crops in Argentina has reduced dramatically. The area used for the cultivation of rice has reduced by 44%, maize by 26%, wheat by 3% and sunflower 34%.

Thousands of smallholder farmers and indigenous communities have been displaced from their land to make way for soy plantations. In Paraguay 70 per cent of the land is owned by just 2 per cent of the country's landowners.

The majority of soy in Latin America is grown from Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) seed which tolerates their Roundup Ready herbicide, prompting growers to use even more intensive farming methods. Government data confirms that reliance on this technology has lead to the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds which in turn has resulted in increased quantities of the pesticide Roundup (glyphosate), as well as older and more damaging herbicides like 2,4-D (a component of the defoliant Agent Orange which was used in the Vietnam War).

In Brazil, government authorities have documented a 76.9% increase in the use of Roundup between 2000 when GM crops were first planted in the country, and 2005. In Argentina, the use of GM soy has resulted in one of the world's worst weeds, Johnsongrass, becoming resistant to Roundup. It is estimated that an additional 25 million litre of pesticides will be needed every year to deal with this problem, including the use of different more toxic pesticides.

The pesticide Roundup has become a major source of pollution that contaminates surface water and aquifers, threatens human health and kills other vegetation. Serious health risks have been reported from pesticides that build up in the food chain, and aerial spraying of pesticides by large farms and agri-businesses. Communities living near soy plantations report severe health problems including continuous headaches, skin rashes, stomach problems, increased rates of miscarriage and babies born with malformations.

26 May 2009

Change to Ecuador's GM laws "could allow suicide seeds"

SciDev.Net, 26 May 2009. By Tania Orbe:
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/change-to-ecuador-s-gm-laws-could-allow-suicide-se.html

QUITO, Ecuador - Moves by Ecuador's president to veto legislation covering genetically modified organisms could let controversial 'terminator' seeds into the country, campaigning groups claim.

Ecuador bans the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops but for more than a decade it has allowed imports of transgenic materials - particularly soybean and corn. There are no clear regulations about planting GM crops for research.

The interim Transitional Assembly approved a new law on food sovereignty earlier in the year (17 February). Article 26 of the law states that "raw materials containing transgenic inputs may only be imported and processed, provided they meet the requirements of health and safety, and their reproductive capacity is disabled by the breaking of grains".

Imported grains are 'broken' to avoid them germinating and mingling their genes with ordinary crops.

But on 19 March the president, Rafael Correa, proposed modifying the legislation, including deleting the term "by breaking of grains" so that the law no longer defines how the seeds' reproductive capacity is disabled. Whether this 'partial veto' is passed will depend on the National Assembly, which is due to be formed on 1 August following the recent general election.

Correa says that breaking the grains is expensive. But the ETC Group - a Canadian organisation that researches the socioeconomic impacts of new technologies - says that allowing alternative disabling of reproductive capacity could lead to accepting terminator seeds.

Terminator or 'suicide' seeds are modified so they can't reproduce in the second generation. The Convention on Biological Diversity has had a moratorium on them since 2000. Supporters say they stop farmers using seeds they haven't paid for and that their genes cannot spread to conventional crops, unlike other GM seeds. But critics say that terminator seeds will make poor farmers dependent on big companies for seeds.

The ETC group says that biotechnology companies have re-branded terminator technology as a 'biosafety' tool and that this is the interpretation the president's amended text reflects.

"We're worried that this kind of language is showing up in several countries in the global South and we see it as a new push by the biotech industry to overturn the moratorium on terminator [seeds] at the Convention on Biological Diversity's meeting next year in Japan," said Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group in a press release.

Elizabeth Bravo of AcciÛn EcolÛgica, an environmental nongovernmental organisation in Ecuador, said in a press release: "Unfortunately, the president's changes to the legislation reflect the influence of his biotech industry-friendly advisors ... We could face a worst case scenario: Ecuador enabling both GM contamination and suicide seeds. That is a direct threat to agricultural biodiversity, an essential basis for food sovereignty in Ecuador."

She added that this change to the law contradicts Ecuador's constitution, adopted in 2008 (see Ecuador: new constitution bans GMO and biotechnology), which declares Ecuador "free of GM crops and seeds", unless the president and National Assembly deem introducing GM crops and seeds is in the national interest.

Pro-GM advocacy group CropGen says assumptions that changing the wording will lead to terminator technology are unfounded. "Terminator in the sense implied has never been commercially developed and, indeed, some major seed producers have promised never to do so. It is unwarranted to jump to the conclusion that, because it is suggested that the breaking of grains is not necessary, a terminator mechanism must be implied," says Vivian Moses, CropGen's chairman.

Eduardo Murillo, director of biotechnology at Ecuador's National Institute of Agricultural Research, says that Ecuador is more exposed to dangers such as terminator seeds because of the lack of clear regulations governing GM material.

He says that risk analysis on a case-by-case basis should be carried out. Otherwise people could use GM crops illegally and with worse environmental consequences. "A country that knows is a country that can make decisions," he says.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment has convened academics, industrialists and consumers to prepare a National Biosafety Plan. Lourdes Torres, molecular biologist and member of the National Biosafety Committee, says this comes under the Cartagena Protocol that requires countries to establish legislation for transgenic control.

"I don't think anyone is sowing transgenic seeds in Ecuador. That's what the constitution prohibits literally but it doesn't explicitly preclude investigations and imports," she told SciDev.Net.

Vatican study endorses GMOs for food security

National Catholic Reporter, May 26 2009. By John L Allen Jr.:
http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/vatican-study-endorses-gmos-food-security

Rome - In what seemed largely a foregone conclusion, a May 15-19 study week on genetically modified organisms sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Sciences ended with a strong endorsement of GMOs as "praiseworthy for improving the lives of the poor," and promising "improved food safety and health benefits, better food security, and enhanced environmental performance in a sustainable manner."

Although the Pontifical Academy for Sciences is a prestigious Vatican body, it does not set official church teaching, and it remains unclear whether its conclusions will drive the Vatican toward a formal position on GMOs.

While a concluding document from the study week had not been released as NCR went to press, participants who characterized its content said its pro-GMO conclusions enjoyed "unanimous agreement" among the 41 experts from 17 countries who took part.

Organized by German scientist Ingo Potrykus, the inventor of "golden rice," the study week had beencriticized by anti-GMO activists for including only voices already convinced of the benefits of genetically modified crops. This is the second time that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has endorsed GMOs, following an initial report adopted in 2001 and published in 2004.

Critics charge that GMOs give excessive control over farming practices to large agribusiness corporations, and pose unknown risks to both the environment and human health.

In general, the aim of the academy's weeklong event seemed less to conduct an objective appraisal of GMOs than to mobilize public support, aiming to overcome what participants see as burdensome regulations and negative public images that sometimes stand in the way of the wider adoption of GMOs, especially in Europe and in parts of the developing world, above all Africa.

Participants told NCR that after the final conclusions from this study week are published, plans call for three other documents:

•

A set of short versions of the papers delivered at the study week, possibly including PowerPoint versions of the talks;

•

A book-length collection of expanded versions of the papers, which could be published by winter 2010;

•

A "white paper" laying out the major conclusions and recommendations of the study week, intended for broad public distribution.

"In light of eight years of experience with growing transgenic crops, many additional field trials, and many additional published research reports, the conference concluded that the scientific evidence is overwhelming that transgenic crops ... improve the lives of the poor and offer additional significant improvements in their lives in the years to come," said Drew Kershen of the University of Oklahoma, a professor of agricultural law at the University of Oklahoma and a study week participant.

The Academy for Sciences event drew fire from Catholic opponents of GMOs. Irish missionary and environmental writer Fr. Sean McDonagh, who organized a small demonstration in Rome on May 18 to protest the event, charged that its purpose was "to use the prestige of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, its good name, to beat governments so that you can reduce the minimal regulation that we have."

The demonstration near Rome's Piazza del Popolo featured a banner reading, "Pontifical Academy of Sciences, do not ally with those who, promoting GMOs, contribute to hunger in the world."

McDonagh objected that no Catholic critic of GMOs was invited.

"Who are the church's real experts in this area?" McDonagh said. "[They''e from] aid and development agencies, such as Misereor, Cafod and Caritas. [The academy] thought so little of the expertise in the Catholic church that they didn't invite a single person from any one of those agencies. ... What are they afraid of?"

It's a point that study week participants largely conceded.

"We didn't invite a bunch of naysayers to the table, who are convinced that GMOs don't work or who are going to make fallacious scientific arguments that have been rejected by the bulk of the scientific community and by the regulators who approved them," said Bruce Chassy, a food safety expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"This is not a 'balanced' meeting, in the sense that you bring every point of view to the table and seek some kind of idiotic consensus," Chassy said.

Though the position of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences seems clear, the broader Catholic debate over GMOs appears as yet unresolved.

Two months ago, the working paper for next October's Synod of Bishops for Africa appeared, containing critical language on GMOs. That document asserted that they risk "ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding, and making farmers dependent on production companies."

Coming Soon: GM Rice

Greenpeace International, 26 May 2009:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice/hands-off-our-rice

Watch the video: Stand up for your rice!

Rice is daily food for half of the world's population. Genetically modified (GM) rice, on the other hand, is a threat to our agriculture, our biodiversity and a possible risk to our health.

At present, GM rice is not grown commercially anywhere in the world. But Bayer, the German chemical giant, has genetically manipulated rice to withstand higher doses of a toxic pesticide called glufosinate, which is considered to be so dangerous to humans and the environment that it will soon be banned from Europe.

In just a few weeks, the European Union will decide whether or not this GM rice can enter EU countries, appear on supermarket shelves and end up on our dinner plates. If the EU approves the import of Bayer GM rice, farmers in the US and elsewhere may soon start planting it.

Sign the petition

We ask all governments around the world to protect consumers and farmers, their crops and fields by rejecting Bayer's GM rice, and to stop GM rice field trials.

122,339 signatures so far.

Yield of dreams

New Humanist magazine, May / June 2009. By Angela Salini:
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2040

Come with me into the strange world of genetic modification, where food doesn't behave as you might expect. Roll up, roll up. Here is the golden rice with the nutritional benefits of carrots. Over there, the purple cancer-preventing tomato. Coming soon, once field trials in Nigeria are complete, the super cassava, an entire meal in a single root vegetable. In a decade or so we can all enjoy protein-rich cotton seeds, from the same plant that provides the fibres for your clothes.

But if the anti-GM lobby is to be believed, these crops are nothing less than deadly freaks of science - frankenfoods. From his home in Barnsley, Pete Riley runs an organisation called GM Freeze, which for ten years has successfully campaigned to keep GM food almost entirely off British shelves. "There's certainly no pressure on retailers to start restocking GM," he told me. "The industry has failed to put up a convincing case to the public and people remain very sceptical." His high-profile supporters include the international NGO Action Aid and The Soil Association. The UK Green Party also backs a ban on the production and import of GM food.

A March 2009 report by the UK Food Standards Agency confirmed that the public is often willing to pay a premium to avoid products containing GM, believing them to be risky and unhealthy, despite the fact that "the majority of people in the UK, Australia and the USA give incorrect explanations or state that they do not know enough to explain GM to another person."

As food prices rise and crop yields plateau, scientists and farmers are becoming exasperated with the public's self-imposed moratorium. "It would be foolish to turn our backs on GM technology when it could be a useful tool in ensuring food security and improving nutrition," I was told by Zoe Dunford from the John Innes Centre, one of Europe's leading plant science institutes, which is developing the purple-coloured tomato, rich in an antioxidant that could help prevent cancer. She is among thousands of GM supporters appealing to the public to examine the real science and look at the harsh economics.

Wheat prices rose by 600 per cent between 2007 and 2008, and the three years to 2008 saw the price of rice soar by 800 per cent, plunging 36 countries into a food crisis last summer, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. The shock has forced governments to accept that no one can any longer take a meal for granted. GM crops have the potential to be agricultural heroes, yet instead of embracing them, scaremongering and twisted facts have turned transgenic crops into the X-Men of the food world - misunderstood and vilified, when they could be helping us.

If this antipathy were rational, then it might be universal. But every nation has historically found itself firmly on one side of the ideological divide, either embracing genetic modification or banning it wholesale. The United States, for example, is the world's most GM-friendly place, growing modified crops on nearly 60 million hectares of land. According to Department of Agriculture statistics from June 2008, almost every soybean grown the US is a GM variety - and likely to be found in such American family favourites as Hershey's chocolate bar and the beloved crËme-filled Twinkie.

Asia has also invested heavily in GM. In India, where farmers grew 31 million bales of modified cotton last year, the government is soon likely to approve a GM aubergine. China, which also grows large amounts of GM cotton, is planning to introduce domestically-developed varieties of GM rice. Research in both these countries, as well as South Africa and the Philippines, shows that biotech crops have increased incomes by between £80 and £170 for every hectare on which they are grown, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).

In the decade from 1996, the ISAAA reports that biotech crops saved farmers from using 359,000 tonnes of pesticides worldwide. In all, the 25 countries that permit GM crops are now growing them commercially on an area of land equivalent to five times the size of the UK.

But nearer home the total remains zero. While our American and Asian neighbours munch away on GM cuisine, only one crop is allowed inside the European Union - a strain of insect-resistant maize known as Mon810 - and only seven countries grow it. Since 1997, GM foods have also been strictly labelled, which means, bizarrely, if you were to visit New York as a tourist it is likely that you would eat GM food daily without even realising it, and yet in London you cannot even buy a tin of GM tomatoes without a warning label.

"GM crops are a perfect example of a scientific uncertainty," explained Dr Duncan French, an expert in environmental law at the University of Sheffield. "They could have great economic and social benefits, but they also carry some risks." Until now, these risks have allowed European governments to adopt the precautionary principle; avoiding the GM dilemma in the happy knowledge that food grown by conventional means would not run out. Their dismal failure to inform people about GM crops has given green groups and biotech corporations the chance to hijack the agenda, leaving consumers with the impression that the science is far more controversial than it really is.

The Royal Society stated back in 2003 that there is no evidence that GM foods are inherently less safe than non-GM foods. Most experts will tell you: Yes, GM foods can offer nutritional benefits and better yields than existing crops. But, no, we don't know whether a new modified crop is completely safe until it is tested, in the same way as scientists cannot predict how any new plant variety will interact with the environment or with our bodies without carrying out research.

GM crops are developed by slightly changing a plant's DNA, which is the genetic material that defines its function. Gene splicing, as it is known, takes a gene from the DNA of one organism and puts it in another. Golden rice, for example, was created by inserting two genes that help the grain produce and keep extra amounts of beta-carotene, which is a form of Vitamin A most commonly found in carrots. Since all these genes exist naturally, there is no reason why modified plant DNA would pose extra risk to our bodies, especially since the bulk of it is broken down in our stomachs anyway.

All GM crops grown commercially have been tested to ensure they are safe. Nevertheless, green activists and consumer groups have so successfully exploited pseudoscientific myths that they are now routinely referred to as "frankenfoods". Some have even managed to launch a campaign in favour of GM labelling in the United States, whipping up fear where little existed before - a recent Soil Association report celebrated a "growing consumer rejection of GM foods in America".

Jeff Rooker, former Food and Farming Minister, went so far as to warn a Labour Party conference fringe meeting last autumn that anti-GM groups "are on a messianic mission, it is like a religion, but there is no science base to it." But that is not to say that these activists don't sometimes have a point. For example, when I asked Friends of the Earth's food campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, what her alternatives to GM would be, some of her ideas made good sense - rearing meat is inefficient, so it would help food supplies if countries were to shift the balance towards more vegetables and cereals. But there are few other ideas that are workable on the kind of scale that is needed to feed the world. "We would support more localised systems of agriculture," Oxborrow told me, suggesting that farmers in the developing world should revert to subsistence farming.

On the other side of the debate, defensive biotech companies have spent millions on vigorously slick PR campaigns that have done little more than leave the public more frightened. In 2005, Monsanto, the world's largest food biotechnology company, was fined almost £800,000 for bribing an Indonesian official to prevent an environmental study on one of its crops. The firm has been widely accused of heavy-handed patent enforcement and intimidation.

Occupying the rational middle ground, meanwhile, are scientists and farmers with the argument that, while GM is not a panacea, it could help raise yields and improve the nutritional value of what we eat. Such is the desire for more productive plants that a farmer in Wales recently admitted that he had been growing two varieties of modified maize, in defiance of a Welsh Assembly Government vote to keep the country GM-free.

According to Andrew Clark from the National Farmers' Union, Europe's GM policy is making it harder for farmers to compete in global markets. "It's virtually impossible in the rest of the world to guarantee zero GM contamination, particularly in soya and maize. Increasingly this is becoming an economic concern, for example, for European livestock farmers who can't buy animal feed."

"Farmers seem to have been left out of the debate," added Prof Andy Lane from the Open University. In 2008, he surveyed 30 large-scale commodity crop farmers and found them generally supportive of GM. "Those we interviewed thought GM crops had something to offer. For them, because they had been involved in whole swathes of new technologies and plant varieties, they didn't see GM as significantly different from traditional plant breeding."

After all, before food entered the laboratory, farmers tinkered with crops and animal breeds for generations, to the point where many no longer resemble wild varieties. The common carrot, for example, used to be yellow until Dutch horticulturalists in the 17th century, keen to create a vegetable to match their royal banner, crossed generations of carrots until they had bred a bright orange one. Genetic engineering represents just another technological step in the journey of our food.

But hunger, rather than science, may be what changes minds in the end. Ravaged by last year's food shortages, Africa, which has traditionally been hostile to GM crops, has now slowly begun to accept their benefits. In February, Kenya became the fourth African country to allow the production and use of GM crops, and researchers in Cape Town are now working on a type of maize that is resistant to the deadly maize streak virus. Maybe even Europe will start to find golden rice and purple tomatoes more appetising, when the alternative is no food at all.

Read the Soil Association's response to this piece [see below]

Bad Dream
• Contrary to what Angela Saini argues, there are few demonstrable benefits from genetic modification of crops, and huge potential risks, says Emma Hockridge of the Soil Association

New Humanist, May / June 2009. By Emma Hockridge:
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2080

This is a response by the Soil Association to Angela Saini's piece on GM food from the May/June 2009 issue of New Humanist [see above]

The claims made by the pro-GM lobby with regard to the potential future benefits of these crops are in fact pipe dreams ('Yield of dreams', May/June 2009). The industry has been claiming all kinds of potential advantages for years without following through these promises.

The pro-GM industry are the ones "twisting facts", lulling us into believing that this unsafe and inherently risky technology will solve all our problems, when the facts do not bear this out. GM crops do not produce higher yields, use fewer pesticides, or do anything to assist people in developing countries.

In farmers' fields in India, GM cotton has not increased yields and has sometimes failed - with catastrophic consequences. But cotton is not a food crop, and its seeds are very expensive. There have been an an estimated 125,000 farmer suicides related to crippling debt, something that studies have shown is exacerbated by the expensive GM seeds.

There is no evidence to support claims that GM crops have made food cheaper. Most GM crops are produced for animal feed - or, in countries with no GM labelling laws - highly processed food, neither of which is affordable for poor farmers and communities.

The supposed "anti-cancer tomato" has been widely derided, for example by the NHS which said that these claims are not actually based on benefits seen in humans, but rather from a small-scale study of mice that were given an extract of genetically modified tomatoes, and that the small sample sizes used mean the results may have occurred by chance. Cancer Research UK also says that this study makes the assumption that the increased levels of antioxidants produced in the tomatoes are a good thing, which may well not be the case. The antioxidant is already found aplenty in cranberries, cherries, plums and even existing heritage varieties of purple tomatoes which have not taken huge amounts of research money to produce.

None of the GM crops on the market are modified for increased yield potential, as even the US Department of Agriculture admits. And research continues to focus on new pesticide-promoting varieties that tolerate application of one or more herbicides. The main factors influencing crop yield are weather, irrigation and fertilisers, soil quality and farmers' management skills.

The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready (glyphosate-tolerant) crops in the US has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on soybeans, maize and cotton. Increasing glyphosate use has driven an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which in turn has led to rising use of other herbicides to control them, such as the 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange).

The current industrial agricultural system (of which GM is a part) is wholly reliant on oil- and gas-intensive inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, with input from hundreds of scientists from all over the world, recognises that the challenges farming now faces are those of the increasing scarcity and price of oil and the need to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from farming (primarily nitrous oxide) by 80 per cent by 2050. As with energy production, the future of food production lies in systems which take nitrogen from the air to fertilise crops using energy from the Sun, as with organic farming, rather than burning up increasingly scarce oil and natural gas. Peer-reviewed scientific research continues to show that these sustainable farming systems will increase food production in developing counties, and will provide us with slightly more food than we currently produce.

Plant gene session to assess funding options

FoodNavigator.com, 26 May 2009:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Plant-gene-session-to-assess-funding-options/?c=4UZvOL3vyw1n6ym1MGsD9g%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

Plant genetics experts are poised to take part in a meeting on strengthening the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture next month.

Third Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture takes place in Tunis from 1 to 5 June. Discussions will include ways to bring more funding on board for plant genetic projects and programmes, especially for the benefit of farmers in developing and transition countries.

The treaty, signed in 2004, is a multilateral framework for accessing genetic resources and sharing benefits, improving conservation and aiding sustainability.

The world's plant gene pool can be "raw materials" to help breeders develop new varieties of plants that can stand up to pest and climate threats, and improve diets.

UK: Environment Minister on GM food and organic garden

Organic-Market.info / Soil Association, 26 May 2009:
http://www.organic-market.info/web/News_in_brief/Other_Topics/UK/176/200/0/5693.html

At a meeting, representatives of organic businesses, the Organic Trade Board and the Soil Association told Hilary Benn that the UK government should stop voting a consistently pro-GM ticket in the European Union. The organic companies told Hilary Benn that the UK government should support the strong GM free position adopted by the Scottish and Welsh governments in particular the proposal by the Welsh Assembly Government to make GM companies liable for any damage their GM crops cause. The organic businesses said that it was outrageous that GM crops had been introduced without any proper research into their health impacts.

Hilary Benn agreed that claiming there was "no evidence that they are not safe", as he did in the meeting, is not the same as saying that there was evidence that GM crops were safe. He was urged to support more long term research into the health effects of GM food as the Austrian Government had done recently, resulting in research that led the scientists in charge to express concern and call for more research into the safety of GM food.

The secretary of state emphasised his commitment to supporting organic food, and acknowledged the benefits of organic farming and food in terms of reducing GHG emissions and said that all of us would have to eat more seasonal food; he wanted to see more people growing their own food. In response the organic companies asked him to follow the lead set by Michelle Obama, who has set up an organic vegetable garden in the grounds of the White house. Hilary Benn then agreed to pass on a request to Gordon Brown to start to grow some organic fruit and vegetables in the garden of 10 Downing Street. Hilary Benn agreed to a further meeting to discuss the possible contribution that organic food and farming will increasingly play in future.

25 May 2009

Five cents more for Rottal dairy farmers
• Rotthalmünster dairy belongs to Austrian group and pays farmers the neighbouring country's higher milk price

Passauer Neuer Presse (Bavaria, Germany), 25 May 2009. Original article in German:
http://www.pnp.de/nachrichten/artikel.php?cid=29-24161650&Ressort=bay&Ausgabe=&RessLang=bay&BNR=0

[This is a selective summary translation by TraceConsult™ and GM-free Ireland:]

Rotthalmünster, Bavaria -- While 6,000 dairy farmers protest in front of Angela Merkel's Chancery in Berlin, a solution to compensate for the cut-throat milk prices is found in Bavaria.

Like their colleagues all over Germany, Bavarian dairy farmers have been suffering from extremely low prices for the milk they supply to the dairy processors. In fact, many farmers have been producing at negative margins for months now, meaning they can count the weeks until they go bankrupt.

Dairy farmers at the Rottal [Red Valley] cooperative have now unanimously accepted the [higher] milk price on offer from neighboring Austria. Members of the local Rottal dairy collaborate with the Austrian Berglandmilch [Mountain Milk] Group across the border. Entitled since 1999 to receive the Bavarian milk price for their product, they have now voted to accept the one condition for the Austrian price which is five cents higher: the use of GMO-free soy meal in their cows' feed rations. This means the farmers pay a premium of 25 euros per metric ton of soy meal, but the higher milk price they receive allows them to make a profit.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

Austria and Germany are the pioneers among EU Member States when it comes to regulating the details of making a positive GM-free claim for food thus produced - and this specifically includes animal products that are exempt from the mandatory GMO labeling prescribed by EU Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003. Other national governments in the EU are preparing similar regulations regarding such a claim.

What one country calls "gentechnikfrei hergestellt" [produced free of biotechnology] reads "ohne Gentechnik" [without biotechnology] across the border, but the result is the same: Shoppers have a chance to distinguish between products in their local supermarket - and shop according to their preference.

Doctors' group calls for moratorium on genetically modified foods

Detroit Alternative Medicide Examiner [USA], 25 May 2009. By Vickie Jackson:
http://www.examiner.com/x-7281-Detroit-Alternative-Medicine-Examiner~y2009m5d25-Doctors-group-calls-for-moratorium-on-genetically-modified-foods

In a press release issued on May 19, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine released a position paper calling for a moratorium on genetically modified foods. These foods--primarily corn, soy, canola and cotton, most of which are used in production of oils and animal feed--are linked, they claim, to mutagenic and other undesirable effects in not only the plants themselves but in those consuming them. Citing a lack of long term study of the modified plants (often referred to as GMO, or genetically modified organisms), the doctors of this organization want the food and agricultural industries to further study the impact of genetic engineering on the internal organs, reproduction, and disease resistance of animals fed such foods.

Another matter of concern in regard to GMO is the aspect of farmers' rights to use seed from their crops. In many third world nations agriculture depends on this practice. When crops are the result of genetically engineered seeds, however, the company issuing the seeds has control over them as an intellectual property. They ensure the seeds are sterile, thus necessitating the purchase by farmers of more seed annually. This defeats the purpose hoped for by those who believe GMO crops will help feed hungry nations. In fact it further impoverishes farmers who simply cannot afford to keep buying seed every year. In an article on food safety by the World Health Organization--"20 Questions on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods"-- this concept was part of twenty questions that arise from the practice of genetically altering food crop seeds:

Q17. Are there implications for the rights of farmers to own their crops?

Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. Intellectual property rights (IPRs), especially patenting obligations of the TRIPS Agreement (an agreement under the World Trade Organization concerning trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) have been discussed in the light of their consequences on the further availability of a diversity of crops. In the context of the related subject of the use of gene technology in medicine, WHO has reviewed the conflict between IPRs and an equal access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits. The review has considered potential problems of monopolization and doubts about new patent regulations in the field of genetic sequences in human medicine. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.

