NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • May 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • March • April • May
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sept • 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

More GM news is available on our news feed at www.gmfreeireland.org/news/feed1.php

THIS PAGE WILL NOT BE UPDATED FROM 12 TO 19 MAY

For latest news go to www.gmwatch.eu and our news feed.

11 May 2008

Scientists create first GM human embryo

HGA and international civil society groups, scientists and ethicists call for moratorium
British Government must withdraw legalisation of GM embryos pending full public debate

Human Genetics Alert, 11 May 2008

Human Genetics Alert (1) has discovered that American scientists have created the world's first genetically modified (GM) human embryo, without notifying the public or the media. In response, HGA's Director, Dr David King called on the Government to halt its plans to legalise GM embryos in the Human Fertilisation and embryology Bill (HFE Bill), which will be debated in Parliament tomorrow. HGA and an international group of civil society organisations also called for an international moratorium on such experiments until there has been a full debate.

A team of scientists based at Cornell University, and led by Nikica Zaninovic genetically engineered human embryos last year (2). Dr Zaninovic confirmed that this is the first time that a GM human embryo has been created. Government plans to legalise such experiments in the HFE Bill are being debated by MPs tomorrow, yet few MPs are even aware of the plans.

An HFEA document (3) says that, 'The Bill has taken away all inhibitions on genetically altering human embryos', It acknowledges that this raises, 'large ethical and public interest issues', without saying that, despite HGA's repeated warnings about GM embryos, these issues have not been publicly debated.

Attached briefings outline the government's plans and the case against Human Genetic Modification (HGM). In brief, the Government initially stated openly its aim of allowing genetic modification of human embryos in order to permit the development of safe technology to create GM children (4). It even proposed to eventually legalise GM children by executive decision, rather than by a full Parliamentary debate! Although the Bill, in its current form bans the implantation of GM embryos for the present, this is clearly not a permanent ban, since it would be illogical allow the development of technology and then continue to ban its use.

The creation of GM children is not just a hypothetical scenario - leading British scientists, Robert Winston (a Government adviser on these issues), and Ian Wilmut have patented techniques for Human Genetic Modification (5). The ban also contains a major loophole, in that it contains powers for the Government to permit the implantation of GM embryos to treat mitochondrial genetic diseases, without full Parliamentary debate (Clause 3ZA (5)) (6).

HGM is unnecessary for medical purposes, since there are many alternative ways of avoiding passing on genetic conditions, but if permitted it will very soon be used to create 'enhanced' 'designer babies'. This would turn children into objects, designed just like other consumer commodities, and would lead to a new eugenics in which the rich are able to give their children genetic advantages over others. Because of these concerns, nearly all EU countries and many others, have permanently banned HGM, and the EU has banned the creation of cloned and GM embryos, in its last two major research funding programmes (7). Britain must not break this international consensus.

Dr David King, Director of Human Genetics Alert said: "When I discovered these experiments on the Internet I was shocked at these scientists' irresponsibility. This might seem like a small thing, but it is a large first step on the road that will likely lead to the nightmare world of designer babies and a new eugenics. We may be entering the era of Human Genetic Modification, which would be no less significant for humanity than the nuclear era.

"The HFEA is right to say that the creation and legalisation of GM embryos, 'raises large ethical and public interest issues', but neglects to mention that these have not been debated at all. I have been speaking to MPs all week, and no one even knows that the Government is legalising GM embryos. The public has had enough of scientists and Government sneaking these things through and then presenting us with a fait accompli The Government must withdraw these plans, so that we do not cross crucial ethical lines without a full debate."

Dr Marcy Darnovsky, Associate Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society, a public affairs organization based in California, said: "A small group of researchers has decided on its own to overstep a key ethical boundary that is observed around the world. In response the UK appears ready to lower its own standards. This is a global issue and highlights clearly demonstrates the need for international regulation and for far greater involvement by the public and civil society."

Silvia Ribeiro from ETC Group, a civil society group, based in Mexico City, said: "If the UK Parliament legalises GM Human embryos it would set an awful precedent for the rest of the world. GM embryos may be sold to policymakers today on the vague promise of 'curing disease' but the real money is in 'human performance enhancement' applications (known as HyPEs). In a world in which diabetes drugs are sold with much more profits as 'bikini drugs' and Alzheimer drugs as 'cognitive enhancers', any germ line manipulation will open the door to market-designed babies. Human diversity would be seen as abnormal, further marginalizing disabled people and those too poor -or not wanting- to be 'improved', according to a market-led standard of what and who is a proper human being."

Dr Stuart Newman, Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy at New York Medical College, said: "Human embryos, particularly within their first two weeks, are poor systems in which to study basic biology or the development of disease. It is clear that technologies for genetically altering human embryos are being developed with the hope and expection that legal prohibitions against gestating them for extended periods will eventually be dropped, ultimately leading to organ harvesting and full term GM infants. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is just another step in this unfortunate direction."

Dr Richard Nicholson, Editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, said: "The Government seems willing now to permit scientists to do whatever they like in the field of reproductive technology. It thinks it is helping British scientists to keep ahead of the competition elsewhere. But there is little competition because most other countries recognise how obviously unethical any genetic modification of human embryos would be."

Contacts:

Dr David King will be available for interview on Sunday, May 11th from 8a.m. He can be reached on +44 (0)20 7502 7516, or +44 (0)7854 256040, and by email at david.king@hgalert.org.

Marcy Darnovsky, +1 510 625 0819 ext 305; mdarnovsky@geneticsandsociety.org.

Notes for editors

1. Human Genetics Alert is a London-based independent secular watchdog group, which supports women's reproductive rights, www.hgalert.org.

2. Fertility and Sterility, Volume 88, Supplement 1, September 2007, Page S310 N. Zaninovic, J. Hao, J. Pareja, D. James, S. Rafii, Z. Rosenwaks. This abstract can be found at www.sciencedirect.com: enter Zaninovic in the author search box. HGA's discovery is reported in today's Sunday Times.

3. The document, 'Lay summary of meeting' can be found at http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1662.html, along with 'Gene transfer into male germ lines and embryos' which mentions the Zaninovic abstract.

4. The original consultation document can be found at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Closedconsultations/DH_4123863. The key paragraphs are 5.33 to 5.38.

5. Patent numbers: US2006064763, GB2331751 (Wilmut) and US2002138865, WO0069257, WO0029602 (Winston).

6. HGA's legal briefing on the HFE Act is attached, along with its Parliamentary briefing, and a more detailed summary of the arguments against HGM. The HFEA's documents also mention the loophole for mitochondrial conditions.

7. For EU Framework Programme 6, see http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/fp6-in-brief_en.pdf.

For FP7, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:412:0001:0041:EN:PDF.

Scientist team creates first GM human embryo

The Times, 11 May 2008. By Sarah-Kate Templeton.

Scientists have created what is believed to be the first genetically modified (GM) human embryo.

A team from Cornell University in New York produced the GM embryo to study how early cells and diseases develop. It was destroyed after five days.

The British regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), has warned that such controversial experiments cause "large ethical and public interest issues".

News of the development comes days before MPs are to debate legislation that would allow scientists to use similar techniques in this country.

The effects of changing an embryo would be permanent. Genes added to embryos or reproductive cells, such as sperm, will affect all cells in the body and will be passed on to future generations.

The technology could potentially be used to correct genes which cause diseases such as cystic fibrosis, haemophilia and even cancer. In theory, any gene that has been identified could be added to embryos.

Ethicists warn that genetically modifying embryos could lead to the addition of genes for desirable traits such as height, intelligence and hair colour.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which will have its second reading this week, will make it legal to create GM embryos in Britain.

The bill will allow GM embryos to be created only for research and will ban implantation in the womb. Ethicists, however, say that the legislation could be relaxed in the future.

The HFEA has said that it is preparing for scientists to apply for licences to create GM embryos. A paper, published by the authority, states: "The bill has taken away all inhibitions on genetically altering human embryos for research. The Science and Clinical Advances Group [of the HFEA] thought there were large ethical and public interest issues and that these should be referred for debate."

The Cornell team, led by Nikica Zaninovic, used a virus to add a gene, a green fluorescent protein, to an embryo left over from in vitro fertilisation.

The research was presented at a meeting of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine last year but details have emerged only after the HFEA highlighted the work in a review of the technology.

Zaninovic pointed out that in order to be sure that the new gene had been inserted and the embryo had been genetically modified, scientists would ideally need to grow the embryo and carry out further tests.

The Cornell team did not have permission to allow the embryo to progress, however.

Scientists argue that the embryos could be used to study how diseases develop. They also say GM embryos could be more efficient in generating stem cells.

However, Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, warned: "This is the first step on the road that will lead to the nightmare of designer babies and a new eugenics. The HFEA is right to say that the creation and legalisation of GM embryos raises 'large ethical and public interest issues' but neglects to mention that these have not been debated at all."

He added: "I have been speaking to MPs all week and no one knows that the government is legalising GM embryos. The public has had enough of scientists sneaking these things through and then presenting us with a fait accompli."

UK: University given go-ahead for open field trial of GM potato crop

Yorshire Post, 10 May 2008. By Chris Benfield.

LEEDS University has been given the go-ahead to grow genetically modified potatoes in an open field.

The potatoes have had their genes tweaked by Professor Howard Atkinson to give them resistance to a parasite. Now seedlings are on standby in glasshouses on the university's experimental farm in Tadcaster and 400 will be moved outdoors later this month.

The move was announced yesterday by the Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra), headed by Leeds MP Hilary Benn.

Some other EU countries already grow GM crops commercially ‚ particularly rape, beet and maize ‚ but development of the GM business in this country has been held back by fear of vandalism by opponents.

The Leeds trial centres on potatoes resistant to the parasite commonly known as "eel worm".

Prof Atkinson said: "This is a university. We don't think it is appropriate to take extreme security measures but also we do not think it is appropriate for people to stop academic research. We have promised to behave responsibly and we hope we will be left to do it."

The potatoes will be used for laboratory purposes only and the soil they are grown in will be sterilised after the harvest.

The NFU has no objections. Its Driffield-based vice president, Paul Temple, has taken part in field trials of GM crops and he says most members are relaxed about them. He said: "We are importing thousands of tons of GM material every day, from other countries in Europe, and we want to see the trials take place and see what happens."

But Pete Riley, of campaign group GM Freeze, said: "This approval is unwise and unnecessary. We are very concerned that Defra persists in approving applications which contain antibiotic-resistant marker genes involving antibiotics which are still in clinical use. These genes are not needed and should be removed. All in all, it's a bad decision by Defra."

Genetically modified crops get mixed response in Asia

AFP, 11 May 2008. By Karl Wilson.

MANILA (AFP) - With food prices hitting record highs the jury is still out in Asia as to whether genetically modified crops hold the key to future food security.