Hopefully this suggested moratorium will get attention from the government, particularly the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture. Before the food industry goes any further with genetic alteration, there are a lot of issues that need to be settled to the satisfaction of both the farmers and consumers.

For the entire position paper by the AAEM, see:
http://aaemonline.org./gmopost.html (paper)

For the WHO article, "20 Questions on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods", see:
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html

New GMO marking to appear on food products beginning from July 1

MIGnews.com (Ukraine), 25 May 2009:
http://mignews.com.ua/en/categ386/articles/354069.html

The food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO) are to be marked beginning from July 1, is said in the Cabinet's decree of May 13 2009.

The Cabinet enacted a decree and approved the Food Products Labeling Regulations containing genetically modified organisms or produced using the GMO. It relates to the food products with concentration of the GMO amounting to more than 0,1 percent, ForUm reports.

The decree will come into effect beginning from July 1 2009.

Breeding vs. genetic engineering: Debating the best approach for livestock
• Debate heats up over whether selective breeding is more effective than genetic engineering when it comes to improving livestock

CBC News, 25 May 2009. Science Friction. By Stephen Strauss:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/22/f-stephen-strauss-genomics-genetic-engineering-farm-animals.html

Last year Stuart Brand, principal author of the back-to-the-land, simplicity-is-god, do-it-yourself, hippie bible known as The Whole Earth Catalogue, opined about the irreversibility of technological progress. "Good old stuff sucks. Sticking with the fine old whatevers is like wearing 100 per cent cotton in the mountains; it's just stupid," he said.

Brand - who was also one of the promoters of the mind-changing powers of LSD - then urged the truly smart modern citizen to buy the latest laptop, the newest drug and "genetically modified food [from a farmers' market, preferably]."

I mention this remark both because it captures the absolutism that has characterized the debates over genetically modified food, and because of something quite surprising. Without most of the public being aware of it, geneticists have begun to believe that disdain for the "good old stuff" when it comes to traditional livestock food production is somewhere between chuckleheaded and - incredible as it sounds - a technological backward step.

Without resorting to any genetic engineering whatsoever, "it looks like we can increase breeding efficiency in the dairy cow by 50 per cent," is how Graham Plastow, a University of Alberta professor and director of the Alberta Bovine Genomics Program, quantifies the potential for change in one animal. "We can use the new techniques of genomics selection and marker-assisted selection in breeding better animals, and in so doing we can avoid making transgenic animals - at least into the foreseeable future," adds Max Rothschild, director of the Center for Integrated Animal Genomics at Iowa State University (he's also the U.S. coordinator for the mapping of the pig genome).

The 'genetic wall'

What has happened is that perhaps the greatest anxiety of modern livestock production, the fear that we are about to hit a genetic wall when it comes to improving animals through selective breeding, has been fading if not quite disappearing.

To understand the "genetic wall" fear, you have to appreciate that what we have done in the past 50 years in terms of livestock improvement sounds not like Darwinian evolution, but daily, monthly, yearly revolution.

"The amount of fat in a pig is probably down 60 per cent from what it was 40 years ago - maybe more. Feed efficiencies are up by about 20 to 25 per cent; growth rates show 20 to 25 per cent improvements," says Rothschild. "Also keep in mind reducing fat content and increasing growth rate are antagonistically correlated, so what we see is truly amazing."

But then it turns out it is not just pigs that in the last few decade or so have been turned into super animals. It took 85 days of growth in 1957 for a chicken to reach the same size that it did in 43 days in 2001.

Every year the average production of milk in a cow increases by two per cent. To put this in context, estimates are that the wild cow ancestors produced somewhere between 400 and 500 pounds of milk a year. (There are approximately 2.27 pounds of milk to a litre). That has risen to what Jacques Chesnais, senior geneticist at The Semex Alliance, a Canadian artificial insemination company, says is 24,000 pounds a year. And in 1998, a U.S.-bred cow named Lucy produced 75,275 pounds of milk in a single year.

While some of this improvement has come from improved animal feeds - Rothschild points out that you need to provide cattle with amino acids if you want more muscled meat - much of it also has come from a more "scientific" mating of animals with desirable features.

However, given the forecasts that human population would hit nine billion before the end of the century and UN projections which suggest that between 1983 and 2020 world meat demand will have jumped 2? times, the revolution in livestock improvement had to continue to prevent humans from going hungry. And how could they do that without genetic engineering if we had effectively gone as far as we could with the breed-animals-with-desirable-traits technique farmers had been using since domestication began about 10,000 years ago?

Selective breeding

The first answer is that we now know we haven't gotten anywhere near to having exhausted the possibilities of improving animals through traditional selective breeding techniques.

Harris Lewin, director of the Institute for Genomic Biology at the University of Illinois who wrote a recent comment piece in Science magazine about what the sequencing of the cow genome means, points out that even after the seemingly intense genetic pressures of modern selective breeding, "cows remain more genetically diverse than humans." Only about five or six per cent of their 22,000 genes give an indication of having been selected by humans.

Moreover, few operations in a body are controlled by just a single gene. So to increase milk production, you might have to move dozens of genes from other creatures into farm animals. And the effect of these genes would not be just on milk production but on many other processes, since we now know that genes produce proteins which participate in the regulation of various operations in the body.

Ergo you have to worry that selecting for one gene or set of genes could unintentionally throw off some other system in an animal's body.

To date, the only way you can be certain you are getting an animal which has a variety of beneficial traits is by using traditional breeding techniques. And even that process remains so complex that, "the biggest boost in production is by mixing genes - that is, through cross-breeding," says Lewin.

But maybe the most profound change for traditional breeding is that new genomic tests now can identify specific gene-based traits in individual animals.

Today, every bull selected by Semex is first tested with a genomic panel that contains 50,000 genetic markers. Based on the results, a "genomic evaluation" is computed for each bull and trait, and only those with superior genomic evaluations are used to sire the next generation.

With this in mind, Australian scientists have estimated that because we can look at a cow's genome and see what traits it is carrying, as opposed to waiting until the animal matures, we can knock five years off the time it takes for a better animal to make it to market.

Selective breeding vs. genetic engineering

So where does this leave us when it comes to the politics of genetically engineering animals? (Note I have purposely removed plants from my conclusions.)

I think the best way to understand where we stand is by imagining scientists had found the reverse set of principles at work in animal genomes. Imagine that we could see we were almost at the end of the line in terms of improving species through classical breeding. Imagine we had learned that if we just added a gene from this animal or a gene from that bacterium, we could ramp milk production up tremendously without any other effect.

If that was the case, I think people who were dead against genetically modified livestock would have to accept that that meant they were either for more people going hungry as world population grew or their opposition to GM food would have to soften.

Only today anti-GM people don't have to change their views, because modern genomics is telling us the old way of creating more productive animals doesn't suck - at least for the foreseeable future - and genetic engineering (at least as far as we understand it) generally does. It is a truth, which if he knew it, Stuart Brand might find not only didn't suck but was positively psychedelic.

Researchers looking to field-test GMO grape variety

Agri News Online, 25 May 2009. By Nat Williams:
http://www.agrinews-pubs.com/articles/farm-family-life/farm-family-life/default.asp?Article=5DCEE1ADE7C48D4F72615A6AD5DEFC6B8FB1E4DE7805B302

URBANA, Ill. - Grape growers who have had problems with 2,4-D damage have a potential savior in a genetically modified variety developed at the University of Illinois.

U of I researchers have successfully produced grapes resistant to 2,4-D, but hurdles remain as to whether it may be grown commercially.

"I'm hoping we can field-test it this year, but probably not," said Robert Skirvin, who has grown plants in a university greenhouse that have produced fruit. "The plants are in cold storage."

The plant - developed from standard Chancellor variety grapes - was produced by injection of a gene found in a soil organism discovered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that breaks down the popular broadleaf herbicide, used widely across the United States.

While not a major problem, damage from 2,4-D drift can cause major problems in isolated areas. Grapes are extremely sensitive to the herbicide, according to Elizabeth Wahle, a U of I Extension horticulture educator.

"I probably get three to four calls every year from growers reporting injury," Wahle said. "Some are serious enough that they have to call the Illinois Department of Agriculture and have an inspector look at it."

Skirvin said one vineyard near Nauvoo was hit so hard by 2,4-D drift that the grower was forced to destroy many vines.

"In one vineyard a guy showed us a stack of dead grape plants," he said. "There were several hundred, stacked up like firewood."

Wahle emphasized that damage can often be prevented by communication between vintners and farmers or other neighbors.

And Skirvin noted that Hancock County grape producers and row crop farmers have a "gentlemen's agreement" in which the chemical is not used near grapes.

But the extreme sensitivity of grape plants to 2,4-D and the tendency of the herbicide to drift long distances concern vintners.

"It can drift for a mile or two, and some people say up to 50 miles," Skirvin said. "And grapes are so sensitive to 2, 4-D that they can be killed by one one-hundredth of the amount put on corn."

In addition, the herbicide is widely used not only on farms, but at golf courses, private residences and utility rights-of-way.

"It's put on roadways, power lines and along railroad tracks," Skirvin said. "You can walk along a railroad track and smell 2, 4-D."

The GMO grape variety has been shown to withstand massive amounts of the herbicide without damage to the plant.

"You can spray 20 times the amount used on corn directly on one of these grape plants, and there is very little response," Skirvin said. "The leaf curls a bit, but comes back."

He is hoping to get permission to grow the resistant grape plants on a section of a university farm that is separated from other plots.

The growth of the grape and wine industry in Illinois increases the chances of damage from herbicide drift. But Wahle pointed out that 2,4-D is not the only culprit. Roundup can cause similar damage, but doesn't move as far, she said.

And researchers acknowledge that growing the GMO grape successfully is not the only hurdle they face.

"There will always be the question: Does the transformation affect wine quality?" Wahle said. "And there's always the public perception."

Indeed, winemakers producing wines using genetically modified grapes may be forced to label them that way.

"Probably, the customer would want to know that," Skirvin said. "There would probably be a label."

And he admits that while grapes produced from the plants in the U of I greenhouse have been checked for characteristics such as pH levels, he hasn't eaten one.

Europe's Uprising Against GMOs and Patents on Life
• The unstoppable groundswell of opposition to GMOs in Europe

Institute of Science in Society, 25 May 2009. By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/EuropesUprisingAgainstGMOs.php

The recent call for a moratorium on GMOs in Europe [1] (see Europe Holds the Key to a GM-Free World, 5th Conference of GM-Free Regions, Food & Democracy, SiS 43) reflects an unstoppable groundswell of opposition to GMOs from both European citizens and governments.

An online poll [2] on the question: "Should GMOs be banned in Europe?" conducted in April 2009 returned a 79 percent yes, 18 percent no and 3 percent don't know. Days earlier, Germany outlawed the cultivation of Monsanto's GM maize MON810, a surprising move that delighted campaigners. Germany became the sixth EU country to introduce a provisional ban on the GM maize, after France, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg and Greece [3]. A source close to the EC said the German ban might bring a revision of the European legislation on GM crops. Germany also voted with the majority in March when the European Commission (EC) attempted to force Austria and Hungary to reverse their bans, and its ruling was overturned by a big majority [1].

Ban by Germany the tipping point

Germany's move was broadly welcomed by its news media [4]. German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said she had legitimate reasons to believe that MON 810, posed "a danger to the environment," a position which she said the Environment Ministry also supported. Aigner is taking advantage of a clause in EU law which allows individual countries to impose such bans. The left-wing Frankfurter Rundschau wrote: "Genetically modified corn is a risk to our environment, is totally superfluous in farming, represents industrial agriculture, causes pointless costs to food production in Germany and can even ruin beekeepers." The left-wing Berliner Zeitung wroes: "The new studies don't show any new risks - they simply prove that the old warning about the risks was justified. It's a scandal that the subsequent ban was even necessary because the farming of genetically modified plants had been permitted without a thorough examination of all the possible dangers."

Germany, the most populous country in the European Union (EU) ranking fourth in land area, is also its most influential and economically powerful member nation. Monsanto applied for an emergency ruling to overturn the ban to allow for its 2009 planting [5], saying its ban is arbitrary and goes against EU regulations.

But the court in Braunschweig in north Germany rejected Monsanto's application [6]. Significantly, a statement from the court said Germany's law on GMOs does not require that a ban on a new plant variety is justified by proven scientific research which showed without doubt the crop to be dangerous; it was sufficient when research showed there were indications that the crop could be dangerous.

Opposition strengthened by the eastern block

As countries from the former eastern block joined the European Union (EU), the US had expected them to help counter the opposition to GMOs, but far from it. The newer members have added strength to the GM opposition, often in direct defiance of Brussels.

In April the European Commission sent a letter to Bulgaria warning over its failure to implement the European Directive for GMO in its legislation, as reported in the Klasa Daily [7]. This was the sixth official warning to Bulgaria for not following regulations. Experts commented that the current Bulgarian legislation is much more restrictive compared to European regulation. Bulgaria supported Hungary's decision to keep the ban.

No patents on animals and plants

Meanwhile, more than a thousand farmers demonstrated against patents on animals and plants at the European Patent Office in Munich 15 April 2009 [8]. Over 5 000 people and some 50 organisations have filed a joint opposition to a patent on breeding pigs originally registered by the US corporation Monsanto. Protestors want all patents on life to be prohibited by law.

Rudolf Buehler from the Schwaebisch Hall farmers' Association led a herd of its traditional breeding pigs to the patent office. He said: "Corporations like Monsanto want control over agriculture and food, from piglets to cutlets."

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

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

References

1. Ho MW. Europe holds the key to a GM-free world; 5th Conference of GM-free regions, food and democracy. Science in Society 43 (to appear).

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

3. "EU to 'reflect' on Germany's GM maize ban", EU Business, 15 April 2009, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1239807722.48

4. "The world from Berlin: 'There was no reason to accept the risks of GM corn'" Spiegel Online 15 April 2009, http://www.congoo.com/news/2009April15/World-Berlin-Reason-Accept-Risks

5. "Monsanto sues Germany over GM corn ban", DW-World.DE, 22 April 2009, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4196705,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

6. "German court rejects Monsanto plea to end GMO maize ban" Reuters, May 5 2009 http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKL558166220090505?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

7. "Brussels makes a sixth warning over environment" FOCUS News Agency, 11 May 2009 http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n180607

8. "Farmers demonstrate in Munich against patents on animals and plants", No Patents on Seeds, 15 April 2009 http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=28&lang=en

23 May 2009

Will This Lawsuit End Gene Patenting?

Change.org, 23 May 2009:
http://food.change.org/blog/view/will_this_lawsuit_end_gene_patenting

Leslie Madsen Brooks writing at BlogHer http://www.blogher.com/will-breast-cancer-gene-lawsuit-end-gene-patenting wants to know if the end is near for gene patenting:

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union joined the Association for Molecular Pathology, the American College of Medical Genetics, the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, and numerous other plaintiffs--including individual breast cancer patients--in filing a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, the U.S. Patent Office, and the directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation. Myriad Genetics has patents in the U.S. for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, the presence of which has been linked to an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer.

The suit alleges that such gene patenting is unconstitutional, in large part because "ease of access to genomic discoveries is crucial if basic research is to be expeditiously translated into clinical laboratory tests that benefit patients in the emerging era of personalized and predictive medicine," and such patents restrict the use of the genes. ...

I have three knee-jerk reactions to that ... No. It seems very unlikely. When pigs fly.

If the basic right to patent genes is thrown out, as it had bloody well ought to be, Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer and all the rest will lose their iron grip on the genetically modified seeds that are their ticket to banking-industry-like fees and higher pesticide sales. I know patent law is theoretically about the public good, but come on.

Patent law, like virtually all else, is about securing the ongoing right to profit for people already making massive profits. That's one of the greatest goods our legislative and judicial system recognize.

We have figured out by now that hardly anyone in government believes all that civics class stuff, right?

---

Note: see related article "Why Gene Patents are Unlawful" under 22 May below.

How common are genetically modified organisms (GMO's) in food?

Food Democracy, 23 May 2009:
http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/how-common-are-genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-in-food/

According to the USDA, in 2007, 91% of soy, 87% of cotton, and 73% of corn grown in the U.S. were GMO. Starting in 2008, virtually all of the U.S. sugar beet crop is GMO, and it is estimated that over 75% of canola [oilseed rape] grown is GMO. There are also commercially produced GM varieties of squash and Hawaiian Papaya. As a result, it is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 80% of packaged products in the average U.S. or Canadian grocery store.

See also:

•

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Food
http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/50-harmful-effects-of-genetically-engineered-ge-genetically-modified-gm-food/

•

GMO FAQ's: http://www.nongmoproject.org/about/gmo-faqs/

22 May 2009

Why Gene Patents Are Unlawful

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Blog of Rights. By Selene Kaye, Advocacy Coordinator, ACLU Women's Rights Project and Sandra Park, Staff Attorney, ACLU Women's Rights Project, 22 May 2009:
http://blog.aclu.org/2009/05/22/why-gene-patents-are-unlawful/

Originally posted on ACS (American Constitution Society) Blog http://www.acslaw.org/node/13457

Last week the ACLU http://www.aclu.org/ and the Public Patent Foundation http://www.pubpat.org/ filed a lawsuit http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/brca.html challenging the U.S. government's practice of granting patents on human genes - specifically, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. In the last 20 or so years the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has issued patents on thousands of human genes link - the segments of DNA that we all have in our cells - giving private corporations, individuals, and universities the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences and their usage.

The patents on the BRCA genes http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/39556res20090512.html#02 are particularly broad and offensive. The PTO has granted Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, patents on both the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic sequences, on any mutations along those genes, on any methods for locating mutations on the genes, without further specification on the type of methods, and on correlations between genetic mutations and susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.

The lawsuit charges, as critics of gene patents have argued for years, that gene patents stifle biomedical research and interfere with patients' access to genetic testing. The lawsuit argues that the patents on the BRCA genes are unconstitutional and invalid given the long-standing legal precedent that "products of nature" and "laws of nature" are not patentable. The suit also makes the novel argument that the practice of patenting genes, their correlations with disease, and the thought of comparing two genes violates the First Amendment and interferes with scientific freedom.

To be clear, the patent claims being challenged do in fact include claims on the genes themselves. For example, the text of Patent 5,747,282, Claim 1 reads:

What is claimed is:

•

1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.

Translation: Claim 1 covers the BRCA1 genetic sequence, specifically the wild-type, or what is considered typical, sequence. Because the PTO grants patents on the genes themselves, it essentially gives patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. Anyone who uses a patented gene without permission of the patent holder is committing patent infringement and can be sued by the patent holder. Thus patent holders have the right to prevent other researchers from testing, studying or even looking at the genes. If the PTO simply granted patents on particular methods of examining and testing genes, then other scientists and laboratories could develop alternative methods, and research and testing could advance at a much faster pace. This lawsuit is not challenging any patent claims over specific genetic tests.

This suit is the first to challenge the patentability of human genes in the United States. The PTO has justified http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/utilexmguide.pdf these patents by holding that "DNA compounds having naturally occurring sequences are eligible for patenting when isolated from their natural state and purified." Yet, "isolated and purified" simply means that the gene has been excised from the natural chromosome; it otherwise has not been engineered or transformed.

Patent law has long held that products of nature and laws of nature are not patentable subject matter. Proponents of gene patents often cite Diamond v. Chakrabarty http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_136/, a divided five to four U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in 1980. In that case, the court upheld patenting of a genetically modified bacterium that was genetically engineered to ingest oil for use in oil spill cleanups. However, Chakrabarty actually reaffirmed the principle advanced in this case: "The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter." While the identification of human genes and their associations with disease are important contributions to scientific progress, genes and their correlations nonetheless remain products and laws of nature.

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled its disapproval of patents on medical correlations. In the 2006 LabCorp v. Metabolite http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_607, some of the current justices said that, had the case been heard by the court rather than dismissed as improvidently granted, they would have ruled that such correlation claims are invalid for being unpatentable.

Gene patents also raise constitutional questions. The Patent Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to award patents "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Human genes are not inventions, and awarding patents on them does not promote the progress of science. Instead, gene patents slow scientific advancement, because there is no way to invent around a gene - the gene is the basis for all subsequent research. Furthermore, gene patents implicate the First Amendment. By granting monopolies on the very thought that there is a relationship between specific genetic mutations and diseases, the government has restricted scientific freedom of inquiry.

The patents on the BRCA genes have serious implications because mutations along these genes are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic tests can detect these mutations and tell women if they are at increased risk of cancer, which in turn informs their decisions about screening, prevention and treatment options. In addition, this case could have far-reaching effects beyond the BRCA genes because it challenges the fundamental notion of gene patenting. Twenty percent of human genes have been patented http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/39556res20090512.html#04, including genes associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy, colon cancer, and asthma.

To read the complaint, plaintiff statements, and much more about the case, visit http://www.aclu.org/brca.

The Future of Seeds in Europe

Slow Food newsletter, May 2009:
http://newsletter.slowfood.com/slowfood_time/09/eng.html#item12

Open letter for agricultural biodiversity and farmers' collective rights

The governing body for the FAO ITPGRFA (International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture) will meet in Tunis from June 1 to 5. Discussions will focus on the sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and farmers' rights: their rights to keep, use, exchange and sell their seeds, preserve traditional knowledge, be involved in national and international decisions affecting biodiversity etc. These rights are not respected in most European countries. We are making an appeal to farmer and consumer organizations, as well as environmental, civil rights and political associations to sign the open letter to be sent by May 20 to European governments, the European Commission and the Treaty Secretariat. The initiative is promoted by various organizations involved in preserving traditional European seeds (Heritage Seed Library - UK; Interessengemeinschaft f¸r gentechnikfreie Saatgutarbeit - Germany and Austria; Protect the Future - Hungary; Red de Semillas - Spain, Réseau Semences Paysannes - France, Rete Semi Rurali - Italy).

•

Download the complete text of the letter (in Italian)
http://content.slowfood.it/upload/3E6E345B0c5b12A38CxLh3C1E4C3/files/lettera_aperta_tirfaa.pdf

•

To sign the open letter http://www.semonslabiodiversite.org/spip.php?article7

•

For further information on the FAO Treaty http://www.planttreaty.org/meetings/gb3_en.htm

Ý

NZ Should Note Tasmania's GE Free Approach

Scoop New Zealand, 22 May 2009:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0905/S00290.htm

Press Release: Soil and Health Association

NZ Should Note Tasmania's Clean Green GE Free Approach

New Zealand should follow Tasmania's acknowledgement of the advantages of its clean green image on Wednesday when it extended its ban on the release of genetically engineered organisms to the environment for another five years, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

"Supported by our Parliament, New Zealand's primary industries need to take on the vision of sustainability and a genuine brand of clean and green to take on the opportunities as identified by the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries," said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

"Tasmania's GMO-free status is a vital factor for our primary producers, helping them realise their full potential in international and interstate markets," said Mr David Llewellyn, Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries and Water, later adding, "The prime markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green and safe."(1)

"Here in New Zealand, Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) are pushing a future with genetic engineering while also being the best examples of bad practice, such as Plant & Food Research's recent GE Brassica field trial disaster and Scion's aborted GE pine tree field trial last year," said Soil & Health spokesperson Mr Browning.

"AgResearch with its applications for an infinite range of GE animal experiments throughout New Zealand is another example of poor understanding and care for New Zealand's real market advantages, clean green and GE free, as identified by our similarly advantaged neighbour Tasmania."

"Genetic engineering does not fit with brand New Zealand or the New Zealand community any more than intensively battery farmed pigs and chickens, or dirty dairying streams. We are cleaning up our animal welfare and there is a lot of focus on cleaning up our streams. Genetic engineering must follow and our science industry must stop its fascination with genetic engineering field trials and focus on our market strengths and image."

Most New Zealanders are strongly opposed to the genetic engineering of animals in New Zealand, with farmers as ardently opposed as the rest of the community. (2)

A Colmar Brunton Omnijet survey of over 1000 people last year, commissioned by the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand and the national animal advocacy organisation SAFE, found that only 27 per cent of New Zealanders, and just 28 per cent of farmers, support genetic engineering (GE) of animals. However six out of ten farmers (61%) who stated an opinion in the survey said they do not support GE of animals, and almost a third of all farmers surveyed (28%) stated they 'don't know.'

"At a time of economic uncertainty, the use of a diminishing science budget on developing risky and unwanted genetically engineered plants, animals and products is all the worse," said Mr Browning.

"There is a clear political and economic advantage for New Zealand's leaders to take an enlightened approach and bring New Zealanders along to further develop the clean and green, 100% Pure brand."

"Communities such as those in the North that are considering genetic engineering free zones need constructive political and legislative support to help maintain their current GE free environmental and market advantage."

"Twice as many New Zealanders oppose GE than support it."

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020, which is GE free, and has high standards of animal welfare and environmental sustainability, and which fits perfectly with the markets identified as the best value for New Zealand's primary producers.

"Tasmania has identified a similar advantage. Will New Zealand spot the clue?" asks Mr Browning.

(1) David Llewellyn, MP, Minister for Primary Industries and Water, GMO Ban Bill Passed, 20 May 2009.

(2) Kiwi poll rejects GE animals, 12 October 2008.

21 May 2009

European elections: Organic Austria resists GMOs

EuroNews, 21 May 2009:
http://www.euronews.net/2009/05/21/organic-austria-resists-gmos/

Austrian voters want the next European Parliament to fight against genetically modified crops. Only about 20% of Austrians plan to cast European ballots, yet they want their national GMO ban left alone. EU authorisations continue to sow doubt.

Watch the EuroNews Reporter video clip "Towards a GM-free Europe? Austria resists GMOs":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WfkQBp0CIk&feature=PlayList&p=F00F898A6AEF8DBD&index=3

Transcript:

Voiceover:

Gerhard Zoubeck is driving us towards his organic farm, 40 minutes from Vienna. He's proud of his 70 acres: everything growing here is practically chemical-free. And you won't find any genetically modified organisms, because they are banned in Austria. Gerhard just wants it to stay that way. That's why he's looking forward to the European Parliamentary elections.

GMO policy is a national and a European challenge. Convinced that his voice will make a difference, Gerhard will use his vote on June 7th to support one of the political groups that's against having GMO crops in European soil. Zoubeck wants to keep his independence. He says GMOs are a noose around the farmer's neck.

Gerhard Zoubeck [Manager, Biohof Adamah]:

"We're witnessing a power play about money, influence, and patents. That's why I'm strictly against GMOs. What are the real interests in this power play? GMO technology exclusively serves the GMO mafia - the very very few companies who are involved in this business".