The Philippine government has openly embraced the commercial growing of genetically modified (GM) corn, but neighbouring countries appear less than enthusiastic.

"There has been a lot of talk about developing high-yielding crops and crops that can cope with climate change using GM seeds," said Daniel Ocampo, a genetic engineering campaigner with the environmental group Greenpeace.

But, he said, the technology was still a long way from "addressing these needs."

Even so this has not stopped the Philippines from subsidising the production of GM corn.

"This is despite the fact that GM corn and some conventional varieties have the same yield potentials," Ocampo said.

While Japan does not grow GM crops due to safety concerns among consumers it does import GM grains for use in making products such as cooking oil, animal feed and manufactured goods.

Japanese companies have been reluctant to test the market for consumer-ready GM food because of labelling requirements and public safety worries.

While Japan does not ban GM farming, strict regulation has discouraged corporate investment in the area.

But with rising food prices causing increasing concern in a country that imports more than half of what it eats, the government has said that GM crops may be a way to ease food security and environmental problems.

"Because of strong public concern about consuming genetically modified food, it does not make business sense for Japanese firms to farm genetically modified plants commercially," a Japanese farm ministry official said.

"However, given the expansion in the cultivation of GM products abroad and rising demand for food, we are reviewing ways to have the option of commercial farming in the future," he said.

In South Korea a law which came into effect on January 1 this year imposed strict rules on the import of GM seeds.

While there are domestic GM seed programmes for experimental purposes none are for commercial use, an agriculture ministry official said on condition of anonymity.

"So far all imported GM seeds have been processed immediately after being cleared through customs," the official said.

"There have been no cases of imported or home-grown GM seeds being used for commercial cultivation here and we are not considering easing our rules despite price hikes," he added.

In Bangkok the regional headquarters for the United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) said it had not seen any signs that governments in Asia were pushing for genetically-modified seeds.

"With modern agricultural technology countries should be able to produce enough food without genetically-modified seeds," said He Changchui, the FAO's regional representative for Asia.

"You don't need them. Just try to supply good fertiliser and good water," he said.

In China the State Council, or cabinet, issued detailed rules in 2001 covering safety, labelling, licensing for production and sales, and import safety policies of all GM products.

Xie Yang of the Development Research Centre, a major think tank under the State Council, said: "No genetically modified grain, including seeds, is allowed for edible consumption in China.

"Genetically modified products are allowed for indirect uses, such as making edible oil, but it must be labelled clearly."

There is successful research in China, but no commercial application yet, he said, adding: "It is said that there are breakthroughs in the research of (genetically modified) rice and corn. But none is allowed on to the market."

According to Greenpeace's Ocampo the Philippines is the first country in Southeast Asia, and possibly all Asia, to have a commercial GM food crop.

"The government would say it is because the Philippines should not be late in embracing a technology that promises to help increase the income of farmers and provide higher yields.

"But the fact is the Philippines is so close to the US that whatever policies the US have regarding GM crops we (Philippines) usually follow suit."

9 May 2008

Greenpeace calls on UN biosafety conference to make "genetic polluters pay"

Greenpeace International, 9 May 2008.

From 12-16 May, governments from around the world will gather in Bonn, Germany to hammer out the final details of global liability and redress measures for damage caused by genetically engineered (GE) organisms. Greenpeace will attend the 4th meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (1), telling governments "GE polluters must pay for the damage their crops wreak on the environment, on farmers, and on human health."

At the meeting Greenpeace will release a briefing paper that draws on the most recent GE global contamination scandals, involving an illegal GE maize variety from Syngenta (2), and GE rice from Bayer (3).İ The paper highlights the general lack of access of government authorities to information about both experimental and commercially available GE crops.

"Genetic Engineering companies indiscriminately pollute the world's food and seed supplies, and natural environments with their wandering genes" said Jan van Aken, Greenpeace International agriculture campaigner.İ "They refuse to provide governments with the necessary information to detect those genes.İ And they are doing everything they can, including blaming God (4), to shirk responsibility. Governments must stand up to this ‚ genetic polluters must pay!"

In addition to liability and redress, governments at the meeting will negotiate on several other controversial political issues, including sharing of information and harmonisation of methods to detect illegal international movements of GE organisms.

To facilitate detection and clean-up, and to prevent the highest risk organisms from contaminating food supplies in the first place, Greenpeace demands governments ensure that sequence information and reference material for all genetically engineered plants on the global market is made available to all regulatory authorities worldwide.

"The companies shouting the loudest that GE is safe are also those fighting the hardest to avoid liability for their dangerous products.İ GE companies want to take no responsibility for their unproven technology. GE crops pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. Last week's decision by the EU Commission to send three new types of GE crops back to the European Food Safety Authority shows that Europe's most senior lawmakers are starting to make the right decisions. But much more must be done" concluded van Aken.

ENDS

Notes to Editor

1. The Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, is meeting from 12-16 May 2008, in Bonn, Germany. A Greenpeace briefing outlining the current play of the negotiations is available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/LiabilityandRedress.

Greenpeace's position paper on sampling, detection and the problem of illegal transboundary movements is available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/Article18

2. In 2005, Syngenta finally admitted that they had sold hundreds of tonnes of the wrong GE maize (Bt10 instead of Bt11) in the US for four years. The mistake was discovered in 2004 but instead of informing farmers and consumers, Syngenta entered into secret talks with the US government. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/wrong-ge-maize-sold-for-four-y3

3. In 2006 traces of Bayer's GE rice variety LL601, were discovered in US rice supplies. The contamination came from experimental field trials which had ended in 2001. The discovery triggered the largest financial and marketing disaster in the history of the US rice industry, and at least 30 countries were affected. Greenpeace calculated that the total costs of the disaster could exceed $1.2 billion http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/bayer-rice-scandal-could-cost

4. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/act-of-god-060207

5. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-crop-safety-alarm-bells

Contact information

Greenpeace contacts at the UN Biosafety meeting:

Dr. Jan van Aken, +49 151 1805 34 15

Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, +1 202 285 73 98

USA: New Study Shows Genetically Modified Crops Produce Less
Frankenfoods aren't so miraculous after all.

AlterNet, 9 May 2008. Byt Manila RYce.

While many studies have shown that GM foods pose serious health and contamination risks, a new study carried out for three years at the University of Kansas has shown that genetically modified crops also produce less food. This dispels the great corporate myth, perpetuated by the Department of Agriculture, that GM technology is necessary to solve world hunger. Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, began the study when farmers who had switched over to the GM crop had noticed that even under optimal conditions their yields were not as high as expected. The yields of GM soybean were 10 percent less than those of an almost identical conventional variety grown in the same field.

The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.

The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.

But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.

The Kansas study suggested that genetic modification hindered the soya's ability to absorb manganese from the soil. However, even when additional manganese was added, the GM soya yield was only able to equal that of the conventional crop, failing to surpass it as promised.

Low yields have also been seen with other GM plants, such as cotton, where the total US crop declined as GM technology took over the industry. To counter the embarrassing results, Monsanto falsely claimed that the GM soybeans used in the study were not modified to increase yields, but said it was now developing one that would. Last week, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.

UK: Defra approves GM potato trial

M2 PressWIRE, 9 May 2008.

After public consultation, Defra has given approval to Leeds University to conduct a research trial this year of GM potatoes. The research is on potatoes that have been genetically modified to resist infection by potato cyst nematodes.

The Leeds University application has been evaluated by the independent expert group the Advisory Committee of Releases to the Environment (ACRE). It is satisfied that the proposed trial will not result in any adverse effect on human health or the environment.

Reflecting ACRE's advice, precautionary conditions have been attached to the statutory consent for the trial. These aim to ensure that GM potato material does not persist at the trial site. The harvested GM potatoes will not be used for food or animal feed.

Note for Editors

1. The Leeds University application, the statutory consent, and the relevant ACRE advice can be found on the Defra website at .

The consent reference is 07/R31/01.

•

Analyse further scientific evidence on the effects on the environment and human health of the Amflora starch potatoİ(seeİEurActiv 17/07/07) and three hybrid maize varietiesİ(MON863xMON810, MON863xNK603, MON863xMON810xNK60"), all of whichİcontainİantibiotic resistant genes;

•

review new scientific information onİGMO maize Bt11 and 1507 and confirm the saftey of these products (which engineer their own pesticide to resist insects), and;

•

confirm that the scientific evidence on herbicide-resistant GMO rice LL62 is complete.

The EU executive alsoİasked its services to find a technical solutionİto the issue ofİlow-level presence of non-approved GMOs in feed and foodstuffs before the summer.

POSITIONS:

TheİEuropean Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio) immediately expressed its disappointment about theİCommission decision to send the dossiers back to EFSA and argues that the EU executive is denying European farmers access to technology. "In Europe, only one biotech crop is available for farmers, an insect-resistant Bt maize. Since 1998 not one single new biotech crop has been allowed to reach the market for cultivation. This stands in stark contrast to the 120 plus products for 23 crops available to farmers worldwide. With such politically motivated steps, Europe is holding up a well-established technology and is putting its credibility at risk,"İstates the association.İ "We would have hoped the Commission could haveİdone more for European farmers so that they can actually cultivate more biotech crops and not just import them," saidİEuropaBio Director Nathalie Moll.İ

Environmental NGOsİFriends of the Earth Europe andİGreenpeace qualifiedİtheİdecision as "a huge vote of no confidence" in the EU's GMO approval system, saying it raises "serious concerns about the ability of the agency to check the safety of GM crops".

The decisions alsoİ"vindicate Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas' concerns about scientific inconsistencies in the EU GMO assessment," saidİMarco Contiero, Greenpeace's EU GMO campaign director. "If the Commission has no qualms with EFSA, then why is it asking it to review three products for the third time? EFSA has always found in favour of GMOs and relies entirely on data from the agro-chemical industry. By sending back the three GM plants today, the Commission has found that its food safety authority cannot be fully trusted although it does not dare to say so."

"Commissioners are right to reject previous EFSA opinions on the three crops, but wrong not to take a decision on the two pesticide maizes. Given the serious scientific concerns linked to these crops, the dossier should have been rejected today, instead of delaying the process by two years by sending them back to EFSA," saidİHelen Holder,İ GMO coordinatorİatİFriends of the Earth Europe. İ

NEXT STEPS:

•

It is not clear how long the new EFSA review process will take.

•

If approved, the Amflora starch potato and GMO maize varieties Bt11 and 1507 wouldİbe the first new biotech crops authorised by the EU for cultivation since 1998. Currentlyİonlyİone crop - the insect resistant Bt maize crop -İis authorisedİfor cultivation in the EU.