Voiceover:

Austrians held a referendum in 1997 in which they rejected authorising GMO crops. But some years later, the European Food Safety Authority - EFSA - said they weren't a risk. Pressure built to allow GM cultivation EU-wide. Biotech firms mobilised lawyers to fight their case. The President of the European Commission set up a political Working Group to study how to make the approval process faster. The Environment, Agriculture and Health Commissioners, and Government Ministers, are not part of this group.

But, seeing the European elections coming up, the Environment Ministers rejected the Commission's proposals to force Austria and Hungary to lift their GM bans.

This anti-GMO author states some of the reasons why more and more farmers, consumers and politicians are having doubts about the recommendations of the European Food Safety Authority.

Klaus Faissner, analyst:

"The first point is that EFSA can't be trusted. It gets its studies directly from the genetic engineering companies, such as Monsanto. EFSA just takes a quick glance at them, and puts a checkmark in the box. It's just rubberstamping.

The second point is that EFSA doesn't even have its own laboratory."

Voiceover:

Yet the head of the Department of Applied Genetics and Cell Biology at Vienna's University of Natural Resources warns against scare-mongering in a hungry world. He argues that GMO crops could feed the growing global population better. He is also convinced that biotechnology provides alternatives to oil as an energy source.

Josef Glössl, Professor, University of Natural Resources:

"The plant varieties on the market today were created artificially, through cross-breeding. Fundamentally, there's no difference between traditional plant hybridisation and genetic engineering. It's just that genetic engineering lets you act more specifically. We should not therefore listen to esoteric arguments pretending that nature in itself is good, and that all mankind's activity is bad. Freedom in decision-making should not consist of forbidding in one direction and being exclusively supportive in the other. No! We need plurality, multiple choices and options."

Voiceover as Minister arrives at Vienna airport in his car marked "BIO MOBIL: mit Superethanol":

We talked to Austria's Minister for Agriculture before he takes off for the United States. The conservative ÖVP [Austrian People's Party] he's a member of supports integrating European policies - but within limits.

Niki Berlakovich, Minister of Agriculture, Austria:

"Austria wants to stay GMO-free. I'm supporting Europe, it's our common project. But I don't see why all EU members should decide for Austria whether it stays GM-free or not. Austria has the right to make its own decisions. Being GMO-free grants us a higher food quality."

Voiceover:

The GMO-free rallying call appears on the Austrian Green Party's campaign posters as well. In fact, all the country's political parties are clear on this in the fight for votes.

Here is the man who launched Austria's referendum on GMOs twelve years ago. His background is in biochemistry and physics. He now lectures on environmental ethics.

Peter Weish, Lecturer, University of Natural Resources:

"Today we know that small scale and fully varied agriculture is the best guarantor of a sustainable food supply for the world. Genetic engineering applied on a large scale destroys those structures. Everyone refers to the Subsidiarity Principle in the European Union: regions should have the authority to ban genetically engineered crops in order to opt out of an eventual pro-GMO switch at European level. If EU Regions were forced to lift their GMO bans, this would be a gross infringement of the Subsidiarity Principle."

Voiceover:

Roughly 80% of Austrians, Germans and Greeks don't want GM food; In France and Hungary, some 70%. Austria is amongst Europe's organic top achievers. In Burgenland, one out of five farmers is certified organic. Local politics here are linked to European and global policy challenges.

Franz Stefan Hautzinger, President, Landwirtschaftkammer Burgenland (Burgenland Farmers Chamber]:

"In Austria, we focus towards agricultural production which is close to nature. We have a very high percentage of biological [i.e. organic] agriculture, and that can't co-exist with GMO crops. In future, it will be important for Europe to speak with one voice on this. To face the US and our WTO partners, we need one common position for the WTO negotiations. If Europe could make up its mind finally, and renounce genetically modified food crops, we Europeans would have a very real chance to achieve our WTO goals."

Voiceover:

The outcome of the European Parliamentary elections will indirectly influence the make-up of the new European Commission as well, later this year. Austrian voters want the Parliament to fight against GM crops. They are adamant that the EU should not touch the national GM ban.

Business is good for organic producers. Gerhard has four-and-a-half-thousand customers who take regular weekly home delivery.

Gerhard Zoubeck [Manager, Biohof Adamah]:

"In my opinion, we don't need genetic engineering. Nature, for thousands and thousands of years, has given us already the gift of an incredibly extensive plant diversity. It would be very dangerous for mankind to try to replace God. We shouldn't touch the natural basis, because we don't have enough intelligence, reason or understanding to do this."

Voiceover:

To fight parasites, Gerhard deploys Ladybird beetles. Against election absenteeism, the remedy is less straightforward. The predictions are that only around a third of EU voters will turn out for European Parliamentary polling. The forecast for Austrians is just one in five, but they do say they feel strongly about their food.

Message to Obama: Bust-up the Agribusiness Trusts

The Huffington Post [USA], 21 May 2009:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/message-to-obama-bust-up_b_206340.html

Beyond the thirty-year experiment in free-market ideology having been judged a failure in financial markets, one thing is clear: as Kerry Trueman reminded us in a recent post, unfettered capitalism has also been bad for our health, and indeed the safety of our food.

Last week, The New York Times reported that this administration has said it will take a harder line on anti-trust legislation, in diverse sectors of the economy including agriculture. Perhaps its premature to tell what this will look like, but enforcing the laws that we already have on the books would be a great start to building a better food system.

This is because the largest sectors of the agribusiness world (grain, meatpacking, biotechnology, etc) are monopolizing food from seed to supermarket shelf and thereby deciding what we can (and can't) buy and eat across this country, and by extension, the world.

These are the companies that are trying to efficiently process tens of thousands of cows per day -- cows that have been lined up in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and fed grain (more efficient than using land to feed them their natural diet of grass), pumped with hormones and other antibiotics to keep them from dying, which means a glut on the market of cheap (anti-biotic-filled) beef. And these are the companies that are creating the seeds -- those seeds that the farmer can't even save for fear of litigation -- to grow the crops that require the use of their pesticides, and which produce a proliferation of fast food.

Yes, efficiency is the bottom line in our current agricultural system. Not safety, not health, or least of all taste; no, for a corporation that is beholden first to it's shareholders, its all about the quickest way to get to the bottom line. Besides exacerbating obesity, heart disease and diabetes cases, this kind of thinking can only be limited in its long term ability to maintain itself, because it refuses to take a holistic approach to creating goods for the common good. In other words, we know it can't be sustained, and therefore it is not sustainable.

But these mega-companies aren't fully to blame, because this is what our economic system has been set up to do for thirty years or more: build a conflagration of trusts.

Will Obama pull a Teddy Roosevelt and begin a new era of trust-busting? Here's hoping he will, and that he begins with Big Ag.

Last week on The Leonard Lopate Show, when he was asked how taking a harder line on anti-trust law could effect the food industry, Michael Pollan responded:

"It's very significant, actually, because you have more concentration in the food industry than in just about any other industry. Most anti-trust experts say that if 4 [or fewer] companies control 40% or more of a marketplace, it's not competitive. And in food we have that in meatpacking, [where] there are 4 companies that control 85% of the beef, [and in] seed production, fertilizer production... there is this tight little hourglass in the food industry, [which means] lots of farmers, very few buyers, which forces farmers to take prices, they have no control over prices at all. So if indeed we were to push an anti-trust agenda in the food industry, it would be the best thing for farmers and the best thing for consumers."

In other words, there are only a handful of people pulling the strings of our food system. And something as fundamental as food should not be so minimally represented, for food safety and health reasons, but because it also violates our human rights.

To this I ask, is this food system not an oligopoly, a market form most at risk for collusion? all the more reason to investigate the mega-firms that form through the process of mergers.

That "hourglass" concept Pollan mentioned comes from William Heffernan and Mary Hendrickson's report Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System (1999) [PDF http://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/42_consolidation-in-food-and-ag-system.pdf], which revealed the "food chain clusters" forming through constant mergers within the food system, and also gave the first comprehensive data on concentration ratios of each firm in the food sector. (An updated version from 2007 is here [PDF http://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/2007-heffernanreport.pdf].)

One of the biggest fall-outs of this phenomenon has been the price paid in rural America. From Heffernan and Hendrickson's report:

"In the past when family businesses were the predominant system in rural communities, researchers talked of multiplier effects of three or four. Newly generated dollars in the agricultural sector would circulate in the community, changing hands from one entrepreneurial family to another three or four times before leaving the rural community. This greatly enhanced the economic viability of the community.

Large non-local corporations... see labor as just another input cost to be purchased as cheaply as possible. The "profits" then are allocated to return on management and capital and are usually taken from the rural community. They go to the company's headquarters and are then sent to all corners of the globe to be reinvested in the food system. One can ask the question, why were agriculturally based rural communities, with an ample natural resource base, more economically viable than mining based rural communities which also had an ample natural resource base? The answer lies primarily with the economic structure of the major economic base. Increasingly, our agriculturally based communities, like regions with major poultry operations, are looking like mining communities."

Having an hourglass of production power also means the creation of giant facilities to produce our food as fast as possible. E coli bacteria present in a giant shared sink with thousands of servings of spinach has the potential to do more harm than a similar, isolated incident on a small farm would. In creating factory-like facilities to process and package our food, we are exponentially increasing the risks of food contamination. This is the single best argument for decentralizing the food system.

But yes, there is still yet another reason to bust up these trusts: agribusiness has had excessive influence on our government. Represented by a billion dollar lobby in Washington, agribusinesses have maintained a revolving door bringing lobbyists, lawyers and board members into powerful public positions. One of the other problems that arises when mega-companies begin to influence government in this way is that they then become "too big to fail," when we should be asking ourselves (to quote Mike Lux) if they were "too big to exist" in the first place.

However it happened, the facts are clear: Cargill, ADM, Monsanto, Tyson and Smithfield are probably breaking the law, and that law needs to be enforced. It may be that the government for too long has been complicit in creating predatory pricing via billions of dollars in subsidies handed out to the factory farmers of mostly genetically modified corn and soy, but I would like our new administration to take a good look at possible price fixing; aggressive marketing, especially to children; intimidation practices, including Monsanto's intimidation of farmers who have been found to have GMO contamination in their fields, also their intimidation of seed cleaners, and of previous governments; barriers to entry, for example, the assumption of massive amounts of debt on the part of the farmer to build CAFO facilities and thus getting trapped in a contractual agreement with Smithfield, Tyson, etc; and tying, for instance, Round-Up Ready seeds require the use of Round-Up pesticides, meaning that both markets are cornered by Monsanto.

It's time to admit that hyper-efficiency is not working. It may seem counter-intuitive, but being a little less efficient creates room for checks and balances. We need redundancy, and some fostered competition. It is the only way to assure the health of our nation and the safety of our food supply.

Brazil regulator OKs Monsanto GMO cotton seed

Reuters, 21 May 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2126684720090521

SAO PAULO, May 21 -- Brazil's biosafety regulator CTNBio has approved the use of Monsanto's (MON.N) Bollgard 2 genetically modified cotton seed, the company said on Thursday.

The pest-resistant cotton variety must still be approved by Brazil's Agriculture Ministry before it can be planted in the country.

U.S.-based Monsanto has a total of six genetically modified varieties of cotton, soybeans and corn already approved for commercial planting in Brazil.

Bollgard 2 is a second-generation of pest-resistant cotton. It contains two different insect control genes, compared with the single insect control gene in its predecessor, Bollgard, which was approved in Brazil in 2005.

Other genetically modified cotton seeds developed by Bayer (BAYG.DE) and Dow Chemical (DOW.N) already have been approved for use in the South American country, a top producer of sugar, soy, coffee and oranges. (Reporting by Roberto Samora, Writing by Inae Riveras)

Cultivation of banned crop types rampant

World Trade Review [Pakistan], 16-31 May 2009:
http://www.worldtradereview.com/news.asp?pType=N&iType=C&iID=205&siD=8&nID=47236

Islamabad: The Ministry of Food and Agriculture has said at least three banned varieties of cotton and an unapproved variety of rice paddy were under widespread cultivation in the country.

Cotton varieties (S-12, S-14, NIAB-78) and paddy (Basmati-386) are still being cultivated despite the fact that these varieties have been banned.

The practice is not only keeping the country away from producing these crops according to its potential but also damage the soil and results in huge losses to growers.

The food ministry has sent a written reply to the National Assembly Secretariat in which it has explained as to why the authorities concerned at the federal and provincial levels were not able to discourage the cultivation of unapproved and illegal varieties of cotton and rice, the country's two major crops.

The Federal Seed Certification and Registration Department (FSC&RD), an attached department of the Ministry of Food, is responsible for regulating market quality-control system of seeds of approved varieties only as envisaged in the Seed Act, 1976.

However, according to its capacity, the FSC&RD through its nominated seed inspectors/analysts regularly monitors the seed quality of approved varieties in various parts of the country.

The food ministry expects that with the approval of the new legislation (Seed Amendments Bill 2008 and Plant Breeders Right Bill 2008) in department shall be in a better position to efficiently restrict the spread and cultivation of unapproved varieties of various crops.

The ministry has said that it was also the mandate of the provincial governments to check cultivation of banned and unapproved seed varieties.

Similarly, the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Pak-EPA), the Ministry of Environment has also the mandate to check the illegal release of genetically modified crop verities like the unapproved and illegal Bt cotton.

Pakistan, which is self-sufficient in cotton, still does not produce according to its potential.

According to the figures of the food ministry, the country this year has 7.994 million tons of surplus cotton. Pakistan had 4.971 million tons of opening stock this year, while production was around 11.3 million tons, which took the amount of total stocks available to 16.265 million tons. Pakistan's total consumption this year is expected around 14.271 million tons.

MPs Pass Law on Coexistence of GMOs and Traditional Crops

Slovenia Press Agency, 21 May 2009:
http://www.sta.si/en/vest.php?s=a&id=1393400

Ljubljana, 21 May (STA) - The National Assembly passed a bill regulating the production of genetically modified crops in Slovenia, focusing on coexistence of GMOs and traditional crops. The bill was rushed through parliament in emergency procedure and was endorsed by members of all deputy factions in a 45:8 vote.

The rest of this news item is available to subscribers. The news item consists of 2.827 characters (without spaces) or 533 words.

Buy the news item. Price: 2 tokens; on account: 0 tokens.

Cabinet Introduces Mandatory Marking Of Products Containing Genetically Modified Organisms

Ukrainian News Agency, 21 May 2009:
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/199381.html

The Cabinet of Ministers has introduced mandatory marking of products containing genetically modified organisms from July 1.

This is stated in the Cabinet of Ministers resolution No. 468 dated May 13.

In particular, this Cabinet of Ministers resolution approved the procedures for labeling food products containing genetically modified organisms and food products manufactures with the use of genetically modified organisms from July.

According to the procedures, food products containing more than 0.1% genetically modified organisms are subject to mandatory labeling.

Food products containing genetically modified organisms are to be labeled by their producers (suppliers).

The words "genetically modified" or "contains genetically modified organisms or manufactured with its use" are to be written in brackets after every product containing such organisms on the list of the contents of food products and the names of the organisms are to be stated.

In the case of products containing genetically modified organisms that are not being sold in packages, their sellers are to mark them by making the relevant notes on the tags bearing the names of the products.

Food products without genetically modified organisms or those containing less than 0.1% genetically modified organisms can be marked "without genetically modified organisms."

This information is subject to verification in accordance with procedures established by the State Committed for Technical Regulation and Consumer Policy.

Food products containing genetically modified organisms are subject to withdrawal from circulation if they are not marked.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Economics Ministry proposed introducing the marking of food products containing genetically modified organisms.

The State Committee for Technical Regulation and Consumer Policy has decided to set up a network of laboratories for testing foodstuffs for genetically modified organisms.

First Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Turchynov has instructed the Justice Ministry and the State Committee for Technical Regulation and Consumer Policy to prepare by May 14 a draft law on introduction of marking of products containing genetically modified organisms.

Please contact the Marketing and Sales Department and subscribe to receive the full version of the news article:

E-mail: user@ukranews.com
tel. +38 (044) 494-31-61
fax +38 (044) 494-31-62

Tasmania's Five Year Stand Against GMO

The Beef Site [UK], 21 May 2009:
http://www.thebeefsite.com/news/27261/tasmanias-five-year-stand-against-gmo

TASMANIA, AUSTRALIA - Tasmania's ban on the release of genetically modified organisms to the environment will continue for at least another five years under a Bill passed by Parliament today.

The Minister for Primary Industries and Water, David Llewellyn, said today that the State's GMO-free status is a key factor in the Tasmanian Brand.

"Tasmania's GMO-free status is a vital factor for our primary producers, helping them realise their full potential in international and interstate markets," Mr Llewellyn said.

"The decision by some other Australian states to relax their GM bans has actually increased the value of Tasmania's GMO-free status.

"It provides us with opportunities for even better Tasmanian access to prime markets.

"The hard work done over recent years has ensured that Tasmania is well placed to take full advantage of its reputation as a reliable supplier of the best and safest food."

The commercial release of genetically modified food crops is now banned until November 2014. The ban prohibits the unauthorised importation of genetically modified organisms, but does not apply to the importation of non-viable materials, such as processed animal feeds and food.

Mr Llewellyn said that the opportunities for Tasmania's primary industries, operating under the Tasmanian Brand, are exciting.

"The prime markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green and safe.

"Tasmania is already well-positioned to meet that demand, and our decision to extend the GMO ban makes the Tasmanian Brand even stronger."

GM-free Europe: Lessons for Nigeria

The Guardian (Nigeria), 21 May 2009. By Pieray Odor:
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article04//indexn2_html?pdate=210509&ptitle=GM-free%20Europe:%20Lessons%20for%20Nigeria

The 5th Conference of European nations on achieving GM-free Europe in particular and the world in general was held at the lakeside Culture and Conference Centre in Lucerne, Switzerland. It was attended by 250 delegates from 28 countries in Europe and outside Europe. What was discussed was global - the effects of the application of genetic engineering and biotechnology to agriculture and allied matters and how to achieve "global food democracy".

"Global food democracy" means the upholding, protection and preservation globally, of the rights and freedom of all the nations of the world to practise the agricultural methods that do not involve tampering with the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), individual genes, the expressions mechanism, and the expressions of the genes of organisms, and the right and freedom of the nations of the world to consume natural and organic foods. These rights and freedoms are consistent with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Freedoms and the American Declaration on Human Rights and Freedoms, sovereign and inalienable rights and freedoms.

The necessity of the conference is understood and appreciated on the basis of the fact that the corporations that produce genetically modified foods (G.M. Foods), genetically engineered (synthetic) agricultural chemicals and fertilisers, and biopharmaceuticals, the government of the USA, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and some other international organisations, are pushing and imposing the adoption, by sovereign, independent and free governments and nations of the world, genetic engineering and biotechnology as their methods for the production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), herbicides, pesticides, fertilisers, and genetically modified foods (GMFs).

The push, enforcement and imposition are being carried out despite the existence of the Universal Declarations on Human and Cultural Rights and Freedom, the Precautionary Principles (2000) in respect of the application of biotechnology and genetic engineering to agriculture, and the Nuremburg Rule of Procedure (1945) on universal safety and quality investigation and control.

The practice of genetic engineering and biotechnology as biosciences, involves tampering with the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of organisms, the mechanism by which the genes which constitute the DNAs express their proteins, and the proteins expressed by them. It is an indiscriminate, blind and unscientific transfer of DNAs and genes between completely different and distinctive organisms, using viruses as vectors (facilitators) although it is known that viruses carry and transmit known and unknown toxins and cause many diseases - known and unknown, curable and incurable. The practices are unscientific because, fundamentally, they are based on belief, hope, and wish. They are driven by commercialism and profit maximisation, war-politics, and the determination and desperation to have absolute ownership and control of biodiversities and their uses. The solid and liquid foods that are produced through the methods are called genetically modified foods (G.M. foods). The "modified" used is a deceptive and wrong use of language as the real effects of the tampering with the DNAs and genes is the poisoning of the organisms and, logically, the poisoning of G.M. Foods.

Kidney, lung, liver and immune system failures, cancers, cardiovascular diseases (heart failures, sudden death, EMFs, etc), teratogenic diseases - affecting children in the womb - epigenetic diseases (metagenetic diseases) caused by mechanisms that are outside the established and known Mendel's genetics, and pleiotropic diseases - the diseases the causes of which are not yet known and no medicines or medical treatments for which are available - have all been established as effects of the application of the biosciences.

At the end of the conference, the 250 participants declared unanimously as follows:

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

This moratorium should be used to:

•

rethink EU legislation and strengthen regional self-determination;

•

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

•

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

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

Certainly this declaration has a lot of lessons for our federal and state governments, the federal and state legislators and, indeed, all Nigerians. At the moment, there are bills on biotechnology and genetic engineering applications to agriculture at the Senate and the House of Representatives which the USAID has been stampeding them to pass into law. The lessons of the declarations should be learnt by the president and legislators especially. Because what is at stake is human life, covering the lives of all Nigerians - unborn children and all future Nigerians - and because whatever affects human health and life affects our national development logically and unavoidably, let the Motto of St. Theresa's Catholic Primary School, Marine Beach, Apapa, Lagos, the primary school where the author of this piece studied, which says: "Honour and shame. From no condition arise. Act well your part, There the honour lies," be the motivation and justification of whatever action the president and the federal legislators decide to take, and how they act on the matter.

Odor lives in Lagos.

US, Canada, Australia Wheat Groups Announce Biotech Introduction

Feed & Grain [USA], 21 May 2009:
http://www.feedandgrain.com/web/online/Industry-News/US--Canada--Australia-Wheat-Groups-Announce-Biotech-Introduction/1$1622

Grain Elevator and Processing Society (GEAPS) news release

Organizations representing the wheat industry in the United States, Canada and Australia announced Thursday they will work toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in the wheat crop.

Noting that "none of us hold a veto over the actions of others," they agreed it was in the best interest of all three producer communities to introduce biotechnology in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruption.

The announcement came in a statement of joint principles on the issue of biotechnology in wheat, which has been a sensitive subject in some parts of the world, including major export markets like the European Union and Japan. There is currently no commercial production of genetically modified wheat anywhere in the world.

The statement highlighted the importance of wheat to the food supply and declining acres in all three countries due in part to competition from crops that have the advantages of biotech traits. The statement also noted the slow growth trend of wheat yields compared to other crops and the lack of public and private investment in wheat research worldwide.

Noting that biotechnology is not the only answer to a host of agronomic questions facing wheat production, the groups agreed it could be a "significant component" to tackling major issues facing wheat production.

U.S. organizations signing onto the statement include the National Association of Wheat Growers, U.S. Wheat Associates and the North American Millers' Association. Canadian signatories include Grain Growers of Canada, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission. Australian signatories include Grains Council of Australia, Grain Growers Association and Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia (Inc.).

20 May 2009

Round table discussion on agricultural biotechnology
No concrete results, but "the prelude to a new dialogue"

GMO Safety [supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research], 20 May 2009:
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/689.docu.html

The round table discussions on agricultural biotechnology are to be continued. Germany's Research Minister, Annette Schavan, and Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner invited thirty representatives from science, industry, politics and associations to discuss the status of agricultural biotechnology in Germany. The churches were also represented. Today's discussions in Berlin did not produce any concrete results, but further round tables are to be arranged to discuss individual issues.

"It was a very intensive, open and fair discussion. It was a successful start to a new dialogue about an important technology of the future," said Schavan. Both ministers stressed the need to bring the emotional public debate about the opportunities and risks of agricultural biotechnology onto a more objective level.

Aigner, as the "minister responsible", announced that she would be starting a discussion process, to which she intended to invite all the stakeholders within Germany. One of the issues to be clarified is how biosafety research and the release of genetically modified plants is to be organised in future. Other topics mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture were the situation of plant breeding and its aims, approval and authorisation procedures, genetic engineering and animal feed, and the possibility of creating GM-free farming regions. A similar debate on agricultural biotechnology (Diskurs Gr¸ne Gentechnik) was organised in 2002 by the Minister for Consumer Protection at the time, Renate K¸nast (Green Party). It did not produce any concrete results or lead to any harmonisation of the different positions.

Round table: Taking pressure off the biotechnology conflict within the German government

The fact that people are being invited to a new round table in 2009 is partly a sign of the differing views on agricultural biotechnology within the German government. Aigner's ban on growing genetically modified MON810 maize in Germany led to a public clash.

While Aigner saw "justifiable grounds for the assumption" that MON810 maize could pose a risk to humans and the environment, Schavan wrote in a guest article in Financial Times Deutschland that "so far there is no scientific evidence for damage to health or the environment through agricultural biotechnology". Schavan emphasised several times that Germany cannot afford to relinquish plant genetic engineering. Modern crop research at international level had to be able to make use of genetic methods as well. For the world to feed a growing population under more difficult conditions it would have to use all available methods - including agricultural biotechnology.

By contrast, like the CSU party, Aigner stressed the potential risks of genetically modified plants. Plant biotechnology should take place in closed facilities and not in the field. Before the round table, Aigner called on people to make greater use of the "possibilities of cultivation under glass". The continuation of the round table discussions means that the political conflict between Schavan and Aigner has been defused for the time being. Nothing much is likely to change before the Bundestag elections in the autumn.

The participants too were fairly cautious in their assessment of the round table. It was "a first step towards making the debate more objective", said Ferdinand Schmitz, head of the German plant-breeders' association (BDP), who urged haste. "The positions have become entrenched. The debate, which has dragged on for more than ten years, is jeopardising our advantage as a location and is driving away innovation. We risk falling further behind if we cannot manage to discuss the issue on the basis of scientific results."

Felix Prinz zu Löwenstein, Chairman of Bund ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft, Germany's organic food industry association (BöLW), on the other hand, criticised the round table as being an "extremely one-sided event". Instead of a discussion about the present-day reality of genetic engineering in agriculture, GM advocates had been given a wide platform to hold forth about its future blessings. On a positive note, however, the BöLW chairman noted that the other discussions planned were due to look at the future direction of agricultural research. "If we end up with a balanced weighting of the different systems and a move away from the view that 'innovation' can only mean biotechnology, the organic farming community will be happy to take part in the debate," said Löwenstein.

The self-referential Pontifical Academy of Sciences receives street protests

Press release by Guido Pollice, President of Verdi Ambiente e Società and
Fabrizia Pratesi, Scientific Committee Coordinator of Equivita, [Italy], 20 May 2009.

A sit-in on Piazzale Flaminio to inform the citizenry on GMOs

ROME -- On the 18th of May 2009, from 10:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. we organized a street protest to tell the citizenry that the study week promoted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences does not help science. Science needs dialogue, debate, doubt and not unilateral market initiatives behind 'closed doors'.