LINKS

European Union

•

Commission press release: Summary of today's orientation debate on GMOs in Commission (7 May 2008)

•

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

•

Commission: Food safety website

Business & Industry

•

European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio) press release: Commission procrastinates on GMOs while millions of farmers worldwide are growing them (7 May 2008)

NGOs

•

Friends of the Earth Europe press release: EU food agency under fire as Commission debates GMOs (7 May 2008)

•

Greenpeace statement: Commission vote of no confidence in EU food safety authority (7 May 2008)

BACKGROUND:

Approving genetically modified organisms (GMOs) involves a request for authorisation by a producer. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is mandated to conduct a scientific assessment and to report to the Commission, which then submits its decision to the Council.

In the event that the Council cannot reach a qualified majority for or against authorisation, the matter is sent back to the Commission, which is free to authorise the GMO based on aİspecial regulatory procedure.İ

Both the special regulatory procedure and the role of EFSA haveİbeenİthe subject of criticismİ(see EurActivİ05/12/05İandİ10/03/06), and the Commission hasİdecided toİintroduce practical changes to EFSA's GMO-approval process (EurActivİ12/04/06).

Up till now, EFSA has never given a negativeİGMOİrecommendation. Since 2005, the Commission has decided toİauthorise the import ofİ16 GMOs.

Several member states have repeatedly invoked an EU safeguard clause enablingİthem to suspend the marketing or growth onİtheir territory of GM crops that have EU-wide authorisation. But the Commission has never substantiated their applications and has always ordered them to lift the national bans.

In October 2007, Portuguese Environment Minister Francisco Nunes Correia saidİthe majority of member states were opposedİto the Commission forcing them to lift such bans. He added: "The Commission proposal prevails against the explicit will of one member state and that is something that has to give us pause for thought."

More on this topic:

•

News: İ GMO debate continues to divide EU

•

News: İ France suspends GM maize, citing new scientific evidence

Other related news:

•

'Era of cheap food is over,' says EU

•

Scientists find 'new method' to prevent accidental spread of GM crops

•

EU considers 'pause for thought' on GMOs

•

GMOs: 'We shouldn't mix the precautionary principle and public perception'

•

Interview: Biotech sector awaits further GMO approvals

EU: Speed of approvals under the spotlight

Farmers Guardian, 9 May 2008.

EU Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel's call for a shift away from the zero tolerance position on non-food GMOs so European meat production can remain competitive has been warmly welcomed by CLA Wales, which in turn has come attack from the GM Free Cymru pressure group.

"Her position shows recognition of the need to rely on science ‚ but I would like her to go further if we are to start to have a competitive agricultural model in Europe," said CLA Wales director, Julian Salmon.

"It is extremely important we do not get left behind in terms of scientific and technological developments."

Responding to a question from Mr Salmon, the Commissioner told the recent Women's Food and Farming Union conference in South Wales, that European farmers were facing huge difficulties because of zero tolerance.

Having recently returned from South America, Mr Salmon wondered how Europe could compete "if we cannot accept what science and technology offer us."

Mrs Fischer Boel seized the opportunity, saying that she had had 250,000 emails on the subject ‚ "and you can imagine from where they are coming."

She explained that, because Europe took at least twice as long as the US, Brazil, and Argentina to approve a new GMO and had a zero tolerance on non-approved GMs, there were extra costs attached to soya exported to Europe for meat production. It was much easier to export to China and India.

"Therefore, we need to have a discussion on the speed at which we approve new GMs and I think we also need, although it is going to be difficult, a tolerance of a very, very, low level.

"A very low level to me is 0.1 per cent ‚ otherwise I think our meat sector in Europe is facing huge difficulties." She stressed that she was referring only to imports for meat production and not for cultivation.

However, CLA Wales has been accused of being 'fooled' by the GM industry hype in an attack by the GM Free Cymru pressure group, which said the CLA appeared to believe livestock farmers in the EU were suffering high prices for livestock feed because of the EU's slow rate of GM approvals.

"There is actually no connection at all," said group spokesman, Dr Brian John.

Dr John said US livestock farmers were suffering the same price problems as the EU, with those in Monsanto's home state of Missouri complaining that a 10 per cent ethanol target was triggering a livestock industry meltdown by leading to higher feed prices.

"Tyson's Foods ‚ the huge US broiler conglomerate ‚ has just announced a loss, which is blamed, in part, on high feed prices, while the USDA estimates that corn feed price increases added nearly 9 per cent to the price of US beef last year. "All of this shows that the attempt to establish a link between the rise in feed prices and EU rules on GMOs is completely false and disingenuous," added Dr John.

The US Department of Agriculture's review of 10 years of GM crop cultivation in the States had, in fact, concluded that currently available GM crops did not increase yield potential.

UK: Is in vitro meat the future?
Chicken, beef and pork that has never been a living animal could be better for people and the planet. But will it catch on?

The Times, 9 May 2008. By Carol Midgley.

Here is a question that you must try to answer honestly. Would you eat meat that had been grown in a Petri dish? Let's be clear: I don't mean "mock" meat made from soya, or even the flesh of a cloned animal. I mean real, in vitro meat that has been cultured in a laboratory from, say, pig stem cells but has never formed part of a living, breathing, kicking, oinking creature. Meatro, if you like.

If the idea makes you reach instinctively for your Tesco vacuum-packed streaky bacon, perhaps you had better steel yourself and get used to it. Last month, in Norway, the first international In Vitro Meat Symposium was held, and scientists seem to agree that "victimless" meat - be it beef, pork or chicken - bought off the shelf could become a reality within the next decade.

What might propel the process along even faster was a radical move last week by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta). The organisation, which has long promoted vegetarianism, has offered a $1 million (£507,400) prize to "the first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012". The rules specify that the meat in question must be chicken, with the same taste and texture as meat taken from a living bird. Peta says that the world's use and abuse of chickens is the most urgent issue to be tackled, as billions of them are slaughtered each year - 100 times more than pigs and 200 times more than cattle.

Some members of the organisation are incensed by the gesture. Ingrid Newkirk, its co-founder and president, says that it has caused "near civil war" in the Peta offices. Many purist animal rights campainers abhor absolutely the idea of eating meat, even if no animal died to produce it, regarding it as a moral surrender.

The other view, growing in credence among both carnivores and vegetarians, is that, since human beings seem unlikely ever to kick their meat-eating habit, this may be the ideal - indeed, the only - compromise. It is a possible "third way" that would, theoretically, be kinder to both the animal kingdom and the environment. And, because the meat would not have been pumped full of steroids and antibiotics and fed on grisly reconstituted foodstuffs, it would be healthier. Harmful saturated fats could be removed and good fats, such as omega-3, introduced instead. Probable result: fewer heart attacks. And is the whole idea far-fetched? Not necessarily. Researchers have already produced small amounts of the meat in laboratories, and have been able to get heart cells to beat in test tubes. The technology still has a long way to go, and at present the process is prohibitively costly (it would cost nearly $1 million to turn out a 250g piece of beef). But with enough research and funding, it is not inconceivable that one day the scientists could produce a steak or a lamb chop.

The question then would be: will people eat it? A quick survey of the carnivores I know reveals an instinctive revulsion from at least 70 per cent. "It's perverted," says my colleague at the next desk. "It's a disgusting, freakish idea." Which, to a vegetarian (like me), is deeply weird. How can it possibly be more disgusting than, say, eating chickens that have ulcered backsides from sitting for weeks in their own excrement, bodies five times their natural size, with leg abscesses the size of 50p pieces, and end their lives strung upside down with their heads hacked off?

Personally I would have nothing against eating in vitro meat in principle, because it was never a conscious animal in the first place and never had to travel hundreds of miles in an airless van, live in a cage or come within a country mile of the slaughterman's knife. If it supported an industry that would eradicate the need to keep animals in factory conditions, then I'd not only eat it, I'd buy shares in it.

Realistically, though, there is bound to be initial distrust of a relatively untested field of science with possible health implications. Words such as "Frankenfood" are likely to be bandied about. Fred Kirschenmann, of Iowa State University's Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, has said that, while he doesn't deny that the idea could work, "every time we mess around with our ecological heritage there are unintended side-effects. We have a long history of unintended consequences."

Yet it is important to be clear that in vitro tissue engineering is not the same as genetic engineering: it is imitating nature, not trying to change it. Stig W. Omholt, director of the Centre for Integrative Genetics and professor at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, which hosted the conference in Norway, says that any health risks would need to be evaluated through experimental tests, though "we cannot foresee that this will become an issue". Nutritional experts with whom he has consulted in fact suggest the opposite - that people's health will benefit.

According to Peta and to many scientists the world over, the ways in which we now produce and consume meat are simply not sustainable. Each year, worldwide, people eat 240 billion kilos of meat. In the US alone, a million chickens are eaten every hour. In terms of CO2 equivalents, the gaseous emissions from livestock production account for about 18 per cent of the global warming effect - more than the whole transport sector. Yet, with each animal killed, a sizeable proportion of it is wasted. With cultured meat nothing is wasted: you grow only the parts you want.

New Harvest, a US organisation that supports the development of meat substitutes, highlights that food-borne diseases - most commonly caused by contaminated meats - are responsible for more than 76 million episodes of illness, 325,000 admissions to hospital and 5,000 deaths each year in America.

Although purists argue that it is an abuse of animals even to use their stem cells to create meat, Newkirk says that she doesn't mind taking "uncomfortable positions" if it means fewer animals suffering in the future. The amount of grain required to feed farmed animals, which in turn feed the world's voracious appetite for meat, is causing a global food crisis, she says. About 760 million tonnes of grain are used to feed chickens, pigs and other farmed animals - more than seven times the amount used to produce biofuels. It can take up to 16lb (7.3kg) of grain to produce just 1lb of meat. Since the Earth's population is predicted to grow to nearly nine billion people by 2050 - with a commensurate rise in the quantity of livestock needed to feed them - this cannot continue. As Bruce Friedrich, a Peta campaigner, says: "We will have to stop eating animals in the way that we do for simple self-preservation."

As the science already exists, in years to come the pressure to move towards in vitro meat may become irresistible. The process works like this. From a living animal you take some stem cells known as myoblasts, which are pre-programmed to grow into muscle, and place them in a nutrient-rich fluid - the "growth medium". They are poured on to a sponge-like scaffold to which they can attach themselves, and stimulated to grow by using electrical impulses. The resulting sheet of meat can be pulled off, ground up, cooked and consumed as a boneless, processed meat - perhaps in a pie. Professor Omholt says that, for now, scientists are likely to concentrate on producing mincemeat on an industrial scale, rather than whole organs such as kidneys. The concept of creating the whole "animal with no brain" is not high on the agenda. But the production of ground meat for use in sausages, burgers and chicken nuggets could take a great leap forward within five to ten years, he says. And does he think that one day, as some have gloomily predicted, such meat will threaten the existence of mooing, baaing animals on farms? "I don't think we will ever see a world where [living] animals are not produced for meat," he says. "I see this as being an alternative."