We organized the street protest to tell the citizenry that GMOs are not science. They are a (arguable) technology that, for roughly 30 years, has always borne the same fruit: plants genetically modified to become resistant to herbicides and insects.

Plants that are engineered only for the profit of a handful of agro-chemical multinationals. Patented plants that do nothing for the poor people in the world because they contribute to starve them and make them GMO-dependent.

Pope Benedict XVI has stated: 'The campaign to promote GM sowing, that pretends to grant food security [...] risks to ruin small farmers and to suppress their traditional crops, making them dependent on GM production companies ('Instrumentum laboris' document).

But neither the words of the Pontiff, nor the appeal of groups of Catholic organizations, nor the protest of civil society seems to have had an impact on the promotional campaign of biotech foodstuffs launched by the Pontifical Academy.

Fortunately however, the message conveyed by the Pontifical Academy does not find fertile ground within society. People are increasingly informed and interested in what they eat and it will not be easy to convince them that GMOs are good and fair products. Indeed, one of the latest surveys shows that European citizens consider it a priority that the European Community ban GMOs (King Baldwin Foundation).

We have always 'invested' in an open debate with people. This is another reason why we organized a street protest on the 18th of May, in concomitance with the workshop: 'Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development' of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And, perhaps, our direct connection with people was, and continues to be, more effective than the self-referential debate organized within the Vatican.

For further information:

Press Office of VAS: +39 063 608181 - +39 329 1328437

Press Office of Equivita+39 :+ 39 063 220720 - +39 335 8444949

Canadian Wheat Board resists GM wheat collaboration

FoodNavigator-USA.com, 20 May 2009. By Caroline Scott-Thomas:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Canadian-Wheat-Board-resists-GM-wheat-collaboration

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has said that it will not support genetically modified wheat - at least until certain conditions are met.

The CWB made its position known after a group of wheat industry representatives from Canada, the US and Australia signed a joint statement last week vowing to work together to bring genetically modified (GM) wheat to market.

CWB spokesperson Maureen Fitzhenry told FoodNavigator-USA.com that consumer resistance to GM wheat and unresolved issues about segregation of GM and non-GM wheat currently limit the viability of its commercialization.

She said: "We are certainly not negative about GM, but we don't think the time is right...We think it's good that there's discussion but we are just hoping that there is enough recognition of the major obstacles that remain."

Acceptance and agronomics

The organization, which sells wheat and barley in Western Canada, was strongly opposed to the introduction of Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat in 2004. Fitzhenry said that while "resistance to a certain herbicide is all very good", the CWB would want to see added benefits such as tolerance to disease - and greater consumer acceptance - before it would support bringing GM traits to market.

"Right now there is no way to segregate GM from non-GM," said Fitzhenry. "At present even one kernel of GM wheat is unacceptable to customers. We think there is still a long way to go and we can't see a market value or greatly improved agronomics...All the evidence we have is that there is still a lot of resistance from consumers."

She added that the CWB is actively trying to work to gain greater consumer acceptance of GM wheat, and to develop more tolerance about separation of GM and non-GM wheat.

GM research

Last week's joint statement from wheat industry representatives expressed concern that as GM varieties of other crops, such as soy and corn, have begun to dominate in North America, wheat is being sidelined as a less lucrative option for farmers.

It said: "Lack of private and public investment in wheat research has left wheat development behind the advances in competing commodity crops, and has also led to a shortage of scientific expertise in wheat research generally."

Fitzhenry said that she considers it a good thing that major players in the wheat industry have chosen to synchronize their efforts because "otherwise it becomes an issue of competitive rivalries" but added that Canadian farmers are well-informed about consumer resistance to GM wheat and are not likely to support its introduction unless attitudes change.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™:

Five days after what were probably heated internal debates, prudence and caution have prevailed among one of the largest Canadian wheat processors' association, the Canadian Wheat Board. On 15 May we commented on the news that U.S., Canadian and Australian wheat suppliers had formed an alliance wanting to "introduce biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion".

It appears there is a fair amount of commercial common sense left in the Canadian wheat industry - and its spokesperson meticulously sums up all the important arguments for the decision. The CWB's position could be summarized as the implementation of a commercial precautionary principle. Don't alienate your customers unless you really have to.

Canada grants EU additional time in GMO dispute

AFP, 20 May 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iiTy9iC9DAstRCvWx6moVEbr7LNw

GENEVA -- Canada on Wednesday granted the European Union additional time to conform to a World Trade Organisation ruling demanding changes to the EU's rules on genetically modified crops and produce.

During a meeting of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body, Canada accepted to prolong until June 30 the implementation of the ruling, instead of May 1, according to summary released by the organisation.

Canada and the European Union were still engaged in dialogue on the issue, trade sources said.

Following a complaint by Argentina, Canada and the United States, a WTO panel ruled that an EU moratorium on the authorization of nine GM products between 1999 and 2004 broke world trade rules.

A subsequent tussle over implementation of the ruling has been dragging on for over a year.

GMO ban bill passed

Press release from David Llewellyn, MP
Minister for Primary Industries and Water
Tasmania, Australia, 20 May 2009:
http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=26754

Tasmania's ban on the release of genetically modified organisms to the environment will continue for at least another five years under a Bill passed by Parliament today.

The Minister for Primary Industries and Water, David Llewellyn, said today that the State's GMO-free status is a key factor in the Tasmanian Brand.

"Tasmania's GMO-free status is a vital factor for our primary producers, helping them realise their full potential in international and interstate markets," Mr Llewellyn said.

"The decision by some other Australian states to relax their GM bans has actually increased the value of Tasmania's GMO-free status.

"It provides us with opportunities for even better Tasmanian access to prime markets.

"The hard work done over recent years has ensured that Tasmania is well placed to take full advantage of its reputation as a reliable supplier of the best and safest food."

The commercial release of genetically modified food crops is now banned until November 2014. The ban prohibits the unauthorised importation of genetically modified organisms, but does not apply to the importation of non-viable materials, such as processed animal feeds and food.

Mr Llewellyn said that the opportunities for Tasmania's primary industries, operating under the Tasmanian Brand, are exciting.

"The prime markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green and safe.

"Tasmania is already well-positioned to meet that demand, and our decision to extend the GMO ban makes the Tasmanian Brand even stronger."

Further information:

Tasmanian Government Communications Unit
Phone: (03) 6233 6573

Unholy alliance

The Guardian (Society) [UK], 20 May 2009. By John Vidal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/19/vatican-gm-foods

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo is the chancellor of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the official voice of Catholic science. Alas, he appears to have no idea how far his organisation has been hijacked by the genetic modification (GM) companies and their chums. This week, the academy is hosting a "week of study" about food, and Sorondo says the intention has been to gather "an objective" group of experts. Ho-hum. Of the 40 people invited, all are well-known GM enthusiasts, claims Spinwatch, an independent organisation that "monitors the role of public relations and spin in contemporary society". One of the participants, Eric Sachs, is a Monsanto employee; another, Robert Paarlberg, is an adviser to Monsanto's CEO; and several others work for companies heavily backed by Monsanto. So who could have invited this esteemed group to Rome? It seems the organisation was left to Ingo Potrykus, developer of GM "Golden Rice". This is the man who accused opponents of GM of "crimes against humanity".

Seed funding

The Guardian (Society) [UK], 20 May 2009. By John Vidal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/19/monsanto-philanthrophy-education

Monsanto may find its crops hard to plant in Britain, but it has found willing partners to plant the seeds of scientific ideas. The British Biochemical Society (BBS) is pleased to announce that it is accepting GBP113,000 from the Monsanto Foundation - the philanthropic arm of the giant American GM company - to "provide new resources in support of secondary school science". The cash will go to the SciberBrain website (SciberBrain.org), from which teachers are invited to download genetics master classes for their budding boffins. The BBS is quite confident that the information will be balanced, and that it will tackle "some of the key ethical issues in the UK science curriculum for 12- to 16-year-olds". Sadly, Eco Soundings cannot assess its content yet because the promised site is still being updated. Watch this space.

Stop soy greenwash!

Friends of the Earth International, 20 May 2009:
http://www.foei.org/en/get-involved/take-action/ahold

After five years of talking the Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS) have finally agreed on criteria for so called responsible soy production.

Unfortunately these criteria go nowhere near to solving the problem. Many important issues have not even been addressed; monitoring and enforcement is weak and no agreement has been reached on stopping deforestation. Worst of all, genetically manipulated soy will soon be labelled as 'responsible'.

The Netherlands based retail multinational Ahold, which operates in Europe and the United States, is an influential member of the Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS). Through its supermarket subsidiaries it is selling meat that has been reared on irresponsibly produced soy in Latin America.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands / Milieudefensie are targeting Ahold's Dutch supermarket subsidiary Albert Heijn which in 2008 made 608 million euros in profit, half of Ahold's total profits. In response the supermarket points to Ahold's participation in the RTRS as the best solution to address the negative impacts of soy expansion.

While Friends of the Earth Netherlands puts pressure on Albert Heijn we want the parent company to know that the whole world is watching.

Take action

Friends of the Earth International are calling on Ahold to take real measures to stop the use of unsustainable soy in animal feed.

Please e-mail Ahold and demand that they stop hiding behind the Round Table for Responsible Soy and instead takes real measures to stop the use of unsustainable soy in animal feed.

Find out more and take action - http://www.foei.org/en/get-involved/take-action/ahold

Thank you for your support.
Friends of the Earth International

Africa hunger crisis seen still tied to politics

Reuters, 20 May 2009. By Christine Stebbins:
http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2009/05/20/eline/links/20090520elin026.html

ST. LOUIS - Agricultural experts looking at Africa's enduring problems with food shortages and famine say hunger is unlikely to be solved there unless political stability returns to allow investment to flourish.

"Investment is not going to flow into unstable areas. It is not going to flow into poorly governed areas no matter what the natural resource space is -- it's just not going to happen," J.B. Penn, chief economist with equipment maker John Deere and former USDA economist, told a round-table at the World Agricultural Forum here this week.

"First and foremost, we've got to get the political system right. Then investment will follow. With the investment, comes the technology," Penn said.

Africa, as it has for decades in the post-World War Two independence era, continues to be the leading destination for world food aid shipments but also for deaths from famine.

Political chaos in Zimbabwe that turned the nation from a grain exporter to a hunger crisis is often cited by investors.

"Particularly at risk of widespread famine are over a dozen so-called "left-behind" countries, almost all in sub-Saharan Africa, that feature severe and increasing natural resources constraints coupled with high population growth and limited nonagricultural income possibilities," the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations said on May 4.

With the recession in rich countries, there are few fresh infusions of investment capital flowing into Africa, with much of the recent investment coming from private foundations funded by Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett and the Rockefellers, experts say.

Gary Blumenthal, chief executive of agricultural consultancy World Perspectives, told the forum: "Only 10 percent of all foreign direct investment around the world went into the food category. If you look at agricultural production, it was 0.006 percent."

Investment to transport grains and livestock and improve water and irrigation are key to Africa progress, experts said.

But a big part may come down to a four-letter word: seed.

"What is the single most important thing that we can do tomorrow to improve food security in Africa? The answer is very clearly seeds. It is something that is available and farmers can grow everywhere," Aline O'Connor Funk, an agricultural consultant in Sub-Saharan Africa, told the forum.

Funk said there are three major seed research and development areas that are simply bypassing the needs of Africa -- germ plasma, seed treatment and biotechnology.

"The best hope for food security and land sustainability is tied to seeds," Funk said.

Agribusiness representatives agreed that political stability was key for investment but government regulations on issues like trade restrictions and biotechnology were also barriers that deter private capital flows into Africa.

"We would increase some of our investments in some of these African countries. But it's really about the unpredictability of barriers of technology -- also the unpredictability of whether, in one season or another, an export ban will go in," said Devry Boughner, director of international business with Cargill Inc.

While South Africa allows in some biotech seed varieties that can help fight weeds or drought and pests, many African nations still bar the technology, citing human health fears.

But Gerald Steiner, executive vice president of Monsanto, the top producer of genetically modified seeds, said attitudes within Africa seem to be changing as they have watched India double its cotton production using biotech seeds.

"We are seeing a number of countries -- Uganda, Tanzania, Egypt, Mali, Ethiopia -- advance biosafety regulations. So things are starting to move in Africa," Steiner said.

European Parliament considers supplements petition

NutraIngredients.com, 20 May 2009:
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation/European-Parliament-considers-supplements-petition

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) has had a petition questioning scientific methods being used by European Union authorities to establish maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements accepted by the European Parliament.

The petition was submitted along with another petition that called for a review of the risks associated with mobile phone use. It was also accepted.

An EP representative said the "European Commission would conduct a preliminary investigation of the various aspects of the problem" in both cases.

"When mobile and cordless phones as well as wireless systems appear to be deemed as safe, while vitamins are regarded as if they were toxic substances, it suggests that there is no level playing field when it comes to risk assessment," said ANH executive and scientific director, Robert Verkerk.

"The European Food Safety Authority's continued support for genetically modified crops is another blatant example of this. One has to ask the question as to whether the methods being used by European regulators are more about appeasing big business interests than they are about consumer protection."

19 May 2009

Dark Side of GM Plants

Science News, May 19 2009. By Anna Kizilova:
http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/science_overview/911/
[Translated from the Russian orginal]

Over 125 million hectares in the world are currently under transgenic or genetically modified crops, and about one-fifth (21-23%) of these crops are resistant to pests. In most corpls such resistance is a result of genetic engineering via the introduction of a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into the plant's genome - plants produce bacterial protein (Bt-toxin), which is toxic for insects.

Biologists consider the above-mentioned toxins to be among the most environmentally friendly means of plant protection, since plants produce them in concentrations which are harmless for homoiothermal animals. Moreover, these toxins are selective - they kill not all insects, but only certain species: biologists have Bt-toxins killing flying insects, moth slugs or beetles. Bacterial toxins have been used in agriculture for over 50 years - farmers spray the crops with them. Bt-plants (maize, cotton, potatoes, oilseed rape, rice, broccoli, peanuts, eggplant, etc) are considered to be quite safe and, due to cheaper farming costs, cover more lands than their non-modified relatives.

Well, the [coin] has two sides. Recent research has found that crops with Bt-toxins might have negative effect on our environment. Some Bt crops appear to lose the battle against those pests they were designed to resist. Toxin concentrations in crops decrease with time, and leaves always have higher toxin content than fruits. That is why pests which feed on fruits, do not eat enough toxins to die. In this case, plants should be sprayed with insecticides for additional protection.

Insecticidal crystal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis

Unexpectedly, Bt crops are very attractive for aphids or crop lice, much more than non-modified plants. Bt toxins do not affect crop lice, since these insects take nutrients from plant vessels, which contain no Bt protein. Biologists cannot say why crop lice prefer GM plants to other plants; a possible explanation is the composition of volatile substances, different from ordinary pants; color intensity and some other biochemical properties.

After harvesting, fields are covered with silage, roots and seeds, which means some of the toxins end up in the soil. In the soil, Bt toxins keep their toxicity up to 350 days and can be fatal for soil invertebrates. Such prolonged persistence, which caused surprise of many scientists, is due to silt and humus particles which bind to the toxins and protect them from microbial degradation.

Moreover, before microbes can start degrading toxic plant debris, the said debris should first be eaten by soil invertebrates. Well, these debris do not attract even toxin-resistant eaters, and the mechanism of this phenomenon is still unclear. One explanation is that transgenic plants have a higher lignin content, a polymer that is not easy to hydrolyze - invertebrates consider GM plant residues to be less edible.

That is why ecologists warn about the possible negative effects of Bt crops on the environment, and that not all such plants effectively resist pests. Meanwhile, genetic engineers are working on creating genetically modified plants and animals for the production of biologically active substances, e.g. vaccines, hormones and pharmaceuticals. These substances target not insects, but mammals and human beings. However, no one knows how long these substances stay intact in nature, and no one has ever estimated the possible damage they cause.

GMOs are going to create famine and hunger

NCR - National Catholic Reporter [USA], 19 May 2009. By John L. Allen Jr.:
http://ncronline.org/news/gmos-are-going-create-famine-and-hunger

While the Pontifical Academy for Sciences discussed the pros of genetically modified organisms on Monday, Columban Missionary Fr. Sean McDonagh was across Rome making the case for the "con" point of view. McDonagh organized a small demonstration near the Piazza del Popolo, which was joined by a few left-of-center political movements in Italy. A large banner read, "No to GMOs, yes to food security," and a smaller sign addressed the Vatican gathering: "Pontifical Academy of Sciences, do not ally with those who, promoting GMOs, contribute to hunger in the world. Listen to the words of the Holy Father!"

A well-known writer on environmental themes, McDonagh is a veteran Irish missionary who spent more than 20 years in the Philippines. He's an outspoken critic of GMOs; in 2003, he published Patenting Life? Stop! Is Corporate Greed Forcing us to Eat Genetically Engineered Food? McDonagh spoke to NCR on the margins of the demonstration.

---

Promoters of GMOs bill them as a strategy for combating hunger. Why do you claim the exact opposite?

At the moment, almost all GMOs (canola, Bt corn, soy) are actually animal feeds. You're getting more of a meat dimension in the diets of people all over the world. It's estimated that with a traditional Asian diet, including a little bit of meat, we could support about eight to nine billion people on the planet. But if we go down the European route of eating a lot of meat, we'll able to support maybe one and one-half to two billion. In other words, the direction GMOs take us is going to create famine and hunger in many parts of the world. That's number one.

Number two is because all genetically modified seeds are now patented, you're giving enormous control to a handful of corporations over the seeds of the staple crops of the world. It started with rice, then corn, now they're looking to wheat and potatoes. This should be totally unacceptable to anyone. Forget about the science of whether they're safe or not. To give six Western corporations, in the United States and Europe, control over the seeds of the world is outrageous.

I have a particular problem with patenting living organisms. It entered our human reality through a decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in 1980, with Diamond v. Chakrabarty. It was never discussed in any parliament of the world. This extraordinary control, I would even call it domination, has been given to corporations. This, by the way, comes at the same time that these same people are promoting 'free trade.' The levels of mischievousness and deceit involved are actually gargantuan. If free trade is good, why shouldn't sharing knowledge freely be good?

I come at it from the perspective of a missionary. I lived in the Philippines for 25 years, and I saw the mixed results, even of the Green Revolution, on the poor. GMOs will only exacerbate that, because not only will you have to buy your seeds, but you also have to buy the glyphosate, which is the Ready Roundup (a herbicide manufactured by Monsanto designed for use with genetically modified crops.) You're getting crops now with multiple traits genetically engineered into them. There may be all kinds of problems with human health and the environment, but even if there weren't, you might not want these traits.

What about claims of dramatically improved yields?

The point of the recent "Failure to Yield" report from the Union of Concerned Scientists is that the increase in yield in crops over the last 25 to 30 years has come from conventional breeding. It has nothing to do with GMOs at all, or very little. This report was just published two weeks ago. I would consider it a very objective study. It looks at soy, at corn, at canola, and so on. There's no increase in yields at all, which there was in the Green Revolution, so it's quite different.

My main concern, however, is giving this control to corporations. For example, 60 percent of lettuce in the United States is now controlled by Monsanto. This is frightening. In the 19th century, all kinds of securities and exchanges agencies were created to move in on monopolies. Of course, those were monopolies on things like telephones. Now they want to build a monopoly on food. That, mind you, is precisely what they're after.

Feeding the world is about distributing food to those who need it, or distributing land so that people can grow their own food. I always give the example of Brazil. It's now the fourth largest exporter of food in the world, mainly animal feeds for Europe and America, and yet 35 to 36 million people go to bed hungry there every night.

Even if GMOs did increase the yield, is that extra food going to go to the people who need it? The reality is it won't, because Monsanto is not the St. Vincent DePaul Society. They're out there to make a big profit. They want to get monopoly control, and they make no bones about that.

All the experts at Catholic development agencies have taken the position that this is not the way to address food security, and that there's no magic bullet for hunger. What's needed is land reform, financial aid to small-scale farmers, markets where they can get value so they're not caught by the middle man. I've spent 40 years at this sort of work, and I know that's the way forward.

We also need to promote diversity in the diet. This is the whole problem with the supposed "golden rice." Why should you say to poor people that they have to eat rice three times a day? Why not a little bit of vegetables, so they'd get all the vitamin A they need? To me, it's extraordinary that $100 million has been spent on golden rice, when you could make a lot of vegetable seeds available in developing countries for that kind of money.

What about the safety question?

The answer is, we don't know. That's the bottom line. Studies done, for example, by Arpad Pusztai in 1999 on Bt corn, or on Bt potatoes that were fed to rats, found problems with their inner organs and also problems with their brain. Being a good scientist, he did not say, 'Now we should reject the technology.' He said we should look to see where the problem might be. He wanted to see if the problem was in the gene itself, because you're brining to the target organism a gene that normally the immune system of the target organism would attack. That's what your immune system does. He was ready to go into the various dimensions of that question - for example, is it the promoter? That is, the virus or bacteria that's actually used to bring genetic material across to another organism. What happened, of course, is history. He was fired from the Rowett Institute in Scotland. He was accused of being a bad scientist. They said he would never get his research published in The Lancet, which he actually did. All he was basically saying is that this technology creates problems and we need to look at them.

The problem with regulatory agencies at the moment is that they're much too tied to political and economic interests. The United States is a very good example. It's amazing just how hard wired Monsanto is to the Environmental Protection Agency and to the Food and Drug Administration. There's a real problem there, as a researcher showed with the Bt potato. When he went to the FDA, they said, we deal with potatoes but not the GM kind, that's over at the EPA. When he went to the EPA, they said, we don't deal with foodstuff, we deal with chemicals. Between them, they couldn't figure out which one was responsible for allowing this to be brought onto the market.

The real problem is that all the research on these genetically modified organisms is done by the corporations, who then stand to gain trillions of dollars. Biotech is one of the few industries that has not taken a dip in the current economic crisis, for the very simple reason that you have to eat every day. There's almost no independent verification. A Russian scientist named Ermakova has studied Bt soy, and found something similar to what Pusztai found with potatoes. I believe it's incumbent upon government to do public science and to protect the common good of ordinary citizens.

We are now all guinea pigs. We don't know what the impact will be, and it may be two or three generations before we find out. Don't forget, with ozone-layer-destroying CFCs it was 60 years before we knew they were harmful. They were considered to be the wonder chemical, non-toxic and so on ... you couldn't get any better. It was one man, British scientist Joe Farman, who actually found out by land research in Antarctica that they were doing irreparable damage to the ozone.

It's the same thing with impact on the environment: We don't know. But we do know that if you bring GMOs into a country like the Philippines, where we don't have any idea how many species are really there, now you're playing Russian roulette.

What other justice concerns do you have with GMOs?

I have a particular concern if they introduce, which they're threatening to do, this terminator gene, a plant whose seeds are genetically blocked from reproducing. I believe that's a huge moral issue. You're creating something that will not germinate on a second planting. I can't think of anything that's so ... I hate the word 'evil,' but certainly morally wrong. It's incredible that someone would create an organism that is deliberately sterile, particularly in the area of food. Food is a gift to all us, and obviously necessary for human life.

Companies argue that if they can't protect their investment somehow, there's no incentive to do research and to develop better products.

The evidence shows the opposite. If you look at the history of patents, most countries, including the United States, stole patents from other countries until they got their own economic and technological processes up and going. A Korean economist at Cambridge has done a very good study on that, and he calls it "kicking away the ladder." You're asking these so-called developing countries to follow these patent laws, but let's have a look at whether any of you actually followed it - beginning with post-Tudor Britain, right up to the United States, or more recent Japan and Korea.

Patents are for watches, not food. Patents always have to consider the trade off between the individual and the common good. Food, water and air should not be under a regime of patents, because we all need them. If you don't have air for five minutes you're dead, if you don't have water for five days you're dead, and if you don't have food for 60 days you're dead. For Christians, this is the first request in the Our Father: 'Give us this day our daily bread.' It's a huge issue, and I think patents are completely morally out of place. Churches, especially the Catholic church, that claim to be pro-life should have a serious moral critique of this arrogance.

It's also stealing, because what did they patent? They patented one small dimension of iot. What about the farmers in the Philippines for the last 5,000 years who created all the other traits? What about the farmers down on the altiplano in Peru who created 5,000 varieties of potatoes? Are they going to be compensated? I think governments should set up processes to say, okay, this is the money you've spent, this is the value to society as we see it, and therefore you should get 'x' amount of money. Ownership, however, is something completely different.

Here's another dimension of the injustice. The northern world, the United States and Europe, is poor biologically. Ireland, for example, has ten species of trees. Where I worked in the Philippines, I got money from the Australian government to do a study in a local forest. In a single hectare, you could get up to 130 species of trees. There are 5,000 species total in that forest. The south is rich biologically but poor financially. Northern countries are using trade agreements to go down to the south, take advantage of its diversity, change slight little bits of it, and then bring it back to patent it. It's exploitation of the worst order. It makes Magellan, Cromwell, and the Pizarro brothers look like dime-store operators.

Do you believe the Pontifical Academy for Sciences is being exploited?

It is. This is the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, so let's start with the 'pontifical' part. It's a Catholic organization. Who are the church's real experts in this area? I would say people like myself. I would say particularly the aid and development agencies, such as Misereor, Cafod, and Caritas. ... They thought so little of this expertise in the Catholic church that they didn't invite a single person from any one of those agencies.

Further, anyone who ever claims to be a scientist should hear the other side. That goes back to Plato. What are they afraid of? Why didn't they set up a decent colloquium over there? Also, why don't they take into account numerous independent studies in the last three years which have concluded that the way to food security is not through GM crops? Why just discard all that? There's a very recent study from Africa on the yields from organic farming, saying this is the kind of thing we should be promoting. I would consider this gathering grossly incompetent.

Why do you believe they're doing it this way?

They want to get rid of the very minimal regulations that we have at the moment. They said it in the introduction to the study week, and every one of them says it in his abstract. That's their goal. Bishop Sanchez Sorondo (chancellor of the Pontifical Academy) has said that the purpose is to examine whether GM crops are safe, but I'm sorry, that's not it. The purpose is to use the prestige of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and its good name to beat on governments so that you can reduce regulation.

I would also claim that they want to use something like the Potrykus rice as a battering ram against the regulatory process. The strategy is that if you get it through once, you've set the precedent. They say they want it for altruistic reasons, but this language of talking about the poor and about development is grossly misleading. I'm a professional anthropologist who has been working in the area of development economics, I think it's patronizing.

Proponents of GMOs suggest that you're guilty of neo-colonialism, in the sense that you presume to know what's best for the poor in Africa and other places.