By and large, the scientific community is motivated more by environmental concerns than animal welfare ones. But the mood and the timing may be right for such a compromise, as ethical halfway houses are becoming de rigueur. The idea of guilt-free - or, at least, less cruel - animal products is increasingly appealing to consumers who are waking up to the horrors of factory farming. Sales of organic foodstuffs have soared and "ethical" versions of luxury foods are catching on fast, even though they are generally more expensive. "Humane" foie gras, in which geese or ducks are not force-fed to make their livers swell to many times their natural size, is becoming popular. Waitrose's "Faux Gras" (it has banned the original type), which is made from free-range ducks and geese but blended to taste like the traditional French product, took off so unexpectedly that stocks sold out at Christmas. The Duke and Duchess of Hamilton, from one of Britain's most aristocratic families, are boycotting Selfridges because it is still selling foie gras.

Ditto farmed caviar. Waitrose stopped selling caviar amid concerns that the Caspian Sea sturgeon population was nearing extinction, but last year in 15 stores it sold sustainable caviar produced by farmed Siberian sturgeon in fish farms in Bordeaux. Demand was so high that this winter it will be offered in 60 stores.

Although the in vitro technology is not yet developed enough to synthesise blood vessels and so grow large steaks, Friedrich believes that this will happen eventually. "In vitro meat has already been created - not with the taste and texture of animal-corpse meat, but it is on its way," he says. "Eventually the technology should be such that you could grow all the parts of an animal, minus the brain. Where there's a will, there's a way." Professor Omholt knows that persuading many people to overcome their knee-jerk distaste for lab meat - or "meat without feet", as one animal organisation has referred to it - will be tricky. "It will be a challenge," he says, "but when you talk people through this, as long as they have any sort of conscience around animal welfare, they will start to agree. You can pose the question the other way round - do they want to make a less intense footprint in the world?"

Whether such meat would pass muster with carnivores, whether it would be deemed to meet kosher and halal criteria, is hard to say at the moment. But Peta's grand gesture has had the desired effect of creating a debate about the issue. The feedback has been mixed, and some people thought it was a hoax - perhaps understandably, as Peta put out an April Fool story recently in which it claimed to have created "Newkirk Nuggets" made from cells from an upper-arm biopsy of Ingrid Newkirk, marketed as "100 per cent Human(e)".

But, as Newkirk has said, she did so "to make the point that flesh addiction is revolting - and if I am healthier, as I am, than the average animal used for meat, and giving my flesh voluntarily, why is this revolting but eating flesh from a probably gut-infected, tumour-laden chicken or cow is not?" Nevertheless, $1million is a lot of money for Peta to pay out. If someone, somewhere, does come up with the goods by 2012, would it definitely honour the deal? "Absolutely, yes," says Freidrich. "It would be the best $1 million we ever spent."

The meaty questions

What will it look like?

In vitro processed meat, such as sausage or hamburger, could look just like the meat we eat.

How long will it take?

We may be able to make processed in vitro meat within years. Unprocessed meat may take a decade or longer.

What are the potential benefits?

Fat content can be more easily controlled, the incidence of food-borne disease reduced and, in theory, one cell could produce enough to feed the world for a year.

What are the risks?

The system could be abused, to produce genetically modified in vitro meat, which would carry the same risks as GM foods.

How will it taste?

In theory, the same as the real thing - but several technical obstacles still need to be overcome. How much will it cost?

It may one day be cheaper than normal meat.

Source: New Harvest, a not-for-profit research organisation working to develop meat substitutes

EU: MEPs vote to tighten up rules for Brussels lobbyists

EU Observer, 9 May 2008. By Honor Mahoney.

BRUSSELS - MEPs have voted to tighten up the rules governing the lobbyists, requiring those seeking to influence officials in the EU's three main institutions to register themselves and provide income details.

The resolution, passed by an overwhelming majority of euro-deputies, suggests that lobbyists have to adhere to a code of conduct and face sanctions, such as being barred from an institution, if they flout the rules.

MEPs want the rules to apply to the European Parliament, the European Commission, which is responsible for proposing EU laws, and the council of ministers, which represents member states.

Once a lobbyist - defined as anyone "influencing the policy formulation and decision-making processes of the European institutions" - is registered in one of these institutions, then they will be automatically registered in the other two as well, according to the one-stop-shop proposal agreed by the euro-deputies.

The register would require professional lobbyists to list their major clients and the amount they spend on lobbying, while think-tanks would be obliged to state their main sources of funding.

Meanwhile, a "legislative footprint" would list all those who have a "significant input" into laws worked on by MEPs, but this would only be voluntary.

"It is an important step towards more transparency in European legislation," said Ingo Friedrich, the German centre-right MEP, in charge of the dossier in the parliament.

However, the measures have been criticised by some MEPs, particularly from the Green group, as they fall short of strict financial disclosure, with the details to be thrashed out later.

In addition, they voted to exempt lawyers from the measures.

"Lawyers are exempted from the scope of rules, which, given all available evidence is absurd," said Italian Green MEP Monica Frassoni.

"Lawyers play an increasingly important role in influencing policy in Brussels and they promote themselves as such on their own websites," she added.

The measures are hoped to be in place for the European Parliament in time for the European elections next year in June. They would update the minimal register that has been in place in the parliament since 1996.

For its part, the European Commission, which has been working on transparency rules for the past three years, is expected to launch its voluntary online register next month.

The three institutions are to set up a working group to try and come up with some common rules in the area in light of the MEPs' vote. Of the three institutions, the council has shown the least interest in the transparency move so far.

There are thought to be about 15,000 lobbyists operating in Brussels, of which 5000 are registered in the European Parliament.