Let them come to where I was in the Philippines, and ask there. Let's go to the southern part of Brazil, or Argentina, where this is being pushed on people. Let's do a real empirical study, and I think you'd find that the people who are affected by it are very negative towards it. I took up this issue only because I saw the impact it's had on people living there. I believe I have a better take on what's happening in the Philippines, for example, than anyone in the study week ... including the only person from the Philippines there, the director of the International Rice Research Center, but he's an American.

I was not against GMOs at first. When I arrived I taught anthropology and linguistics at the University of Mindanao in the Philippines, the biggest agricultural university in the region. At that stage, I thought, if you can plant crops as far as the eye can see, why not? It was only as I began to see the other aspects, including wiping out genetic diversity, that I changed my mind. I looked back at my Irish experience. We used to have these massive potato fields, and then suddenly in 1845, one pathogen wiped them out. I began to learn a lot about the importance of biodiversity.

The pro-GMO argument is comparable to what we used to hear from the bankers. They used to tell us we need a light touch with the regulations, because we're the entrepreneurs, we're the people who create wealth that sends the boys and girls to school and puts the Euro in the collection plate on Sunday. If a banker came to you today and tried to say that there shouldn't be any regulation, we'd all laugh. We wouldn't even engage him intellectually. The same is true with these lads. The tide has gone out on what they want, and rightly so, because we're dealing with very serious issues.

Humankind has a very bad record of moving biodiversity around to the wrong places. It's like the guy who brought rabbits out to Australia with disastrous results. This is biological science, which is different from architecture or engineering. If those guys get something wrong and the building collapses, too bad, but you can fix it. Biology reproduces. The Australian government can't fix the rabbits. The level of regulation should be multiple times more stringent than it is.

The study week invited an African bishop. What's your sense of where African Catholics stand on GMOs?

I've had conversations with African people, including religious orders, working in this area. We just had a conference in Assisi on ecology and integrity of creation at the heart of Christian mission. There are all sorts of efforts by religious to build up organic agriculture in Africa. ... I feel this man shouldn't have come here. If they'd invited me, I wouldn't go. You just give them legitimacy, and it's not properly structured. I'm not a geneticist or a plant biologist, but based on the expertise I have as a missionary, I know this is not the way to go for sustainable agriculture. If it was, they'd have the right people at this meeting.

Are you worried that the Vatican is going to come out with an official pro-GMO statement?

Not at all. We were more concerned back in 2003, when Cardinal Renato Martino began to talk about how maybe GMOs could feed the world. We were very worried then, but not so much now. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, for example, may not yet have assessed the science, but they have begun to see the impact on developing countries. On January 1, there was an article in L'Osservatore Romano, in which Martino was quoted on that side of it.

Monsanto's Terminator Making a Comeback? Enter the Zombie!

American Chronicle, 19 May 2009. By Barbara Peterson:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/103033

Monsanto and its cohorts in crime promised us that they would not be using Terminator technology called GURT, or genetic use restricted technology. In fact, the United Nations actually issued a moratorium on the project. So we're safe, right? Wrong.

As usual, the boys in the little white lab coats have not been idle. In spite of the moratorium, not only are they working heatedly on Terminator technology, but are getting ready to introduce Zombie technology. Terminator, and Traitor or Zombie technologies are just variations of GURT. Whereas Terminator technology produces plants with sterile seeds, Zombie technology carries this a step further by creating plants that could require a chemical application to trigger seed fertility every year. Pay for the chemical or get sterile seed. This is called reversible transgenic sterility. They have been working steadily on perfecting this technology, and are now poised to introduce it to the world as a solution to the current GMO contamination problem. Move over Terminator, here comes the Zombie.

If a field gets contaminated with seeds containing the Terminator gene, the resulting plants will have sterile seeds, so the reproductive cycle ends. If the contamination is from the Zombie gene, the resulting plants will most likely require a certain pesticide or will be sterile.

Plants are engineered with sterility as the default condition, but sterility can be reversed with the application of an external stimulus that restores the plant's viability. In order to bring the "zombie" seed back from the dead, the farmer or breeder must use an external stimulus (such as a proprietary chemical) to restore the seed's fertility. (Terminator the Sequel, 2007 http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=635)

Either way, if you are a small farmer with a contaminated field, your seed-saving venture for the following year will be less than successful. Planting sterile seeds takes the same amount of work as well as monetary outlay that planting good seeds does, but without the return on investment. And, you cannot tell the difference between the good, the bad, and the ugly seeds until it's too late. That is, if the patent enforcement brigade doesn't raid your property first and force you to destroy your crops and all of your seeds due to patent infringement. Then you get nothing, and have to pay for the privilege.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that Monsanto announced in 2006, its takeover of Delta Pine & Land?

http://www.banterminator.org/News-Updates/News-Updates/Monsanto-Announces-Takeover-of-Delta-Pine-Land

This would not be of much consequence, but for the fact that Delta Pine & Land is a joint owner along with the USDA of US patent # 5,723,765 - GURT technology.

In March 1998 the US Patent Office granted Patent No. 5,723,765 to Delta Pine & Land for a patent titled, Control of Plant Gene _Expression. The patent is owned jointly, according to Delta Pine's Security & Exchange Commission 10K filing, 'by DP&L and the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture.' (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082)

This makes, as of 2006, Monsanto and the United States of America (USA, Inc.), as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA), which is currently Tom Vilsack, joint owners of the GURT patent. Kind of gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling all over, doesn't it?

Read the following article from ETC Group and download the full 28 page report titled Terminator: The Sequel here:

http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/etcomm95_tsequel_11june071.pdf

Here is another report on GURT technology from Germany:

http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/german_scientists_on_sst.pdf

Terminator: The Sequel

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=635

Despite the fact that governments re-affirmed and strengthened the United Nations' moratorium on Terminator technology (a.k.a. genetic use restriction technology [GURTs]) in March 2006, public and private sector researchers are developing a new generation of suicide seeds - using chemically induced "switches" to turn a genetically modified (GM) plant's fertility on or off.

Issue: Under the guise of biosafety, the European Union's 3-year Transcontainer Project is investing millions of euros in strategies that cannot promise fail-safe containment of transgenes from GM crops, but could nonetheless function as Terminator, posing unacceptable threats to farmers, biodiversity and food sovereignty. Terminator technology - genetic seed sterilization - was initially developed by the multinational seed/agrochemical industry and the US government to maximize seed industry profits by preventing farmers from re-planting harvested seed. Researchers are also developing new techniques to excise transgenes from GM plants at a specific time in the plant's development, and methods to kill a plant with "conditionally lethal" genes. This new generation of GURTs will shift the burden of trait control to the farmer. Under some scenarios, farmers will be obliged to pay for the privilege of restoring seed fertility every year - a new form of perpetual monopoly for the seed industry.

Impact: Whether intended or not, new research on molecular containment of transgenes will ultimately allow the multinational seed industry to tighten its grasp on proprietary germplasm and restrict the rights of farmers. Industry and governments are already working to overturn the existing moratorium on Terminator technology at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In the months leading up to the CBD's 9th Conference of the Parties (Bonn, Germany 19-30 May 2008), industry will argue that global warming requires urgent introduction of transgenic crops and trees for biofuels - and that Terminator-type technologies offer a precautionary, environmental necessity to prevent transgene flow. Ironically, society is being asked to foot the bill for a new techno-fix to mitigate the genetic contamination caused by the biotech industry's defective GM seeds.

Players: Taxpayer-financed research on biological containment of GM crops subsidizes the corporate agenda. A handful of multinational seed corporations control biotech seeds and the proprietary seed market as a whole has seen unprecedented corporate concentration. In 2006, the world's top 4 seed companies - Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Groupe Limagrain - accounted for half (49%) of the proprietary seed market.

Policy: Governments keep trying to find ways to make GM seeds safe and acceptable and they keep failing. They should stop trying. There is no such thing as a safe and acceptable form of Terminator. The EU should discontinue funding for research on "reversible transgenic sterility," and re-assess funding for other research projects undertaken by Transcontainer. Rather than support research on coexistence to bail out the agbiotech industry, the EU should instead fund sustainable agricultural research that benefits farmers and the public. National governments should propose legislation to prohibit field-testing and commercial sale of Terminator technologies. Governments meeting at the 9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn, Germany must strengthen the moratorium on GURTs by recommending a ban on the technology.

Action at WWF in the Netherlands: GM toxic soy is not responsible!

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), 19 May 2009:
http://www.corporateeurope.org/agrofuels/blog/nina/2009/05/19/action-wwf-against-responsible-soy

Action against WWF support for Monsanto GM toxic soy at headoffice WWF-Netherlands

Today, the head office of WWF-Netherlands received some extraordinary visitors, including a weeping panda, a Monsanto circus director, and various people in white overalls spraying "Roundup".

The action is a protest on the occasion of the upcoming vote of the Round Table on Responsibe Soy (RTRS), on 28 May in Campinas (Brazil). This forum will allow GM RoundupReady soy to be certified as 'responsible', while in reality, this soy is responsible for massive use of pesticides as well as deforestation and driving small farmers from their lands.

During the action, the Monsanto circus director tried to convince the Panda to sign the RTRS Declaration that ends with the words "Hereby I declare GM RoundupReady soy RESPONSIBLE". The Panda, however, did clearly not agree, and refused to sign. Meanwhile, pesticide sprayers went around the building to spray the plants with a healthy dosis of 'Roundup'. Drummers and people spreading flyers made sure all employees were informed of the reason of the action.

The visitors publicly discussed the issue with Director of WWF-Netherlands, Johan van de Gronden. He maintained that WWF could exert more influence inside the RTRS than if it were to abandon the proces. In response, the activists said that WWF is in a very isolated position, as there is hardly any support from civil society in producer countries for the RTRS. Mr Van de Gronden did not want to explain how WWF would defend its choice to support a label for RoundupReady soy to the public and WWF supporters. He said that should be left up to them. Neither did he want to respond to the question what would be an acceptable outcome for WWF of the Campinas conference.

WWF and Solidaridad, a Dutch development and fair trade organisation, are the main drivers of the RTRS process from the NGO side. Industry participants however dominate the forum. No small farmer movements or indigenous peoples' organisations take part. Every RTRS conference so far has sparked protest and counter-declarations. FUNDAPAZ, an Argentinean NGO, has announced to leave the RTRS after the conference in Campinas.

The criteria have been widely criticised:

•

They don't stop deforestation, but rather legitimise soy expansion

•

GM RoundupReady soy will be given a 'green' label

•

Social and environmental criteria are often vague and very weak

Yet, despite this WWF keeps supporting the RTRS. Even though officially opposed to GMOs, the organisation is about to introduce a 'responsible' label for herbicide-resistant soy.

You can still sign the petition on http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/Action/action.html

Corporate Europe Observatory
Rue d'Edimbourg 26
1050 Brussels
Belgium

nina@corporateeurope.org
phone: 0032 - (0) 2 89 30 930
mobile: 0032 - (0) 497 389 632

http://www.corporateeurope.org
http://www.lasojamata.orglink
http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/Action/action.html (sign the petition against 'responsible' GM soy!)

GM toxic soy is not 'responsible'!

http://www.toxicsoy.org, 19 May 2009.

Please forward widely

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

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

Read more about this on our website http://www.toxicsoy.org and sign the petition!

Sign our appeal to representatives of WWF and Solidaridad to withdraw their support for toxic soy. This petition will also be sent to the president of the RTRS, and a number of supermarkets that are RTRS member: http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/Action/action.html

Help us and forward this mail - preferably with an added personal message - to friends and family. Translations of this call and the petition text [are available - contact: nina@corporateeurope.org]. A Dutch website with the same petition is www.gifsoja.nl Thank you! toxicsoy.org

Doctors call for immediate moratorium on Genetically Modified foods

Examiner.com [USA], 19 May 2009:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5148-LA-Environmental-Health-Examiner~y2009m5d19-Doctors-call-for-immediate-moratorium-on-Genetically-Modified-foods

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health." The AAEM calls for:

•

A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.

•

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods.

•

Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients' disease processes.

•

More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.

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

"Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions," said Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM. "The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil."

The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.

AAEM is an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health. More information is available at http://www.aaemonline.org.

Further Information

Dr. Amy L. Dean, D.O.
Public Relations Chair
Member, Board of Directors
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
+ 1 734 213 4901

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

By Jeffrey M. Smith, 19 May 2009:

http://www.geneticroulette.com

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks." They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies."

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods." Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that "children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems" related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become "the experimental animals."

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks-compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color-from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt-produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis-has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton. In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, "Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming."

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, "Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation," including increase in cytokines, which are "associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation"-all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are "a consistent feature of all the studies." Even Monsanto's own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn. A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties, GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor-a known soy allergen, and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin... most probably Bt-toxin." In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. Monsanto's own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.

Worst finding of all-GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.

This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests. But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists' concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto's vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, "GM foods have not been properly tested" and "pose a serious health risk." Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the "potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants" revealed "that experimental data are very scarce." The author concludes his review by asking, "Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?"

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, "The experiments simply haven't been done and we now have become the guinea pigs." He adds, "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."

Dr. Schubert points out, "If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood-but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their "members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health."

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets-unless it says organic or "non-GMO." There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors' offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe-by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM's non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world's bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don't have the data to show that their products are safe.

Rossland says no to GE plants

Trail-Rossland News [Canada], 19 May 2009. By Will Johnson:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/kootenay_rockies/trailrosslandnews/news/45439977.html

Rossland doesn't want genetically engineered plants and trees in their municipality.

On May 11, 2009, the City of Rossland took leadership on this controversial issue by passing a resolution to oppose the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The resolution, moved by Councillor Laurie Charlton and seconded by Jill Spearn, stated that Rossland opposes GMOs and will not purchase any for their own use. The matter was brought to the attention of Rossland city council by the regional G.E Free Kootenays campaign, a sub-group of the Kootenay Food Strategy Society.

"This decision helps our campaign move forward as we will now look to bring other local governments on board," said G.E. Free Kootenays' Rossland representative Andy Morel, who has been involved in the organization since its inception in November 2007.

Many members of the organization refer to GMOs as "Frankenfood."

Morel said the average Rosslander probably consumes a genetically engineered food product every day. Foods such as cereal, potato chips, fruit juices, cookies and any processed food product with corn or soy is likely to have genetically engineered components.

"There are a myriad of by-products hidden in our food that the average person just doesn't know about," said Morel.

Morel said the biggest concern is that we haven't yet properly studied the effects this food will have.

G.E Free Kootenays is concerned that GMOs will negatively impact human and environmental health. They also believe there has been inadequate regulating by health and food authorities and uncontrollable contamination between genetically altered and normal crops.

"I'm not an expert. I'm just an advocate of organic foods and organic farming," said Morel.

He added there is lots of information online for anyone interested in learning more about the controversy surrounding GMOs.

Morel encouraged people to buy organic or certified organic food and suggested even planting your own garden in your backyard.

"Most Canadians, and people in general, don't know anything about this. It's best to just be cautious."

The entire EU has banned genetically altered plants and trees, but North America is yet to get on board.

The Regional District of Powell River became the first GMO free zone in the country in 2004, followed by Saltspring Island the same year. The City of Nelson was the first district in the Kootenay region to join the G.E Free Kootenays campaign, in November 2008.

"The efforts in the Kootenays is one of the most organized but this is going on everywhere," said Morel.

Since being introduced in the mid-90s, GMOs have steadily increased their presence in North America's food supply. To help promote farmer independence and community food sovereignty, G.E Free Kootenays believe the spread of genetically altered plants needs to be stopped.

Morel said the idea behind these modified crops was noble, but lacked in execution. While the crops were originally advertised as having a better yield and a superior quality, Morel said that simply isn't the case. As well, the use of pesticides, herbicides and insecticides further sullies the quality of the food.

Though the resolution passed by council did not include any bylaw on cultivation or any restriction for grocery stories or restaurants, G.E Free Kootenays believes that having a political power behind their movement will help educate residents and mobilize opponents to the spread of these potentially dangerous plants and trees.

Fight-back against anti-GM forces begins in Germany

Farm Business [UK], 19 May 2009:
http://www.farmbusiness.cc/cogcms/default.aspx?Page=2&Article=4126

German farmers and researchers are beginning to hit back at what they describe as the "hostile climate to plant biotechnology" at present in the country.

It is one of the EU states which is refusing to sanction cultivation of a Monsanto genetically modified grain maize, MON810, despite its approval for use in the community.

In a joint memorandum, the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) and German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) are demanding "reliable conditions for research and development in the area of genetically modified plants".

At a press conference in Berlin the presidents of both organisations complained of a hostile climate to plant biotechnology and called for freedom of research and field trials.

The ban on cultivating MON810 and the restrictions on field trials sent "a really alarming and hostile signal," according to Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, a biotechnologist and developmental biologist based in Tübingen, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1995.

She criticised the political bans on GM use, saying they were based on unrealistic tests when, in fact, there were numerous studies that had received funding from the EU, the DFG and Germany's Ministry of Research (BMBF) that had found no risk to humans or the environemnt from genetically modified Bt maize.

If such politically motivated obstructions continued, she feared that many innovative researchers would turn their backs on Germany.

Agricultural society president Carl-Albrecht Bartmer said the area of farmland could not be increased much worldwide yet biomass consumption as a source of environmentally friendly energy and industry's increasing demand for new renewable materials were likely to lead to a shortage of agricultural produce on international markets.

One way of achieving a sustainable increase in crop productivity, according to the joint memorandum, is plant-breeding advances in agricultural crops.

"Alongside classic plant-breeding methods, modern plant biotechnology instruments offer great potential for a sustainable productivity increase," it says.

"So we cannot afford to abandon research in the area of crop biotechnology."

Deep Agriculture: video interview with Michael Pollan

Fora TV / Long Now Foundation, 9 May 2009.

Watch the video at: http://fora.tv/2009/05/05/Michael_Pollan_Deep_Agriculture

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

This talk by food and farming journalist Michael Pollan provides a timely overview of what he describes as Barack Obama's paradigm-shift in US food and farming policy.

Excerpt:

"We are being sold a pig in a poke... What I'm suggesting is that this is a very good business for a small handful of companies, and that the real key to genetic engineering is control of intellectual property of the food crops that we depend on. This is why they do it.

And if we had open-source genetic engineering, if we had genetic engineering that was really being applied to making the system more sustainable – rather than more brittle, which is essentially what it's doing – you know, I'm open to learning about it, you know, it's possible, I mean maybe you can figure out a way to increase the photosynthetic efficiency of plants.

But the other thing I would insist on, besides open-source for the intellectual property, is the freedom to study it... Monsanto and these companies say... 'this is the most studied, the most regulated food in history'. The fact is that you, as an independent scientist, are not allowed to study a Monsanto product! You are simply forbidden! And if you want to do a test of the environmental or health implications of genetically modified soy or corn or whatever, you must sign a contract that gives Monsanto prior approval before you can publish. And just two months ago, crop scientists from around the world signed a letter saying 'we can't study this stuff and we need the ability to really shine the light of science on this thing, and not let Monsanto control all that information.'"

Bio

Michael Pollan is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, a New York Times bestseller. His previous books include The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World (2001); A Place of My Own (1997); and Second Nature (1991). A contributing writer to The New York Times Magazine, Pollan is the recipient of numerous journalistic awards, including the James Beard Award for best magazine series in 2003 and the Reuters-I.U.C.N. 2000 Global Award for Environmental Journalism. Pollan served for many years as executive editor of Harper's Magazine and is now the Knight Professor of Science and Environmental Journalism at UC Berkeley. His articles have been anthologized in Best American Science Writing 2004, Best American Essays 2003, and the Norton Book of Nature Writing. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with his wife, the painter Judith Belzer, and their son, Isaac.

DuPont Alleges Anti-Competitive Conduct by Monsanto in Response to Lawsuit Over Stacked Traits

Pharma Law Weekly, 19 May 2009:
http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=13863

Monsanto is trying to deny farmers access to alternative technologies at a time when farmers are struggling with weeds that are increasingly resistant to current Monsanto products, said James C. Borel, DuPont (NYSE:DD) group vice president.

"The litigation filed today by Monsanto is more of what we have come to expect from them," said Borel, in response to the filing of a lawsuit by Monsanto in federal court in St. Louis, Mo. "Monsanto has a long history of using litigation and aggressive tactics to preserve their monopoly and attempt to intimidate customers, seed partners and competitors. DuPont(TM) Optimum(R) GAT(R) soybeans that include the RR1 trait are better products, and we believe our customers should have the right to plant them. On this issue, we will stand with American farmers and fight Monsanto's efforts to deny them access to competitive products.

"DuPont has been delivering innovation to the marketplace for years, such as Y series soybeans, and we are seeing positive response from farmers. Our pipeline is full of innovative products that will improve productivity of the world's farmers, and we think it's only appropriate that farmers can see some new options that can benefit them.

"We are disappointed Monsanto chose litigation and inflammatory public statements over civil discourse. The lawsuit incorrectly claims that Pioneer and DuPont may not combine ("stack") the innovative Optimum(R) GAT(R) trait with any soybeans already containing a Roundup Ready(R) trait. Monsanto's so-called "stacking" restriction is one of many practices that Monsanto engages in to limit the availability of competitive products. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice required that Monsanto abandon similar "stacking" restrictions it imposed on its licensees producing Roundup Ready cottonseed as a condition to its acquisition of cotton seed company Delta & Pine Land.

"It is DuPont's belief that competition in the seed industry, U.S. growers, and ultimately, consumers, would be best served by a public policy that allows independent seed companies to assemble the best combinations of traits and germplasm for each of their customers. To that end, seed companies should be able to offer combinations of traits and germplasm without restrictions imposed by trait providers that attempt to limit those combinations."

DuPont is a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation.

The DuPont Oval Logo, DuPont(TM), The miracles of science(TM) and Optimum(R) GAT(R) are registered trademarks or trademarks of DuPont or its affiliates.

Roundup Ready® is a registered trademark used under license from Monsanto.

18 May 2009

German agriculture minister talks GM corn in Washington

CheckBiotech.org, 18 May 2009. By Chuck Penfold:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/german_agriculture_minister_talks_gm_corn_washington

In Washington, Germany's agriculture and consumer protection minister, Ilse Aigner, has had a tough time explaining that her decision to ban a strain of US corn is not old fashioned protectionism.

Aigner has been kept busy defending Germany's decision to ban the planting or sale of the seeds of MON810, a genetically modified strain of maize.

The maize, one of the oldest GM strains being cultivated, is extra resistant to crop destroying insects, but it has already raised concerns in several European Union countries that it might be damaging to the environment. Now it appears it may be damaging trans-Atlantic relations as well.

On her first trip to the United States, Aigner said talks with the US trade representative, Ron Kirk, and the chairman of the US Committee on Agriculture, Collin Peterson, had been constructive and that the US understood her standpoint, even if they didn't like it.

"The decision wasn't well received," Aigner said, "I think they saw this as a purely protectionist move."

Aigner reiterated her argument that Germany's position on MON810 has nothing to do with market protectionism. She said that recent studies showed that MON810 produced a substance toxic to predators, but also to other insects, and that the plant's pollen spread more widely than originally thought.

A German court said the government had presented enough evidence that the maize posed a risk, as laid out in genetic technology law to uphold the government's position. It said Berlin did not have to provide definitive scientific proof of a danger to the environment to justify outlawing the crop. Monsanto argues that the safety of MON810 has been demonstrated by the United States, Japan, Canada and the European Commission.

Some critics have said Aigner's decision is a political point-scoring exercise in an election year.

However Barbara Helfferich, an environmental officer with the European Commission, said Germany is within its rights to suspend the use of MON810.

"A country can invoke a safeguard clause if it has convincing new evidence that the product that is put on the market or planted poses a threat to the environment or the health of its citizens in the specificity of the context of the country," she said.

Last month in Prague, at an informal meeting of EU environment ministers, European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said the EU would begin a review of Germany's decision to ban the genetically modified maize.

Monsanto has called Aigner's policy "capricious," and the company is seeking to suspend the ban via an appeal to a higher German court and says it will eventually seek its permanent reversal.

Barbara Helfferich of the European Commission says that if Monsanto's bid fails, they will have to get their case heard by the highest authority, the World Trade Organisation.

"The next step would be that Monsanto would be asking the United States to go to the WTO," she said, "but that again is a question of European competence where we are following our own legislation and for the moment there is no reason to think that we are violating any of the WTO rules."

Germany is the sixth EU country to introduce a provisional ban on MON810, following similar moves by France, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg and Greece. The European Commission had sought to force Austria and Hungary to reverse their bans on the crop, but its ruling was overturned by a majority of EU nations in March.

Canada approves high oleic acid GM soybeans

Food Navigator (USA), 18 May 2009. By Caroline Scott-Thomas:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Product-Categories/Fats-oils/Canada-approves-high-oleic-acid-GM-soybeans

Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have approved a high oleic acid genetically modified (GM) soybean for cultivation and foods containing the oil could hit the market by 2010, says DuPont.

The high oleic trait, developed by DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred unit, means the resultant soybean oil consists of 80 percent oleic acid, more than three times the amount present in ordinary soybean oil. High levels of oleic acid have been shown to remove the need for hydrogenation, a process that increases stability and shelf life, but results in the creation of harmful trans fats.

Pioneer president and DuPont vice president and general manager Paul Schickler said: "This is a significant milestone in our effort to bring the high oleic soybean trait to market. We're seeing strong results in field testing of soybeans with the high oleic trait and strong interest from food companies looking for a new oil product with improved nutritional qualities and performance characteristics."

In the US, the trait is still being reviewed by the US Department of Agriculture but the variety will be field tested in Canada this year, with the potential for products containing the soybean oil to be released on the market from next year.

A spokesperson for DuPont told FoodNavigator-USA.com that it is working with "all the major oilseed processors" and has seen strong interest in the ingredient from food manufacturers.

Increased stability

The company claims that the high levels of oleic acid "significantly increase" the oil's stability in food processing and frying, meaning it does not break down as quickly.

In addition to delivering at least 80 percent oleic acid content, DuPont said the high oleic trait has also demonstrated a 20 percent reduction in saturated fatty acids and the oil contains "negligible amounts" of trans fats.

"Soybeans are grown on more acres than any other oilseed crop in North America, making high oleic soybeans a cost-effective solution," the company said.

Trans fat fears

Hydrogenation of oils, essentially turning them into semi-solids, gives them a higher melting point and extends their shelf life, making them better suited for use by the food industry.

Hydrogenated fats have been widely used by food producers for a century, but fears about trans fats - and the risk of coronary heart disease that these can cause - have prompted companies to look for alternative oils that provide the same function without the attendant dangers.

The company said it has planned or already made regulatory submissions to major soybean-importing countries. Attitudes to GM crops vary around the world, with people in the US, Canada and Japan generally positive about their use, while Europeans tend to hold a more negative view, according to research from Royal Society of Chemistry and Institute of Chemical Engineers.

In North America, consumers' concerns about trans fats have led to companies investing heavily in researching new strains of oilseeds that can be used in place of hydrogenised oils.

DuPont added that the oil could have applications beyond food.

"The oil's high stability in industrial settings will allow companies to develop renewable, environmentally sustainable options to petroleum-based products," it said.

Vatican studies genetically modified crops
• Vatican science academy pushes GMOs as safe way of feeding the hungry

National Catholic Reporter, May 18 2009. By John L. Allen Jr.:
http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/vatican-studies-genetically-modified-crops

Rome -- Sandwiched amid Pope Benedict XVI's trip to the Middle East and President Barack Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame, a behind-closed-doors "study week" in Rome sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Sciences on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has so far flown largely below radar.

Yet the May 15-19 event could help drive the Vatican toward a pro-GMO stance, disappointing some social justice activists, as well as a cross-section of Catholic bishops and theologians, who see genetically altered crops as risks to the environment and human health as well as a boondoggle for giant agribusiness corporations.

To date, the Vatican has not taken an official position on GMOs. In recent years, both pro- and anti-GMO forces have clamored for Vatican support, on the theory that a statement could be crucial in framing moral debate.

The "study week" is unlikely to produce immediate conclusions, and the Academy for Sciences is essentially a think tank that does not issue authoritative church teaching. Nonetheless, the thrust of the event seems to mobilize support for GMOs as a safe way of combating poverty, feeding the hungry, and protecting the environment.

The driving force behind the study week is Ingo Potrykus, a German-born scientist credited with being the inventor of "golden rice," a genetically modified rice plant which produces high levels of a precursor to vitamin A. Proponents claim that "golden rice" could save up to a million lives a year, mostly in the developing world, from illnesses due to vitamin A deficiency, but others charge its benefits have been over-sold. Potrykus is a Catholic and a member of the Academy of Sciences.

The formal title of the study week is "Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development," which is taking place at the headquarters of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences in the Vatican's Casina Pio IV.

Well before the event even began, it stirred contrasting reactions.

"Spinwatch," an independent body in the United Kingdom that monitors the role of public relations, has described the study week as a "total farce," charging that the speakers are "all GMO supporters, with many well known for their extreme pro-GMO views or having vested interests in GMO adoption." A May 13 release from the group asserts that several speakers have financial ties to Monsanto, an American agricultural company that is the world's largest producer of genetically engineered seed.

In an April 19 issue of the Irish Catholic, environmental writer Fr. Sean McDonagh, a Columban missionary, charged that the Academy of Sciences event is "silent" about the role that "massive profits" for biotech companies play in influencing pro-GMO arguments.

McDonagh told NCR he's planning to hold a small demonstration in Rome on Monday to provide an alternative point of view.

Potrykus wrote a letter to the editor of the Irish Catholic insisting that "it should be obvious that this study week is truly in the interest of the poor." Piero Morandi, an Italian scientist and another study week participant, wrote that anti-GMO regulation "is excessive, very costly, not science-based and therefore not only useless, but damaging the interests of people, especially the poorest."

In one sign of concern about the appearance of corporate influence, sources told NCR that plans for the study week originally called for a couple of Monsanto employees to discuss public/private partnerships in the delivery of GMO technology. Roughly a month ago, however, the Monsanto officials were quietly advised not to attend.

Though the sessions are not open to the public, preparatory materials for the conference, including abstracts of presentations published on the Web site of the Academy for Sciences, offer a flavor of the discussions.

An introduction refers to GMOs as "life-sustaining and lifesaving technologies," and asserts that "no substantiated environmental or health risks have been noted." It charges that "extreme precautionary regulation," especially in Europe, has limited the spread of GMOs, thereby restricting "the huge potential of plant biotechnology to produce more, and more nutritive, food for the poor."

The introduction says the study week is "not a standard science meeting," but rather has the goal of developing "strategies to inform the media, the public, the regulatory authorities and governments that it is unjustified, even immoral, to continue with current attitudes and processes."

Judging from the abstracts, virtually all of the official speakers at the conference share that view.

Andrew Apel, who edits a biotech news outlet called "GMObelus," charged that opposition to GMOs comes from "an international "protest industry which serves its own interests, and the interests of its funders." Henry Miller, of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote that failure to adopt wider use of GMOs is the result of a "public policy miasma," and amounts to "one of the great societal tragedies of the past quarter century."

Baron Marc Van Montagu, president of the European Federation of Biotechnology, said that "refusing GM technology will hold back efforts to alleviate poverty and hunger, to save biodiversity and protect the environment." Robert Paarlberg of Wellesley College charged that the anti-GMO movement is an "imperialism of rich tastes imposed on the poor."

Though his name does not appear on the published program, Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier, former theologian of the papal household under Pope John Paul II, has also addressed the study week.

While conference materials frequently refer to anti-GMO sentiments among politicians, NGOs, and the media, they do not directly avert to one other source: Catholic leaders, including several bishops' conferences in the developing world.

In February 2003, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines asked then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to postpone use of a genetically modified corn, citing possible health risks. In 2002, the Catholic Bishops of South Africa declared, "It is morally irresponsible to produce and market genetically modified food."

In 2003, 14 Brazilian bishops put out a "declaration on transgenic crops," in which they condemned the cultivation and consumption of GMOs. The bishops cited three risks: 1) health consequences, including increased allergies, resistance to antibiotics, and an increase in toxic substances; 2) environmental consequences, including erosion of bio-diversity; and 3) damage to the sovereignty of Brazil, "as a result of the loss of control of seeds and living things through patents that become the exclusive property of multinational groups interested only in commercial ends."

While few of these voices are on the program, organizers did invite Bishop George Nkuo of Cameroon after a working paper for this fall's Synod of Bishops for Africa contained critical language about GMOs. The document warns that a pro-GMO push "runs the risk of ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding, and making farmers dependent on the production companies."

The Academy of Sciences has long been favorably inclined to GMOs. In 2004, it released a study document praising the role that GMOs could play in combating world hunger.

How far the study week may go in resolving the broader Catholic debate, however, remains to be seen. A May 1 editorial in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, said that for now GMOs remain "an open question."

[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]

Tell Congress not to Force GE Crops on other Countries

True Food Network / Center for Food Safety [USA], May 2009:
http://ga3.org/campaign/NoGMinFoodAid/36b76en9ojwx8kme?

An effort to fight global poverty and hunger may become a Trojan horse to force genetically engineered crops on countries and farmers that do not want them. In the [US] Senate, Senators Bob Casey (D-Penn.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) introduced the Global Food Security Act, which increases funding for agricultural research in the developing world, and a companion bill in the House of Representatives is expected to be introduced soon. While the bill recognizes the desperate need to increase funding for agricultural development and food security, it also requires that foreign agricultural development aid include investment in genetically engineered (GE) crops.

Most developing countries, especially in Africa, do not allow genetically engineered crops to be commercially grown, but that's changing with international pressure. Biotech companies have mounted a misinformation campaign to sell themselves and their products as "humanitarian." But, genetically engineered crops are not a solution to world hunger. To date, not a single GE crop released for commercial growing has increased yield potential or elevated nutritional levels. In reality, fully 85% of all GE crops globally are engineered to survive spraying with chemical weedkillers. These chemical-dependent GE crops have sharply increased overall use of pesticides and are best-suited to large growers seeking to reduce labor needs for weed control, not poor farmers anxious to produce more to feed their families.

A recent report by the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth found that agricultural biotechnology feeds the profits of biotech companies - not the poor. The report's findings support the United Nations' assessment of world agriculture released in a report in 2008, which concluded that GE crops have little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world, and instead recommended low-cost, low-input agroecological farming methods.

The solutions for food security through agricultural development lie in promoting agroecological practices that not only increase agricultural productivity, but are affordable and accessible to small-scale developing world farmers. As Ben Burkett, an African American farmer from Mississippi and President of the National Family Farm Coalition who has visited Africa many times, said in a recent article, "More expensive genetically modified seeds, pesticides and chemical-intensive practices won't help the hungry and will only allow more profits and control for seed companies like Monsanto and Syngenta."

Food aid and development assistance should never be pre-conditioned on accepting unwanted and ineffective genetically engineered crops. Tell Congress to keep genetic engineering out of any food aid and agricultural research legislation.

Please edit the letter below to personalize your message

Subject: Keep genetic engineering out of food aid and agricultural research legislation

Dear [ Decision Maker ],

I urge you to oppose any food aid or agricultural development aid legislation that promotes genetic engineering, or that mandates its development or use, such as the Global Food Security Act of 2009 (S. 384), Section 202, subsection number 4. This provision would require that agricultural research include "research on biotechnological advances, including genetically modified technology."

The food crisis makes clear how vital it is that we increase our foreign assistance funding to help the world's poor - primarily small farmers - become more productive and capable of feeding their families and communities. However, as Congress examines the ways to do so, genetically modified (GM) crops should not be mandated as part of that funding. Thus far, GM crops have failed to offer food security or agricultural development assistance in developing countries throughout the world. Currently 85% of all GM crops are engineered for pesticide tolerance. These chemical-dependent crops have sharply increased overall use of pesticides and are best-suited to large growers seeking to reduce labor needs for weed control, not poor farmers striving to produce more to feed their families. In addition, GM seeds are two to four-fold more expensive than conventional seeds, well beyond the means of many developing country farmers. Not a single GM crop commercially available offers nutritional benefits, enhanced yield potential, drought-tolerance, or other attractive sounding traits often touted in the media. Thus, it is not surprising that many developing countries do not allow the commercial growing of GM crops, particularly in Africa, where only two countries allow them.

Fortunately, much more effective and affordable solutions already exist - only they desperately require additional funding to spread their benefits to more farmers. In fact, a comprehensive assessment sponsored by the United Nations and the World Bank concluded in 2008 that while such agroecological techniques hold tremendous promise, GM crops have little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world.

Farmers and governments in the developing world have the right to make their own choices about GM crops. Food aid and development assistance should never be pre-conditioned on acceptance of unwanted, expensive, and ineffective technology. Instead, our legislative efforts to increase food security and agricultural development assistance should be based on the proven agroecological methods already being promoted by the international community and the United Nations.

Please oppose Section 202, subsection number 4 of the Global Food Security Act (S. 384) which would force genetically engineered crops on the developing world.

Sincerely

[Sign this letter online at http://ga3.org/campaign/NoGMinFoodAid/36b76en9ojwx8kme? ]

Pig and Poultry Live: GM debate begins

Farmers Weekly Interactive, 18 May 2009. By Sarah Trickett:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/05/18/115663/the-gm-debate-begins-at-pig-and-poultry-live.html

The GM or 'biotechnology' debate needs to start with consumers, according to NFU deputy president Meurig Raymond, following remarks made by a shopper at the conference, who said they would not buy anything with GMs although admitting feeling "ignorant about so-called Frankenstein foods."

Sparking debate among the audience, pig producer James Black believed misrepresentation of facts had occurred around the whole GM debate. He explained that even if his pigs had been fed on genetically modified soya none of his pigs would contain GM material in the meat.

"During the digestive processes every single protein fed to pigs is broken down into amino acids which are absorbed by the pig in exactly the same way as any other protein is. So I can guarantee no meat will contain any genetically modified material."

The Grocers Michael Barker, added a public figure was needed to get the GM issue wide open, although Mr Raymond believed it was down to the governments' chief scientist to portray the messages.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Pig producer James Black's claim he can "guarantee no meat will contain any genetically modified material" is nonsense.

There is growing scientific evidence that transgenic DNA from GM animal feed and GM food can survive digestion by animals and humans, and that it can be detected in their bodies. One study also found that the modified GM DNA can be inherited, thus creating GM animals which are totally illegal in the EU, and whose meat and dairy produce is also totally illegal. For details see:

•

"GM crops - the health effects" published in 2008 by The Soil Association:
http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/saweb.nsf/cfff6730b881e40e80256a6a002a765c/62b3b08dfb6cdaea80256a9500473789/$FILE/gm_health_effects.pdf

•

"GMOs: should they be fed to farm livestock?", in The Chemical Engineer, Issue 746, by David Beever and Richard Phipps, Centre for Dairy Research, University of Reading

•

"Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows", J Dairy Sci., vol. 86, pp. 4070-4078, Phipps R.H., Deaville E.R. And Maddison B.C., 2003

•

"Fate of maize intrinsic and recombinant genes in calves fed genetically modified maize Bt11", J Food Prot, vol. 67, pp. 365-370, Chowdhury E.H.,Mikami O., Murata H., Sultana P., Shimada N., Yoshioka M., Guruge K.S., Yamamoto S., Miyazaki S., Yamanaka N. and Nakajima Y., 2004

•

"The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals : a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material", European food research and technology, vol. 212, pp. 129-134, Einspanier R., Klotz A., Kraft J., Aulrich K., Poser R., Schwagele F., Jahreis G. and Flachowsky G., 2001

•

"Detection of transgenic DNA in milk from cows receiving herbicide tolerant (CP4EPSPS) soyabean meal", Livestock Production Science, Phipps R.H., Beever D.E. and Humphries D.J., 2002. vol. 74, pp. 269-273

•

"Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal", J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 54, pp. 1699-1709, Sharma R., Damgaard D., Alexander T.W., Dugan M.E.R., Aalhus J.L., Stanford K. and McAllister T.A., 2006

•

"Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues", Transgenic Res., vol. 14, pp. 775-784, Mazza R., Soave M., Morlacchini M., Piva G. and Marocco A., 2005

•

"Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market", Int J Hyg Environ Health, vol. 209, pp. 81-88, Agodi A., Barchitta M., Grillo A. and Sciacca S., 2006

•

"How do genes get into milk?", Greenpeace, 2004

•

"Report on examination to determine plant and Bt-maize residues in cow milk", conducted at the Weihenstephan research centre for milk and foodstuffs of the Technical University of Munich-Freising, Ralf Einspanier, 20 October 2000 and 20 December 2000

•

"Tools you can trust", New Scientist, Michel Le Page, 10 June 2006

•

"Food Standards Agency news", No. 48, June 2005. 'The mutational consequences of plant transformation", J Biomed Biotechnol., 2006(2):25376, Latham J.R., Wilson A.K., Steinbrecher R.A., 2006

•

"Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract", Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, pp. 204-209, Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O'Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J., 2004

•

"Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep", British Journal of Nutrition, 89(2): 159-166, Duggan et al, 2003

•

"Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity", Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (no VII), Barcelona, Collonier C., Berthier G., Boyer F., Duplan M.-N., Fernandez S., Kebdani N., Kobilinsky A., Romanuk M. and Bertheau Y., 23-28 June 2003

Campaign Group Makes Waves over 'GM-Free' Claim

The Poultry Site, 18 May 2009:
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/17761/campaign-group-makes-waves-over-gmfree-claim

NEW ZEALAND - Anti-genetic engineering campaigning group, GE-Free New Zealand, is warning consumers that chicken marketed by an Australian poultry company as free of genetic modification (GM) may have eaten feed containing GM ingredients.

The campaign group says that consumers may be being duped by the TV campaign by Inghams claiming their chickens have 'no added hormones or GM ingredients'.

GE-Free New Zealand says that now a formal complaint has been made over the Inghams' advertising campaign because the chickens may have been fed with GM soy.

Inghams claims this makes no difference to the chicken.

GE-Free New Zealand believes that the company is misleading consumers into believing the company has a GM free policy when it is endorsing GM feed for their chickens.

"Consumers hearing a claim 'no GM ingredients' will reasonably assume the company's policy is as far as possible to be 'GE-Free' notwithstanding accidental contamination that some governments overseas allow," says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ.

"But consumers will be right to feel betrayed on discovering that Inghams endorse the use of GE feed to produce the chicken itself. It is misleading for Inghams to crow that the added ingredients are not GM but fail to mention the chicken itself may be fed GM grain and the meat would very probably contain GE DNA!"

GE-Free New Zealand alleges that there are two substantial facts that make Inghams claims misleading:

1.

Scientific studies show GE feed can have a significant impact on the organism consuming the GE crop, including on fertility, and the implications demand scientific investigation. This is denied by Inghams in its on-line policy statement, and

2.

Consumers choosing to support companies with a GM-free policy may be willing to accept small levels of accidental GM contamination, but would certainly not expect a company making a claim of 'no added GM ingredients' to use GM feed.

While the Inghams advertising has been the subject of formal complaint to the Commerce Commission, as yet there has been no review under the Fair Trading act and no action taken. The advertising continues on-air.

Kiwi farmers invite Johnny Rotten to see 'GM-free grass'

Farmers Weekly Interactive (UK), 18 May 2009:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/05/18/115665/kiwi-farmers-invite-johnny-rotten-to-see-gm-free-grass.html

New Zealand farmers have invited former Sex Pistol John Lydon to see how they make butter and other dairy products.

The invitation follows a TV advertising campaign in which Mr Lydon - also known as Johnny Rotten - extolled the virtues of English Country Life butter.

The Federated Farmers of New Zealand said the former punk rocker should see for himself the way cows are kept down under.

"Never mind the butter, it's the quality of the milk what counts," said Willy Leferink, Federated Farmers' dairy vice-chairman.

"While all milk may contain the same basic properties, Kiwi cows are in a league of their own.

"Grazing outdoors on GM-free grass and natural winter feed makes for happy cows and fantastic-quality milk."

European Union tariffs were the only barriers holding back sales of New Zealand's Anchor butter in the UK, said Mr Leferink.

"While I'd like to think of dairy farmers as being the rock stars of the New Zealand economy, I'd be pleased to host that old punk rocker, John Lydon, on my farm.

"Perhaps Mr Lydon could use some of the money he got paid for endorsing the British brand to pay for his flight down under."

Only hand-crafted but expensive British butter matched New Zealand butter for quality, Mr Leferink claimed.

"New Zealand's climate and quality pasture means we are in an agricultural sweet spot. British consumers literally taste freedom when they eat New Zealand butter."

Dairy Crest's butter advertising campaign featuring Mr Lydon sent sales of English Country Life soaring when it aired on TV screens across Britain.

The commercial reminded shoppers that the butter was made with 100% British milk unlike other brands from New Zealand and Denmark.

It was being supported by a website encouraging people to sign a pledge that they were "proud to buy British".

Never mind the butter! Kiwi dairy farmers clash with Johnny Rotten

Farmers Guardian (UK), 18 May 2009. By Jack Davies:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=26236

FORMER Sex Pistols front man John Lyndon (aka Johnny Rotten) has found himself at the centre of a diplomatic row between the UK and New Zealand dairy industries.

The row began after Mr Lyndon appeared in national press adverts for Country Life Butter last week which urged consumers to buy the product instead of rival brand Anchor.

The advert, presented in the style of a news story, ran under the headline 'Anchor's from New Zealand!' as it encouraged shoppers to buy British.

However, New Zealand's farming union Federated Farmers has hit back, inviting the former punk hellraiser to visit the country and see its dairy herds for himself.

Willy Leferink, Federated Farmers Dairy's vice-chairman said: "Never mind the butter, it's the quality of the milk that counts.

"While all milk may contain the same basic properties, kiwi cows are in a league of their own.

"Grazing outdoors on GM free grass and natural winter feed makes for happy cows and fantastic quality milk.

"This milk is crafted into quality butter and other dairy products and the only thing holding us back in the UK, is the European Union's ridiculous tariff barriers.

"One of our senior staff members, David Broome, lived in the UK for seven years. He tried Country Life Butter, once, and described it to me in colourful terms that Johnny Rotten would understand."

Kiwi milk producers slam UK "rotten" milk ad

Farm Business, 18 May 2009:
http://www.farmbusiness.cc/cogcms/default.aspx?Page=1&Article=4124

An advertising campaign fronted by former Sex Pistols lead singer, Johnny Rotten, (John Lydon) which obliquely suggests Country Life butter is better than Anchor, has been called into question by New Zealand farmers. The advert emphasises the New Zealand origins of Anchor, using the strapline: "Anchor's from New Zealand", and a picture of the singer beneath saying, "So I buy Country Life cos I think it tastes the best."

While Country Life's parent company Dairy Crest maintains nearly 40% of those buying Anchor butter mistakenly believe it comes from Britain and so the advert approach is justified, New Zealand's biggest milk buyer, Federated Farmers, has invited Mr Lydon to New Zealand to see for himself how the country's "free range cows" influence the quality of butter and other dairy products produced.

"I'd be pleased to host that old punk rocker John Lydon on my farm," said FF dairy vice-chairperson Willy Leferink.

"Grazing outdoors on GM-free grass and natural winter feed makes for happy cows and fantastic quality milk.

"This milk is crafted into quality butter and other dairy products and the only thing holding us back in the UK, is the European Union's ridiculous tariff barriers."

And Federated Farmers dairy chairman Lachlan McKenzie told Radio New Zealand the campaign was unlikely to threaten Anchor sales in Britain, given that the product's taste "will take priority over its country of origin".

Illegally imported GM rice is destroyed by health officials

Irish Independent, 18 May 2009. By Aideen Sheehan, Consumer Correspondent:
http://www.independent.ie

Health officials have destroyed banned genetically modified (GM) rice flour that was being illegally imported into Ireland.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) has destroyed the GM rice flour from China and alerted other EU authorities to the issue in case further batches were being placed on sale in other countries.

The EU Commission is in touch with the Chinese authorities on the matter as the rice flour was made from Bt63 rice, a strain that contains a pesticide gene, but which is not authorised for sale in China or Europe.

The FSAI said that while there is no evidence that Bt63 rice poses a particular health risk, any genetically modified food or ingredient not authorised for cultivation under EU legislation carries a presumption of risk warranting emergency measures.

The rice flour in question bore the brand 'Ideal Foods' and was discovered at the time of import, but was probably destined for Asian food stores, according to the FSAI Chief Specialist in Biotechnology, Pat O'Mahony.

An environmental health officer took samples from the flour import which was seized on arrival in Dublin and sent them for analysis at th Public Analyst Laboratory in Cork which detected the presence of the genetically modified Bt63 strain in February.

The batch consisted of one box of 18 454g packets of rice flour which was not accompanied by the required analytical report certifiying it to be free of Bt63 rice ingredients.

The EU had imposed the requirements for China to include laboratory-certified analytical reports with rice because of previous scares.

The importer voluntarly surrendered the product to the FSAI for destruction, but there is no fine or penalty, said Mr O'Mahony.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Bt63 is an illegal experimental pesticide-producing GM rice, which first entered the global food chain back in October 2006, when at least 74 cases of contamination with unauthorized genetically modified rice were reported in 16 EU countries, plus Switzerland, Norway, Russia, Japan and the Middle East since testing began two months previously. The illegal GM varieties also included Bayer's LL601 and LL62, which were imported into the EU from the USA.

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth first discovered the illegal Bt63 rice in Chinese foods in September 2006. They immediately informed both the European Commission and the relevant national food safety authorities. The products were found in Chinese specialty stores in the UK, France and Germany. Little is known about this GMO, known as BT63, as it has been grown only experimentally in China. Previous testing in China found widespread contamination in food products. This rice is not approved anywhere in the world for consumption.

Animal feed protein concentrate contaminated by Bt63 was discovered again in 2007 and 2008 in Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and Spain and the UK.

The fact that this illegal GM crop apparently continues to be cultivated in China and is still contaminating the global food three years after the first contamination scandal shows up the naïveté of GM advocates who actually believe the GM genie can be kept in its bottle.

Successful Roundtable Ingredients

Editorial [1] by TraceConsult™, 18 May 2009:
http://www.traceconsult.ch

Undoubtedly, the WWF is absolutely right in its complaint that many months after RSPO certification has set on only a tiny fraction of the palm oil traded in this world is sold as certified. But has this not been somewhat predictable? And, is it possible that the RSPO's younger sibling RTRS (Roundtable for Responsible Soy) will experience a similar effect?

For the past four years, TraceConsult™ has pointed out on various occasions that any sustainable, responsible, GM-free, or whatever type of ethical production of raw materials must be marketed in the right way. The right way is to convince decision makers at the very junction point where private dollars and euros, pounds and francs, yuans and yens, change hands - and that happens to be the vicinity of the supermarket check-out counter. At that point, these funds are converted into "industry money", paying goods and salaries for everyone all the way back to the agricultural growers in far-away lands.

The decision makers that have to be won over essentially come in two categories: senior retail purchasing managers and shoppers. Both of these groups must be convinced of the RSPO or RTRS philosophies in order for the respective platform to become successful.

In a way, major retail chains are the most densely clustered consumer organizations on earth and they are indeed keenly interested in customer preferences. On top of that, one can find them nearly everywhere. If a majority of shoppers, like our neighbors and ourselves, voice our convictions of the benefits of sustainably produced raw ingredients then major retailers and brand owners will listen up and represent these consumer preferences to their supply chains. No, even further, they will dictate them because they have the power to do so. It is only these quasi "consumer organizations" working with the consumers', money that have the power to demand certain production methods in distant countries.

Focusing primarily on growers and processors without successfully gathering the support of a sufficiently large number of retailers and brand owners will turn the supply chain into one that is being pushed, instead of pulled. But who has ever seen a chain being pushed into any particular direction? Perhaps the WWF didn't analyze these simple economic laws well enough when setting up the RSPO platform? What do private consumers really know about palm oil, and what about sustainably produced palm oil? And if they know enough, are they making sure that their local retailers communicate this clearly enough in specified orders? Did the WWF do its market analysis homework well enough? - The meagre results so far suggest they did not.

Besides fixing the palm oil situation, should the WWF perhaps ask itself further questions regarding the next sustainability platform that is about to go "online"? It is not almost too late to conclude that the vast majority of consumers in the world's largest affluent economy, the European Union, prefer not to have GMOs involved in the production of their food, be it breakfast cereals or the chicken dinner, be it a chocolate bar or a steak. And consumers prefer this information to be assured to them in a way that holds the manufacturer or retailer liable. They want labeling information on their product.

Will the RTRS certification be able to provide consumers with these benefits? Will consumers want to know whether the very chicken or milk carton they are contemplating of buying stems from a flock or herd reared on certified soy ingredients? If not, why should private consumers - or the links of the supply chain - pay anything extra for soy ingredients thus produced? In order to save the rain forest - yes, of course! But why not provide the whole package of benefits the vast majority of European consumers and of European retailers have actually preferred for over a decade?

We have addressed here just some of the questions that lend themselves in light of the poor initial record of the RSPO and we dare predict they will automatically carry over to the RTRS. Let's hope both sustainability schemes can still be fixed to meet practical market reality so that the public's perception may recognize this is actually something made for them, for the people who pay everyone's salaries.

Note:

1. For the underlaying facts reported in a WWF press statement last week, visit http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=13755 and also our eNews & Background Info broadcast of 12 May 2009 [Slow sales of sustainable (RSPO) palm oil threaten tropical forests]

17 May 2009

Deal will damage academic integrity

Sioux Falls Argus Leader [USA], 17 May 2009. By James Abourezk and William Du Bois:
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090517/VOICES05/905170327/1052/OPINION01

(James Abourezk is a former U.S. senator who practices law in Sioux Falls. William Du Bois is a former assistant professor at South Dakota State University and currently is an assistant professor at Southwest Minnesota State University in Marshall.)

We were shocked awake on a recent Sunday morning by the Argus Leader's headline: "SDSU'S cozy deal questioned." The article referred to the president of one of our finest universities - South Dakota State University - being paid almost $400,000 a year by Monsanto Chemical Co. for sitting on its board of directors. This is in addition to the $300,000 the people of South Dakota are paying him for being SDSU's president. According to the article, the South Dakota Board of Regents approved of the arrangement.

There comes a time when "enough is enough," and this, we believe, is the time. If the state Board of Regents cannot see the damage that will be done to academic freedom and to the integrity of the faculty and students at SDSU, then it is past time for the state Legislature to step up and to do something dramatic to restore trust and integrity to our public officials.

With Monsanto pouring money into the university, what is to be said about the integrity of the research that is produced by the faculty who undertake research about Monsanto's money-making products?

Monsanto does not pour money into grants and paychecks just for the blackness of the eyes of those on the receiving end. The corporation wants something for its money, and, if enough money is spread around, it most likely will get what it wants.

That might be good for Monsanto, but is it good for the public interest? Hardly. Studies show industry-sponsored research reaches quite different conclusions than independent research. Monsanto is a chemical company well known for trying to get around environmental restrictions.

And what better way to deceive a vulnerable public than to be able to cite research by a distinguished university such as SDSU?

This most recent problem of the lack of ethics goes beyond this particular "cozy" deal, however. The glaring conflict of interest inherent in this kind of arrangement rests on top of a long line of cozy deals between big corporations and South Dakota's public officials.

Recently, during an environmental hearing on the proposed refinery in Union County, the state Board of Minerals and Environment and members of the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources sat down to dinner with executives of Hyperion Corp. The act was so brazen that they supped together during a break in the hearing where the two state agencies were to pass on Hyperion's air and water quality.

Hope not Hype - new book + free download

Hope not Hype, 17 May 2009:
http://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/Home

Prof Jack Heinemann's book, Hope not Hype, is now in full production with a run of 2,000 paperbacks and 100 hard copies.

All details on the site www.gendora.net; direct order from TWN (Third World Network). No proceeds to author; all go to producing books for distribution in developing countries.

The publisher has given permission for three parts to be released for free. They are the Preface on why the book was wrotten, Chapter 7: Biotechnology of Sustainable Cultures and Appendix 3: Potential human health risks from Bt crops.

These three chapters are live for download from http://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/

Please tell all your friends.

---

Who is Jack Heinemann?

Jack Heinemann is a professor of molecular biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Biosafety. He carries out a broad and complex assessment of the risks of genetically modified and engineered organisms with a particular focus on horizontal gene transfer, where genetic material is passed between organisms by methods other than direct breeding.

The Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety is independent of commercial interests in GMO products, transdisciplinary and involved with international collaborative projects. "The centre brings together scientists skilled in biotechnology research and safety assessment and social scientists with experience in the evaluation of the ethical, social, cultural and political impacts of novel technologies. This team is committed to working collaboratively across disciplinary boundaries and to modelling new forms of integrated research."

---

Hope not Hype

http://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/Home

27 days until date of Issue. To be published by Third World Network.

Dr. Hans R. Herren, Co-Chair IAASTD: "Hope Not Hype is exactly on target regarding what is needed today by the decision-makers, who are not specialists but need to have - in clear, comprehensive and short text - the main points to guide their decisions on biotechnology in agriculture...It is also useful to the education sector, providing information that can help to better educate students and the general public on the issues raised to make informed decisions at their own level."

The book on biotechnology for all agricultures

Can we feed the world in the year 2050? If we can, will it be at the price of more distant futures of food insecurity? 21st-century Earth is still trying to find a way to feed its people. Despite global food surpluses, we have malnutrition, hunger and starvation. We also have mass obesity in the same societies. Both of these phenomena are a symptom of the same central problem: a dominating single agriculture coming from industrialized countries responding to perverse and artificial market signals. It neither produces sustainable surpluses of balanced and tasty diets nor does it use food production to increase social and economic equity, increase the food security of the poorest, and pamper the planet back into health.

This book is about a revolution in agriculture envisioned by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a five-year multi-million-dollar research exercise supervised by the United Nations and World Bank that charts sustainable solutions. The solutions are of course not purely technological, but technology will be a part of the solution.

Which technology? Whose technology?

Hope Not Hype is written for people who farm, but especially for people who eat. It takes a hard look at traditional, modern (e.g., genetic engineering) and emerging (e.g., agroecological) biotechnologies and sorts them on the basis of delivering food without undermining the capacity to make more food. It cuts through the endless promises made by agrochemical corporations that leverage the public and private investment in agriculture innovation. Here the case is made for the right biotechnology rather than the "one size fits all" biotechnology on offer. This book provides governments and their citizens with the sound science in plain language to articulate their case for an agriculture of their own - one that works for them.

Biotech portion of foreign aid bill draws criticism

DesMoines Register (USA), 17 May 2009. By Philip Brasher:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090517/BUSINESS03/905170317/1030/BUSINESS01

Washington, D.C. - Congress has largely stayed out of the battles over genetically engineered crops, but that could change with a foreign aid bill that could target research money to agricultural biotechnology.

The bill, approved by a Senate committee earlier this spring, is aimed at boosting spending on foreign agricultural development and nutrition programs from $750 million in 2010 to $2.5 billion by 2014. The bill spells out that the money can go to "biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions," including genetically modified seeds.

Aid groups say the money is needed to help farmers in Africa and elsewhere to increase food production as the world population grows, the planet warms and more crops are used for biofuels.

The legislation appears to be in line with the Obama administration's priorities. The administration has proposed doubling agricultural aid to $1 billion, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to push for greater use of agricultural biotechnology.

But critics of biotechnology are angry that the increased U.S. aid could be used to promote the use of genetically engineered seeds, and they're pushing lawmakers to strip the provision from the bill.

The legislation "isn't just about feeding the hungry, it's about advancing the interests of U.S. agribusinesses," Annie Shattuck, a policy analyst for a group called Food First, wrote recently.

"The question is whether there is any reason to insist that foreign aid be genetic engineering, or genetically modified crops," said Margaret Mellon, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

China and India are rapidly adopting biotech crops. But many countries in Africa have been reluctant to approve the use biotech seeds for fear they would lose export sales to the European Union, where there has long been strong consumer resistance to the technology.

The Senate bill's main sponsor, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., uses genetically modified seeds on his family's farm and firmly believes they could help poor farmers as well.

Lugar cites a recent book by Wellesley College professor Robert Paarlberg, "Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa."

Paarlberg calls for increased agricultural research in Africa and criticizes the role anti-biotech groups have played in slowing development there.

Biotech companies have had nothing to do with pushing the bill, Lugar spokesman Andy Fisher said.

Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy group backing Lugar's bill, has been hearing from some religious organizations upset about the biotech provision.

"We should not be preemptively taking things off the table," said Charles Uphaus of the Bread for the World Institute, the group's policy analysis arm. "It should be up to countries in Africa and Asia to make their own decisions."

Oxfam America, another aid group that pushes for increased agricultural help, backs the bill although it doesn't have a position on biotech.

Gawain Kripke, a policy analyst for the group, said criticism of the bill over that provision is "a bit myopic."

"We've seen a neglect of agriculture for decades in development circles and particularly in development aid," Kripke said.

There is no timetable for the bill to go to the Senate floor, and it's prospects in the House are uncertain as well. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., is preparing a similar agricultural aid bill in the House.

Some of the urgency that was behind the agricultural aid issue last year has waned recently as commodity prices have softened.

In the end, that may be a bigger problem for the bill than getting sidetracked over the issue of genetically engineered seeds.

That means the real question will be how hard the administration and congressional leaders are willing to push to get this enacted.

---

Comment from GM Watch:

Paarlberg is a member of the Biotechnology Advisory Council to the CEO of the Monsanto Company. He is also a member of the Emerging Markets Advisory Committee at the United States Department of Agriculture, and has been a consultant to USAID, the World Bank and the National Intelligence Council (NIC) - the centre for midterm and long-term strategic thinking within the United States Intelligence Community. http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Robert_Paarlberg

Global Food Security Act

Foreign Policy In Focus [USA], 17 April 2009. By Annie Schattuck (Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco):
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6050

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

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

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

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

Ignoring the Evidence

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

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

Lessons from the First Green Revolution

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

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

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

New Subsidies, New Markets

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 May 2009

Canadian Wheat Board cautious about GM wheat

Reuters, 15 May 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54E59X20090515?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan (Canada) - The Canadian Wheat Board won't support genetically modified wheat until key conditions are in place, including assurances that its overseas markets would accept the crop.

"We know that this is potentially the wave of the future but right now we're just not there," said Maureen Fitzhenry, spokeswoman for the Wheat Board, which holds a government-granted monopoly on sales of Western Canada's wheat and barley.

Consumers in Europe and Japan are wary of genetically modified foods, although the European Union recently accepted GM canola seed from Canada.

The Wheat Board, which opposed Monsanto Co's application for a herbicide-tolerant GM wheat in 2004, would also want to see a greater benefit, such as resistance to fusarium disease or improved yield and quality, Fitzhenry said. At present, there's no way to effectively segregate GM wheat from non-GM wheat, which would be another condition the board would want satisfied, she said.

Some farm groups from the top wheat-exporting nations of the United States, Canada and Australia have agreed to support synchronized commercialization of genetically modified wheat. The agreement, announced on Thursday by the National Association of Wheat Growers, is an attempt to align the countries against any international backlash if GM wheat is introduced and to invite seed development companies to press ahead with biotech wheat development.

Most Western Canadian farmers support a cautious approach to GM wheat, Fitzhenry said.

"Farmers don't want to lose a key market opportunity due to customers' resistance of GMOs (genetically modified organisms)."

GM wheat would be unpopular with many of Canada's overseas markets, said Jerry Klassen, an independent grain analyst.

"This is a blind decision (by the farmer groups) without talking to the customer first," he said.

GM strains of corn and soybeans, which resist pests and tolerate herbicides, dominate the U.S. market, creating concern that wheat isn't staying competitive with other crops.

But farmers have improved production practices in the past decade and new wheat varieties have developed that prove there are ways to improve yields without altering the plant's genes, Klassen said.

Genetically modifying wheat might produce certain benefits but that doesn't ensure it will respond the same way to baking processes, he said. Spring wheat is used in flour, while durum wheat is grown for pasta.

Monsanto Co, a leading producer of GM crop seed, is not currently developing GM wheat varieties but the company has noticed a change in farmers' attitudes, said spokeswoman Trish Jordan.

"We're encouraged by the support industry growers are showing by this statement for biotech investment in wheat," she said. "If the market conditions were right, there may be some opportunity for us to re-enter the wheat space."

One of the drawbacks to spending research and development dollars on wheat is that farmers tend to reuse their own seed, unlike canola growers who buy new seed every year. That's a profitability issue that farmers could address by agreeing under contract not to reuse seed, Jordan said.

The government registration process in Canada would take years and include feedback from a committee that includes farm groups and the Wheat Board.

(Editing by Rob Wilson)

How to RUIN an Industry! GM WHEAT!

Amicus Curiae, 15 May 2009:
http://amicus.rfdamerica.com/?p=23

I was about to go to sleep when an e-mail arrived. Now I am so blazingly angry I will not sleep at all! What upset me? This prime piece of idiocy on the part of some simpletons, who have succumbed to the Monsanto-Dow-Syngenta Koolaid!

"Major wheat industry organizations from the US, Canada and Australia have announced that they intend to work together to commercialize genetically modified (GM) wheat crops."

"Although other GM crops have been in use for several years, there is currently not a single GM wheat variety commercially available. This is partly due to consumer resistance to GM wheat, particularly in Europe, a situation that has resulted in a dearth of funding for biotech wheat research."

So, seeing as Europe is a major purchaser of our Aussie wheat, and quite a lot from Canada and USA, too, HOW will this improve sales?

"In a joint statement issued on Thursday, the organizations said: 'While none of us hold a veto over the actions of others, we believe it is in all of our best interests to introduce biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruptions and shorten the period of adjustment.'"

Excuse me? In whose best interest? They assume that they can bluff us, by acting as a group? They seem to forget citizens are a larger group.

Competition from GM

"The organizations said that one of the main problems they face is declining acreage planted to wheat as arable farmers turn to other grains with 'the advantages of biotech traits.'"

Pure bull! Subsidized crops for ethanol in the USA have a whole lot more to do with that factor!

"On the contentious issue of GM crop safety, the wheat industry statement said: 'Over 10 years of global experience with biotechnology has demonstrated a convincing record of safety and environmental benefits as well as quality and productivity gains.'"

Safety? Environmental benefits? Higher than ever pesticide use, and herbicide resistance, outcrossing to other species, and herbicide resistant wild radish, oats and skeleton weed in Australia has increased in paddocks that Round-Up is used on, the weed loves it! 24D used to destroy RR resistant weeds does not reduce chemical or enviro-damage in any way shape or form.

No independent research has found quality or productivity gains either, only Monsanto's blurb says that!

US, Canadian and Aussie wheat industries unite behind GM

Food Navigator, 15 May 2009. By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 15-May-2009:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/US-Canadian-and-Aussie-wheat-industries-unite-behind-GM

Major wheat industry organizations from the US, Canada and Australia have announced that they intend to work together to commercialize genetically modified (GM) wheat crops.

Although other GM crops have been in use for several years, there is currently not a single GM wheat variety commercially available. This is partly due to consumer resistance to GM wheat, particularly in Europe, a situation that has resulted in a dearth of funding for biotech wheat research.

In a joint statement issued on Thursday, the organizations said: "While none of us hold a veto over the actions of others, we believe it is in all of our best interests to introduce biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruptions and shorten the period of adjustment."

Competition from GM

The organizations said that one of the main problems they face is declining acreage planted to wheat as arable farmers turn to other grains with "the advantages of biotech traits."

Meanwhile, the US Department of Agriculture has forecast that the US winter wheat harvest will be down by 20 percent in 2009/10.

"The longer it takes to increase the growth rate the bigger will be the hole from which the industry must climb," the organizations said.

The USDA's forecast for the US differs from the global picture however. Worldwide, it predicts that wheat yield will drop by four percent in 2009/10, but added that if realized, the harvest would still be the second largest ever.

Fighting hunger?

The wheat representatives' statement claims that biotechnology is an important tool for fighting world hunger, with the potential for disease, drought and insect resistant crops, or for improving wheat's nutritional aspects.

"Biotechnology is not the only answer to these questions," it says, "But it will be a significant component in solutions."

GM crops have long been promoted as a possible solution for world hunger, but a recent report from Friends of the Earth pointed out that promised traits such as increased yield and enhanced nutrition still do not exist. It added that herbicide tolerance is the most prevalent trait currently in use, accounting for 82 percent of GM crop acreage in 2007.

On the contentious issue of GM crop safety, the wheat industry statement said: "Over 10 years of global experience with biotechnology has demonstrated a convincing record of safety and environmental benefits as well as quality and productivity gains."

US signatories to the statement are the National Association of Wheat Growers, US Wheat Associates, and the North American Millers' Association.

Canadian signatories are Grain Growers of Canada, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission.

And Australian signatories are the Grains Council of Australia, Grain Growers Association, and Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia.

The full statement can be accessed here http://www.wheatworld.org/userfiles/file/FINAL%20Trilateral%20Biotech%20Statement.pdf.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™:

The right allies have found each other: "Introducing biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion" is just another way of announcing to European wheat buyers that they had better beware of some imminent joint bullying from the wheat suppliers in three of the world's major production areas.

Again, an important sector of the agricultural commodity industry has not understood that those they supply to - importers, processors, food manufacturers and retailers - have a commercial and an ethical obligation to listen to their final clients, also known as private consumers. And these are even the consumers in the world's largest market. They, however, have been known for years to reject the consumption of GMOs at levels way above 70 percent. The fact that the Netherlands and Spain are exceptions to this rule does not make it non-existent.

Why are these facts being so stoically ignored? There seems to be a certain hubris at work that is not so very different from the one that is coming to an end in the financial industry these days. Let us hope the consequences will not be a catastrophic!

Federal Circuit Limits Patentability Of Genetic Sequences

IP Frontline, 15 May 2009. By William L. Warren [extracts only]:
http://www.cafezine.com/depts/article.asp?id=23110&deptid=4

On April 3, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued 'In re Kubin' (Fed. Cir., No. 2008-1184), perhaps the most significant patent law decision affecting the genetic engineering industry in over a decade. At issue is the patentability of isolated genetic sequences, in this case encoding a previously identified, but unsequenced, protein.

Kubin's Impact On Gene Patenting

The Federal Circuit's decision in Kubin generally means that to the extent a protein has been previously identified, its nucleotide sequence is no longer patentable. The broader application of Kubin will include attempts to reject or invalidate claims directed to biotech inventions which claim an outcome of experimentation from among a range of expected results, even though not expressly predictable. There will undoubtedly be an increase in invalidity challenges to existing gene patents by those seeking to market generic and follow-on biologics prior to patent expiration, in view of the likelihood that pending regulatory legislation also passes. Clearly, the patentability standard for gene sequences and the commercial exclusivity available for such biotech inventions have been dramatically altered by the Federal Circuit's 'In re Kubin' decision.

Genetically modified papayas found on sale

South China Morning Post, 15 May 2009. By Celine Sun.

Hong Kong -- A dozen samples of fresh papaya - including four in Hong Kong - have been found to be genetically modified in tests by Greenpeace in the city and on the mainland.

Two of the local samples were from ParknShop supermarkets in Mong Kok and Ma On Shan, and two were from wet markets, Greenpeace said. The tests were part of an investigation by Greenpeace in 12 supermarkets and wet markets in Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen between February and March.

Thirteen samples of papaya were tested and only one, imported from the Philippines, was found not to have been genetically modified. All the others were produced on the mainland, mostly in Guangdong and Hainan provinces.

The environmentalist group said the genetic modification of food products was potentially damaging to consumers' health.

"Although the exact health risks of genetically engineered food remain unknown, some scientists have pointed out that people may become allergic to genetically modified papayas," Greenpeace's food and agriculture campaigner, Lorena Luo Yuan-nan, said.

"They are also potentially harmful to people's immune system and their reproductive system."

The group also went to Hainan to check three big papaya orchards in the region, where genetically modified papaya production is illegal.

"But all the samples from the orchards tested positive for genetic engineering," Ms Luo said.

Greenpeace called on the central government to halt the sale and cultivation of genetically modified papayas and find out where they were coming from.

"We also want to call for the Hong Kong government to enhance regulation on the import of genetically modified products and all supermarkets to take tighter control when sourcing food from overseas," Ms Luo said.

The sale of genetically modified foods is allowed in Hong Kong if it is deemed to be suitable for consumption under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance.

A spokeswoman for the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department said the department was investigating Greenpeace's claims.

A ParknShop spokeswoman said the chain would not comment on any claims, as it had not received formal lab reports from Greenpeace. "But we are sure that none of the papayas sold in our shops are from Hainan," she said.

Potential Industry Sabotage with GM Wheat

Network of Concerned Farmers (Australia), 15 May 2009.

The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) was shocked today to find Australian farm lobby groups supported GM wheat development and the coordinated approach to prevent farmers marketing as non-GM. The statement was approved by Grains Council of Australia and PGA along with United States and Canadian grower organisations.

"The introduction of GM wheat is nothing short of industry sabotage as markets do not want it," said Julie Newman NCF National Spokesperson.

"It does not matter how good GM wheat is if we can't sell it but its sabotage if it stops non-GM farmers selling our wheat too."

"Commercial GM crops are restricted to those crops that are primarily used for fibre, oil or stock food, but GM wheat is primarily used for human consumption and is not accepted by markets. If GM wheat is grown in any state, the market perception would be that all wheat in that state would be GM unless proven to be non-GM which is too difficult and expensive. This is the reason why no GM wheat has been commercialised anywhere in the world."

The combined GM wheat statement suggested synchronised commercialisation to minimise market disruptions and a commitment to work with other stakeholders before commercialisation.

"Experience has shown that while industry promises to segregate for political purposes, there is no intention to deliver it. Choice is denied as all the costs, liabilities and responsibilities are imposed on non-GM farmers."

"The intention of this GM wheat joint alliance is clearly to force all farmers to market as GM in the hope that farmers and consumers are denied a non-GM choice."

"We can not allow negligent decisions to destroy our industry."

The NCF support fair risk management to ensure non-GM farmers are not adversely impacted by GM crops and also support non-GM biotechnology.

Contact

Julie Newman Phone 08 98711562

GM Wheat Statement:

http://www.pgaofwa.org.au/system/press_release/file/0000/0061/FINAL_Trilateral_Biotech_Statement.pdf

Global biotech wheat push from key exporters

The Land (Australia), 15 May 2009:
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/grains-and-cropping/general/global-biotech-wheat-push-from-key-exporters/1513920.aspx

Organisations representing the wheat industry in the US, Canada and Australia announced on Thursday that they will work toward the goal of synchronised commercialisation of biotech traits in the wheat crop.

Noting that "none of us holds a veto over the actions of others," they agreed that it was in the best interest of all three producer communities to introduce biotechnology in a coordinated fashion to minimise market disruption.

The announcement came in a statement of joint principles on the issue of biotechnology in wheat, which has been a sensitive subject in some parts of the world, including major export markets like the European Union and Japan.

There is currently no commercial production of genetically modified (GM) wheat anywhere in the world.

The statement highlighted the importance of wheat to the food supply and the impact of the declining acres in all three countries due, in part, to competition from crops that have the advantage of biotech traits.

The statement also noted the slow growth trend of wheat yields compared to those for other crops and the lack of public and private investment in wheat research worldwide.

Noting that biotechnology is not the only answer to a host of agronomic questions facing wheat production, the groups agreed that it could be a "significant component" to tackling major issues facing wheat production.

Australian signatories include the Grains Council of Australia, Grain Growers Association and Pastoralists & Graziers Association of Western Australia (Inc.).

US organisations signing onto the statement include the National Association of Wheat Growers, US Wheat Associates and the North American Millers' Assn. Canadian signatories include Grain Growers of Canada, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Assn. and the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission.

14 May 2009

Genetically engineered crops - A "spectacular failure"?

Deconstructing Dinner, May 14 2009. With Dr. Ann Clark:
http://www.cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/051409.htm

Listen:

•

download/open: http://media.libsyn.com/media/deconstructingdinner/DD051409.mp3

•

stream: http://www.cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/audio/DD051409.m3u

On our April 9 episode http://www.cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/040909.htm, Deconstructing Dinner examined the precarious state of the University of Guelph's organic agriculture program. As was learned, the University had chosen to cut the program along with others displaying low enrollment. The program now sits in limbo. The episode explored the key decision makers at the University in an effort to determine why the lion's share of research funding at the school is directed towards the genetic engineering of lifeforms and the corporate control of seeds instead of towards organic research. As a coordinator of the organic agriculture major, Dr. E. Ann Clark's work within the Department of Plant Agriculture has provided her with an ideal vantage point from which to critically analyze the outcomes of the genetic engineering of the food supply also underway at the university.

On May 10, Deconstructing Dinner recorded Ann speaking at an event hosted by the Kootenay Local Agricultural Society. Ann's talk dealt with the topic of genetically engineered food, and she sought to demonstrate the "spectacular failures" of these technologies, which are now pervasive throughout the North American food supply.

Topics Covered on the Show:

•

The May 14, 2009 joint statement from wheat producers supporting commercialization of GM wheat

•

The questionable groups communicating to Canadian wheat farmers

•

The formalization of Dow's NAFTA challenge against the Canadian Government

•

Challenging the genetically engineered *promises of "higher yields", "reduced biocide use", "feeding the world", "saving the soil", "farmers would make more money"

•

Misleading promises of Bt Corn

•

Seemingly manipulated research findings of consumer preferernces of GM vs. conventional corn

•

The disinformation communicated by Canada's largest agricultural publication, The Western Producer

Voices

Dr. E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph (Guelph, ON) - Ann received a Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences and a Masters of Science in Agronomy both from the University of California at Davis. Ann later went on to earn a Ph.D. in Crop Production and Physiology from Iowa State University. Her specific research interests are in organic and pasture production systems, and in risk assessment in genetically modified crops. She has authored 14 books or book chapters, 25 refereed journal publications, given 51 presentations at conferences and symposia, and 150 extension and technical papers or presentations. She currently teaches or team teaches 7 undergraduate courses, and together with Paul Voroney in Land Resource Science, coordinates the Major in Organic Agriculture at Guelph.

Web Link: http://www.cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/051409.htm

Biochemical Society Receives GBP113,000 from Monsanto Fund to Support the Production of Free Science Resources for Schools

Biochemical Society (UK) press release, 14 May 2009:
http://www.biochemistry.org/

The Biochemical Society today announced it has received GBP113,000 from the Monsanto Fund, a private foundation and the philanthropic arm of the Monsanto Company, to continue funding the provision of new resources in support of secondary school science.

The Society's education team have drawn on their extensive links with leading scientists and teachers in the development of a new web resource for teachers and students called "SciberBrain". The website www.SciberBrain.org tackles some of the key ethical issues in the UK science curriculum for 12-16 year olds and features free activities, games and animated slideshows that can be used online or in the classroom to inspire young people about recent developments in modern bioscience. Topics such as stem cell research, vaccinations and genetically modified organisms will be explored.

Where science textbooks have traditionally struggled to remain up to date with technological advances in some areas of bioscience, SciberBrain resources have the advantage of being much more easily informed by new developments. SciberBrain is aimed at key stages 3-4 and covers bioscience topics found in GCSE curricula but resources can be easily adapted to suit many age groups and ability levels.

As well as existing as a resource for enhancing science lessons, SciberBrain guidance workshops are scheduled to enable scientists and teachers to host SciberBrain events in schools, universities and science festivals with the intention of furthering the public understanding of science.

Chris Kirk, the CEO of the Biochemical Society said "The Biochemical Society is delighted to team up with the Monsanto Fund to address the needs of teachers and students in the UK and internationally. This grant will allow us to support the teaching community by providing balanced and reliable information at the cutting edge of bioscience."

Jane Thomson, Science Education Consultant to the Biochemical Society added "Through presenting bioscience in a flexible and engaging framework, this project will save time for teachers and inspire children at school By addressing social and scientific aspects of bioscience in schools, we can equip young people with skills they will find useful throughout their lives"

Bridget Badiou of the Monsanto Fund commented "This project is very much in line with our focus areas and Jane Thomson, through her work, is able to reach out to many teachers and students rendering science fun to learn and to teach. We are delighted to see the success of the work being done and the positive feedback provided. This is the second year we have been in a position to help fund this initiative".

Information for editors

The Biochemical Society places great importance on education at every level and has a proven track record with outreach activities including the provision of scientific conferences and careers support for its members. For more information visit the Biochemical Society at http://www.biochemistry.org

The Monsanto Fund, established in 1964, provides support in four focus areas: Nutritional Improvement through Agriculture; Healthy Environment; Science Education; and Our Communities. For more information on the Monsanto Fund, visit http://www.monsantofund.org.

Photos of a giant cheque being presented to the Biochemical Society team are available... People in the picture from left to right are; Bridget Badiou (Monsanto Fund), Hannah Baker, Chris Kirk and Jane Thomson (all Biochemical Society).

GM crops not to help developing, under-developed countries

NetIndia123.com, 14 May 2009:
http://www.netindia123.com/showdetails.asp?id=1254257&cat=India&head=GM+crops+not+to+help+developing%2C+under-developed+countries

Kochi (India) -- Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Vice-Chancellor Dr Jayakrishnan today said genetically modified crops would not help in eradicating poverty in the under-developed and developing countries.

Inaugurating the two-day national conference on copyright laws, organised by the Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies of CUSAT in collaboration with the Department of Higher Education, Union Ministry of Human Resources Development, he said the patent regime was totally controlled by multinationals and corporates. ''The poor and devloping countries are not in a position to resist the invasions and maniplutions of such corporate giants,'' he added. Dr Jayakrishnan lamented the lack of patent literacy among the academics working in the field of science and technology and stressed the need for training those engaged in science and technology research in IPR education.

During the two-day deliberations by experts and academicians throughout the country, copyright issues would be discussed.

Growers in U.S., Canada, Australia back GMO wheat

Reuters, 14 May 2009. By Carey Gillam:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN1450449920090514

KANSAS CITY, Mo., May 14 (Reuters) - Farm groups from the world's top wheat-exporting nations on Thursday said they had reached an agreement to support a "synchronized" commercialization of biotech traits in wheat.

Though any market roll-out of a genetically altered wheat would be years away, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) said Thursday it had signed up grain growers in Canada and Australia in a deal that would align the nations against any international backlash if and when a biotech wheat was introduced.

The united front also was intended as an invitation to biotech companies to push forward with biotech wheat development.

"This is a big, long-term issue for producers," said NAWG CEO Daren Coppock. "We agree it is in our best interest to work together. And we are trying to send a strong signal to developers so they can move ahead."

The key food crop currently lacks any genetically altered seed options, unlike corn and soybeans, which have been tinkered with by a variety of biotech agricultural companies.

Biotech strains of corn and soybeans that resist pests and tolerate herbicide field treatments now dominate the U.S. market and are growing in share around the world.

Wheat farmers who have eyed advancements made in other crops say similar genetically altered opportunities for wheat could help them increase yields and become more profitable.

Tops on the wish list are drought-tolerant wheat and wheat that makes more efficient use of nitrogen.

"Wheat is not keeping pace with corn and soy yield increases," said North Dakota Grain Growers Association president Byron Richard. "We have to be competitive with other commodities."

In addition to NAWG, the groups signing onto the agreement include U.S. Wheat Associates, the North American Millers' Association, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission. Australian signatories include Grains Council of Australia, Grain Growers Association and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia.

It was five years ago this month that Monsanto Co (MON.N). shelved an herbicide-tolerant "Roundup Ready" wheat that would have been the first biotech wheat in the world.

The company was facing a storm of protest from U.S. wheat buyers, who threatened to boycott all U.S. wheat if a biotech strain was rolled out. Growers and export players feared a loss of customers and shied away from backing the plan.

Discussions about genetically altering wheat remain sensitive in many parts of the world, including major export markets in Europe and Asia. Biotech crop critics argue genetically altering crops, particularly those used for food, can have harmful ramifications on human and animal health and on the environment.

Still, acceptance is growing, said wheat growers.

"There are a lot of benefits that come with biotech wheat -- higher production, less reliance on pesticides, and better quality wheat," said Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association president Kevin Bender. "Acceptance is growing for it."

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; editing by Jim Marshall)

Big mouth Corrigan raises hackles

Irish Farmers Journal (Country Living), 16 May (published 14 May) 2009

He epitomises everything about the celebrity chef - the Michelin-starred restaurants, the TV programme, the wealth and the big personality. Now Richard Corrigan has stuck his oar into food policy. Could this man be the saviour of Irish food - or is he just another chef with an ego too big for his own kitchen? Darragh McCullough reports.

Is this standard practice these days? asked a bewildered journalist, as she stared at the television release form. The permission form that all contributors sign nowadays was the first clue that her questions at the press conference were being filmed for Richard Corrigan's latest offering, Corrigan's City Farm.

The previous evening, journalists all over the country received a press release announcing Corrigan's plans to call for the abolition of Bord Bia [the Irish Government's food promotion agency]. There was also the not-insignificant carrot of a free lunch at his Stephen's Green-based Bentley's restaurant. But there was no mention of filming. As they say, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

But the excercise achieved what it set out to do. The self-styled "champion of small food producers" was all over the airwaves for the rest of the day, culminating with a head-to-head with Bord Bia's CEO Aidan Cotter on RTE Radio 1's Drivetime that evening.

Corrigan's crusade?

Corrigan's "better food for all" campaign is a tried-and-trusted formula in the wake of the success of similar initiatives by other celebrity chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugn Fernley Whittingstall. But beyond the headlines, has the restaurateur got alternatives for all that he wants replaced?

It turns out Corrigan doesn't really want Bord Bia binned just yet. In fact, he acknowledges the State body has done a fine job of promoting Irish food abroad.

His real problem is how the organisation promotes food here. So rather than abolishing the body, he'd prefer to see the promotion of Irish food abroad and Irish food at home to be separated.

And this was about as specific as he got. During a 20 minute briefing, he talked energetically about everything from supermarket trends in Holland to what it was like to have no money in your pocket.

"What should Bord Bia be replaced by?" asked RTE's Joe O'Brien.

"Look, I'm a chef. I'm just trying to open the debate here. But something needs to be done fast," responded Corrigan in his typically passionate, albeit slightly vague, manner.

"Bord Bia are making a great error in the way they are supporting Irish food here," he said. He pointed out that the heads of the food industry here all sit on the board of Bord Bia. "Where industry and bodies sit at the same table, there's a conflict of interest for the consumer."

Labelling system

One of Corrigan's other gripes is the labelling system here. He wants to know why pork from pigs that have been fed genetically modified cereals (95% of the soya fed to pigs here is from GM sources) isn't labelled to tell the consumer this. He also wants to know why eggs with a UK stamp are sold in egg boxes as Irish eggs (the eggs were produced in Northern Ireland).

"I've lived in Holland and the UK for over 20 years. I know what's happening," Corrigan told the assembled journalists. "I'm bringing you news that no one is telling the Irish agricultural community; Irish product will be on the bottom shelf unless we open this debate."

While not stating it implicitly, the implication is that Irish food exports are in imminent danger of being relegated to lower-division status, because we refuse to implement a total ban on GM products being used in food production here. This ties in with his stance on organics, which, as he confides in me afterwards, "is the way to go for Irish farming."

Bad experience

However, Corrigan has been raising the hackles of intensive farmers everywhere since his infamous "Irish chicken is c**p" comments on radio and the Late Late over two years ago.

Since then, he has been reported criticising farmed salmon and, most recently, intensive pig-rearing systems wen he visited the farm of well-known pig man Michael Maguire.

"I was asked by the producer of the City Farm programme for acess to my farm, because apparently they hadn't the opportunity to get onto any other farm before," said Maguire. "I say no problem - as long as they came with an open mind. But I was really disappointed with what ended up on the programme afterwards."

Maguire also has reason to believe that Corrigan has a personal gripe with Bord Bia. "He mentioned that he had them [Bord Bia] in his sights since they never called into his restaurant in London," recalls Maguire.

Burning bridges

Corrigan sees himself as one of the greatest promoters of Irish food. 'I am the ambassador of Irish food," he immodestly declared on RTE Radio 1 last week.

This was during a head-to-head with Bord Bia boss Aidan Cotter, where Corrigan insisted on referring to Cotter as Michael for almost the entire interview, despite Mary Wilson's best efforts.

Again, Corrigan lambasted Bord Bia's approach to food marketing and GM foods, giving Cotter little or no chance to defend the Government agency. But again, the message was unclear, as Corrigan's scattergun approach to dealing with specifics left nothing fully answered.

It's a far cry from the days when Corrigan worked with Bord Bia in their promotional work in the UK. While Cotter claimed they would be happy to work with the chef in the future, it's difficult to see them ever cozying up again.

Corrigan's criticisms come at a time when every Government agency is in the firing line for running up the public spending bill. Funding has already been cut by €3 million this year, and it's unlikely to be the last cut as the economy worsens.

Despite angerging large sections of the agricultural community with his attacks on intensive food production systems, Corrigan insists he is on the farmer's side.

When I challenge him that he is actually in danger of alienating huge chunks of Ireland's farming community, the self-proclaimed pioneer in the rehabilitation of British and Irish food retorts: "Can I not speak my mind? I'm not anti-farming, I'm just really passionate about food."

New report undermines Vatican meeting

GM Freeze, 14 May 2009:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=381&iType=

On the eve of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences' "Study Week" on genetically modified food ("Transgenic Plants for Food Security", 15-19 May 2009), a new report from GM Freeze shows why GM won't, and can't, deliver on its promises.

The report, GM Nutritionally Enhanced and Altered Crops [1], exposes the myth that new research will provide GM crops to feed the world. "First generation" GM crops are aimed at farmers by inserting genes for herbicide tolerance and insect resistance, which were said by GM companies to be a way to cut inputs and labour (now disputed as superweeds and chemical resistance emerge as major problems in GM areas). Consumers in the UK and around the world rejected GM food, so it is mainly used in animal feed and, more recently, in biofuels, neither of which are obvious or labelled at the point of sale [2], so consumers find it harder to avoid.

The biotech industry now hopes to boost their market with "nutritionally enhanced" GM crops, which it claims will alleviate malnutrition and improve health. Yet after over a decade of such promises, no nutritionally enhanced crops are commercially available, while better approaches to health and nutrition are cheaper and ready to use.

The "study week" being held at the Vatican appears to be at odds not only with mainstream scientific opinion (the 4-year study IAASTD by 400 scientists found that GM crops do not alleviate hunger, calling for broader, more inclusive agricultural research), but also with the wider Catholic church and even the Pope.

Among the critical reactions from Catholic organisations, an open letter on 27 April from CIDSE, the alliance of Catholic development agencies, to the organisers of the "study week" criticised the lack of diversity of analysis and opinion represented, the objective of the week ("to free the technology from the unhealthy constraints of 'extreme precautionary regulation'"), and expressed concern that, "the comprehensive documentation about the negative impact on the livelihood of rural poor by GE seeds is not reflected in the program."

CIDSE added, "We regret that the Pontifical Academy of Science gives open preference to these [GM] protagonists and excludes at the same time important stakeholders including the voice of the Catholic Church in Africa." This was a reference to the Pope Benedict XVI's 19 March Instrumentum Laboris of the Second Special Assembly for Africa of the Synod of Bishops attacking the "invasion" of multinational corporations that "back those in power, irrespective of human rights and democratic principles, so as to guarantee economic benefits through the exploitation of natural resources."

The document adds:

"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 seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies of OGM." [3]

Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"It is clear that GM is not going to feed the world, something the Pope and the Church in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere have already acknowledged. This 'study week' is confused at best - it isn't what is needed or wanted by those fighting hunger on the ground, yet heavy on vested interests. The Vatican will need to examine any recommendations that come out of this isolated meeting carefully before taking them up. It is the poor who need support, not the GM industry."

Contact:

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065

Notes

1. See http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GMF_nutrient_brief_final.pdf

2. Although under EU Regulation 1830/2003 animal feed must be labelled if any ingredient is more than 0.9% GM, the dairy products, meat and eggs produced by the animals it feed do not require a GM label. Bioethanol or biodiesel produced from GM crops do not have to be labelled as such.

3. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5939789.ece and http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090319_pubbl-instrlabor_en.htmll and GM Watch http://www.gmwatch.org

Feed industry attacks EU GM policy

Agra Europe Weekly, 14 May 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com/portal/home.jsp?pagetitle=showlatestnews&art_id=20017650939

The European Union should be thinking very carefully about the food security implications of its current policy on genetically modified organisms in feed, says the president of FEFAC, the European Feed Manufacturers Federation.

Speaking at Agra Informa's World Poultry conference in London, Pedro Correa de Barros said that the EU livestock industry is facing a huge competitive disadvantage as a result of being unable to secure an adequate and reliable source of feed ingredients that contain less than 0.9% GMOs.

EU compound feed costs increased by €15 billion to a total of €50 billion over the last two marketing years up to July 2008, due to high raw material prices, said Correa de Barros.

Some €2.5bn, or 17%, of the increase can be attributed to EU GM policy, due simply to the loss of corn gluten feed and distillers dried grains.

"It is the single most distorting EU policy, and could lead to the export of the EU livestock sector," he said.

FEFAC wants approval of GM applications for import and processing at EU level to be conducted in a timely manner, keeping pace particularly with the main raw material exporting countries.

It also wants legal recognition of low level presence of risk-assessed GM plant products and the establishment of a workable threshold.

Correa de Barros also said that the EU has to develop an integrated approach to biofuels in order to safeguard the livestock industry.

"Is it right that fuel is the priority? he asked. "The EU should look for a system to protect food use over fuel," he said, pointing out that this should include valuable complementary biofuel by-products for feed use, including rapemeal, glycerine and wheat distillers.

Unilever's ISP gets novel foods approval for ice cream

21Food.com, 14 May 2009:
http://www.21food.com/news/detail21647.html

The European Commission has granted novel foods approval for the ingredient Ice Structuring Protein (ISP), used in ice cream to reduce fat content and improve stability.

The novel foods application was made in 2006 by Unilever, which already sells products containing the ingredient in other markets such as the US, Australia and Mexico.

According to the company, which will start using the ingredient in some of its ice creams sold in Europe, ISP can help reduce the fat and calorie content of products by up to 50 percent. Its ability to improve the stability of ice cream also allows for a higher fruit content, an improved taste, better structure and slower melting, claims Unilever.

Natural inspiration

Ice structuring proteins are found in nature, for example in fish or carrots. By changing the shape of ice crystals, they allow fish to survive in freezing arctic waters, or carrots to survive when the ground freezes over.

Unilever said its scientists applied the same concept to ice cream. However, because it is not economically feasible to source the ingredient from crops, the company uses a yeast fermentation technology to make ISP.

"We insert a synthetic ISP gene into a genetically modified yeast, and then this is fermented," explained Unilever's external affairs director Anne Heughan.

The protein is then separated from the yeast by micro-filtration and concentrated by ultra-filtration. This removes all yeast cells from the ISP preparation, which means there is no GM residue in the ingredient, Heughan told FoodNavigator.com.

"EFSA and the member states have independently confirmed that the ISP is not genetically modified," she said.

Benefits

ISP is a light-brown liquid that can be used to a maximum level of 0.01 percent in ice creams. It can replace certain starches or other ingredients that are used to reduce calories or fat.

"We can reduce calories and fat by around 30 to 50 percent, while also improving the quality of a product," said Heughan.

"ISP produces changes in the ice structure, and the smaller ice particles result in a more continuous, clean flavour, a creamy mouthfeel and all the volume you require in an ice cream."

In addition, she said, the ingredient can allow for the use of more fruit in ice cream products. This has, in the past, produced formulation challenges, as high levels of fruit can affect the shape and texture of ice-cream. However, by improving the integrity and stability of ice cream, ISP allows a product with high fruit content remain soft and maintain its structure.

Another potential benefit, again a result of the structural stability delivered by the ingredient, is that the melting process is slowed down, which is particularly relevant for markets in hot countries, such as Greece and Italy, said Heughan.

Novel foods approval

Unilever had originally made a novel foods application in June 2006 via the UK. One year later, the UK's food assessment body issued an initial report, concluding that ISP type III HPLC 12 was acceptable as a food ingredient. This report was reviewed by member states, which had the opportunity to comment.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted at the start of 2008, and in July of the same year EFSA's Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies adopted a scientific opinion concluding that the use of the ingredient in ice cream was safe.

On the basis of that opinion, the European Commission last month granted novel foods approval for ISP, which means it can now be freely used in all 27 member states.

Available next year

Unilever said that although it could, in theory, start using the ingredient immediately, it does not expect to produce ISP until 2010 due to the nature of the ice cream market.

"The ice cream industry needs to decide early on about what will be on the market this year, so it can start preparing the products. Plans are already more or less in place for 2009, so we'll start to produce ISP next year," said Heughan.

Unilever does not supply ISP to ice-cream makers or commercialise it as an ingredient.

Williams farmers continue fast over GM crop trials

The West Australian, 14 May 2009. By Yasmine Phillips:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=146&ContentID=141486

Farmers from the Shire of Williams will enter the second day of their fast at Parliament House today in protest against the State Government's plans to go ahead with genetically modified canola [oilseed rape] trials.

Janette Liddelow, whose family are third-generation farmers 10km north of Williams, said she had joined three of her neighbours to make a stand because of the long-term implications for WA farmers.

"We're like family, country people and the Nationals - and that is what is so distressing - we're all from the same stock and yet there is this huge division," she said.

"They're planting these seeds now from Geraldton to Albany so this is a last-ditch, desperate measure to stop it because once it's up and growing, we've lost our GM-free status forever."

Agriculture Minister Terry Redman announced the 20 sites, covering 850ha, for WA's first commercial-sized trials of GM canola last month. So far, 20 shires have requested GM-free status, including Williams.

Protesters did not eat between 9am and 6pm yesterday and will continue their fast today on the front steps of Parliament.

Shadow agriculture minister Mick Murray said the fight against GM crops would continue but he was concerned that regional residents felt they had to go to such drastic measures to be heard.

Mr Redman said he respected people's right to protest but the Government was committed to investigating new technology.

Monsanto Sees US Seeds Business Doubling

Planet Ark / Reuters, 14 May 2009:
http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/52862

KANSAS CITY - Monsanto Co said on Wednesday that it expects its US gross profit from sales of seeds and traits to double by 2012 from the 2008 level, while its international businesses should grow by 85 percent.

That would amount to a gross profit of $4.7 billion to $4.8 billion by 2012, up from the 2008 gross profit of $2.4 billion for Monsanto's US seeds and traits business, according to Monsanto officials.

The international seeds and traits business should see gross profit grow to $2.6 billion to $2.7 billion by 2012, up from $1.45 billion in 2008.

St. Louis-based Monsanto, which is the world's biggest seed company, said as world population accelerates, it plans to launch a "high impact technology" product every one to two years, with the goal that each project will deliver more than $300 million in "gross revenue opportunities" by 2020 in the country where it is launched.

Among the company's top targeted product releases are its Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans and Genuity SmartStax corn, as well as a drought-tolerant corn and corn that uses nitrogen more efficiently, and an insect-protected soybean for Brazilian farmers.

Monsanto's sales of genetically modified trait developments in corn, soybeans and other crops have grown rapidly in the United States. But the company is increasingly looking for international growth as revenues from chemical herbicides peak.

The company's shares were down 18 cents at $89.90 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Green activists alarm on genetically modified foods

Focus Information Agency (Bulgaria), 14 May 2009:
http://www.focus-fen.net/?id=n180947

Sofia -- Green activists from Blagoevgrad have approached the European Commission (EC) and EU Commissioner for Consumer Protection Meglena Kuneva to express their disagreement with the detected presence of genetically modified foods (GM foods) on the local market. Out of all the 272 foods put to the test, RIOKOZ found that in 19 the quantity of modified organisms exceeded the minimum of 0.9%. The majority of these 19% contained soy or soy components. Express Daily reports.

Canada fails to stall GM labelling initiative

Producer.com (Canada), 14 May 2009. By Sean Pratt, Saskatoon Newsroom:
http://www.producer.com/free/editorial/news.php?iss=2009-05-14&sec=news&sto=0041

An international effort to establish guidelines for the labelling of genetically modified foods is still on track despite efforts by the United States and Canada to derail the process, says a group opposed to GM crops.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission met in Calgary last week to discuss draft recommendations for GM food labelling guidelines.

The full text of this story is reserved for our subscribers. Click here http://www.producer.com/free/subscriptions/ or phone 1-800-667-6929 to subscribe to The Western Producer and gain full access to everything here on producer.com!

Andrew Apel

SpinProfiles, accessed 14 May 2009:
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Andrew_Apel

Andrew Apel is the former editor of the biotech industry newsletter, AgBiotech Reporter, headquartered in Cedar Falls, Iowa, U.S.A. [1] Apel has also been a regular contributor and guest editor of CS Prakash's AgBioView email list. He currently edits the website GMObelus.

Apel is among those invited to contribute to a closed door meeting at the Vatican in Rome in May 2009 to discuss a campaign backing GM crops. The study week was organized by the GM scientist Ingo Potrykus, who is a member of the Pontifical Academy. Apel's topic, Financial Support of Anti-GMO Lobby Groups, was summarised in the study week publicity as follows:

'Financial support for anti-GMO lobby groups is substantial, and severely distorts public discourse over a topic which would otherwise be uncontroversial. Governments, primarily in Europe, support the lobby groups in an effort to appear "green" to their constituencies. Private enterprise, in Europe and elsewhere, support them in order to protect vested financial interests, or to enhance public perception of their products... [The payments] disclose the existence of an international "protest industry" which serves its own interests, and the interests of its funders. Sums spent directly by private enterprise on these groups are not easily quantified. These groups will continue to oppose agricultural biotechnology so long as it continues to be politically or financially advantageous to do so.' [2]

Apel has long shown extreme antipathy to organisations and individuals critical of GM crops and has made repeated efforts to link them to acts of violence. He used the September 11 attacks, for example, to put forward the view that critics of GM, like Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Dr. Vandana Shiva, had blood on their hands. He wrote:

'With the recent attacks on workers in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, attacks perpetrated by those who put political ideology above human life, we have an opportunity to re-evaluate the politics of Greenpeace (which has openly declared human welfare to be at the bottom of its agenda), and similar groups which advocate destruction and its attendant misery as a means of advancing their purposes. Those who destroy for political purposes are not unknown to this group... Vandana Shiva has blood on her hands, so does Mae-Wan Ho. So do others of their ilk. I recommend these folks lay low, very low, until political terrorism becomes fashionable again.' [3]

A few months later Apel sought to link GMWatch founder, Jonathan Matthews, to terrorism, claiming, 'He takes money from Greenpeace and has been associated with at least one terrorist group.' [4] Apel appears to have based this association with terrorism on an Earth First newsletter containing an item with a link to a website - http://members.tripod.com/~ngin - founded by Matthews. The item concerned a completely non-violent 'picnic protest'. [5] In an e-mail to GMWatch in 2008 Apel stated, 'I have described your ilk as "liars", "cretins", and "baby-killers".' [6]

Apel wrote of the death, injuries and often arbitrary and violent arrest of hundreds of protesters at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Genoa [7]:

'Eco-reactionary protesters in Genoa, Italy have engaged in violence of such magnitude it eclipses everything since Seattle, even Gothenburg or Prague... Cops are cannon-fodder for street punks... A representative of someone's favorite cause has died... Maybe Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth (FOE) will decide he was an anti-biotech activist. Anything suffered by police officers in the course of defending civility and democracy will be ignored, while this dead activist will become a cult symbol... watch it happen, people, just watch.' [8]

He also posted a spoof article attributing quotes to a 'non-violent activist' indicating such protesters engage in 'bombing sh*t', and 'blow sh*t up'. [9]

Apel has ridiculed Native American concerns over GM contamination of wild rice - 'Native Americans have found a new way to increase their income'. [10] He was also at the forefront of attempts to use the resistance of countries in southern Africa (2002/3) to accepting GM-contaminated food aid, as a way of attacking biotech industry critics. Apel suggested there might be a moral imperative for the U.S. to bomb Zambia with GM grain if it continued to reject it. [11] On the same discussion list Apel also wrote of the crisis, 'I can almost picture the darkies laying down their lives for the vacuous ideals... their death throes, how picturesque, among the baobab trees and the lions!' [12] In October 2002, Monsanto's electronic newsletter, 'The Biotech Advantage,' carried the headline Academics Say Africans Going Hungry Because of Activist Scare Tactics. The 'activists' in question turned out to be the staff of a Catholic theological centre and a Zambian agricultural college who had expressed concerns about GM crops. Their 'academic' attackers, by contrast, included Andrew Apel together with AgBioWorld's co-founders, CS Prakash and Greg Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Apel's GMObelus website has a section called 'NGO Watch' (the same name as aggressive anti-civil society projects run by right-wing lobby groups like the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute of Public Affairs). In April 2009 this contained links to just three items, one of which was a piece entitled 'Riot' Tourism on the Rise. Nothing in the article appears to have any connection with GM crops.

Apel is equally loose in his statements characterising the funding of NGOs critical of GM crops. He has claimed, for instance, in his role as guest editor of CS Prakash's AgBioView, that Friends of the Earth receives nearly half of its funding from the European Commission and he implies that this may be because Friends of the Earth's GM agenda suits the Commission. [13] Likewise, a piece on Apel's website titled 'Europeans oppose GM cassava for Africa' reports on the opposition to field-testing of a GM cassava by Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) and over 30 other groups *in Nigeria*. Apel poses the question, 'Why would European governments oppose such a project?' and follows this by the statement: 'The Friends of the Earth are almost entirely funded by the European Commission and the Netherlands.' [14]

But according to Nnimmo Bassey, the Director of Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (ERA/FoEN), 'ERA is not funded by the EU'. [15] Likewise, another national group - Friends of the Earth, England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FoEEWNI), gets approximately 90% of its income from individual supporters. [16] It is only Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) in Brussels which receives any substantial funding from the European Commission. And even in this case, FoEE's director points out that FoEE's position on issues like GM 'demonstrate that we do not foll