Brussels has been making noises about shedding light on the system since recent high-profile scandals in Washington came to light, with some fearing the same sort of corruption could be exposed in the EU capital.

In addition, MEPs are set to gain even greater powers over EU legislation when the proposed new EU treaty comes into place, possibly next year, increasing the need for more stringent controls.

8 May 2008

USA: Mother's Day Candy from Monsanto Not So Sweet

The Huffington Post, 8 May 2008. By Andrew Kimbrell.

This Mother's Day, as you give and receive the boxes of candy that are so much a part of the holiday, enjoy those luscious chocolate covered crËmes, nougats and truffles. There's no denying that chocolate is the taste of Mother's Day, but this may very well be your year for worry-free Mother's Day candy, and I'm not referring to calorie count. Sadly, biotech companies want to take away the chocolate our mothers know and love, and look forward to receiving.

Sugar in your Mother's Day candy comes from several sources, including sugar beets. A new option available to farmers this year is Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beet, genetically engineered to survive multiple direct applications of the weed killer, Roundup. At the request of Monsanto, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowable amount of glyphosate residues on sugar beetroots by a whopping 5,000% -- glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Sugar is extracted from the beet's root and the inevitable result is more glyphosate in our sugar. This is not good news for those who want to enjoy their chocolate morsels without the threat of ingesting toxic weed killer.

The availability of the new genetically modified (GM) beet will have wide-ranging ramifications on where the sugar in your everyday food comes from as well. If sugar beet seed farmers decide this spring to go ahead and plant Roundup Ready, the seeds they produce will proliferate through the nation's sugar beet farms. The sugar produced from those farms will be mixed in with other types of sugar, unlabeled and untraceable. You couldn't avoid sugar from Roundup Ready beets even if you tried.

That result is a nightmare for consumers who won't buy food with GM ingredients; there are hundreds of millions of these consumers nationwide and overseas. Producers of candy, cereal, granola bars, baby food, breads - anything that contains sugar - would be hard pressed to avoid sugar derived from GM sugar beets. A consumer backlash could force these companies to use sugar from crops that haven't been genetically modified, like sugarcane. This would be a real blow to all sugar beet farmers, and food producers would need to factor in the costs of new packaging with labels declaring that their foods contain sugar that is "not derived from GM beets."

If that isn't enough to make you want to give up candy (or cereal, or bread), consider the issue of crop contamination. Beets are wind-pollinated, which means that plants from one field routinely pollinate beets in other fields up to several miles away. Sugar beet seed is primarily grown in Oregon's Willamette Valley, a prime region for growing related species like table beets and chard. Contamination from cross pollination would be unavoidable, and that could put chard and table beet farmers there and elsewhere in the U.S. where GE sugar beets are grown, out of business due to loss of markets, something the USDA utterly failed to consider when approving Roundup Ready sugar beets for commercial use.

In the late spring of 2007, a federal court ruled that USDA broke the law when it approved Roundup Ready alfalfa for commercial use because it failed to conduct the serious environmental review required by law. Since many of the same points of law apply, a suit filed this January against FDA for clearing Roundup Ready sugar beets for planting will hopefully reach a similar verdict. But, whenever citizens are forced into court to ensure their rights, the outcome is never a forgone conclusion, and although I believe that this won't turn out to be the case, this could be the last year Mother's Day candy doesn't contain elevated pesticide levels.

So moms, enjoy this Mother's Day. Savor those coconut crËmes, toffee crunches, and cherry cordials - and confidently share them with your kids. Next year, they may not seem quite so sweet to you.

USA: GE Roundup Ready sugar beets and Mother's Day candy -- Andrew Kimbrell on Huffington Post blog

Food Law Prof Blog, 8 May 2008.

Genetically engineered sugar beets are on the way, and next year's candy will include sugar from the new plants.İ Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety has a post on The Huffington Post that's kind of interesting.İ I had assumed that sucrose is sucrose is sucrose, always a glucose molecule stuck to a fructose molecule.İ And I just assumed it's always pure.İ But here's an excerpt from the article suggesting I may be too calm about it:

Sugar in your Mother's Day candy comes from several sources, including sugar beets. A new option available to farmers this year is Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beet, genetically engineered to survive multiple direct applications of the weed killer, Roundup. At the request of Monsanto, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowable amount of glyphosate residues on sugar beetroots by a whopping 5,000% -- glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Sugar is extracted from the beet's root and the inevitable result is more glyphosate in our sugar. This is not good news for those who want to enjoy their chocolate morsels without the threat of ingesting toxic weed killer.

Read Mothers Day Candy from Monsanto Not So Sweet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/mothers-day-candy-from-mo_b_100059.html

EU considers tightening rules on biofuels

EU Observer, 8 May 2008. By Leigh Phillips.

BRUSSELS - As opposition to biofuels among international institutions, economists and NGOs grows, the European Union is under great pressure to develop a set of sustainability rules governing the controversial alternative fuel source, but EU member states disagree on what constitutes 'sustainable'.

In recent months, biofuels have moved from climate saviour to climate villain, as concerns have arisen that biofuels contribute to food price rises and in some cases release scarcely fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels.

EU leaders last spring agreed that the EU should increase the use of biofuels in transport fuel to ten percent by 2020, up from a planned 5.75 percent target to be achieved by 2010.

In the face of the varied criticism however, the European Commission and member states formed a working group that has developed a series of sustainability proposals.

Ambassadors from the EU countries met for the first time on Wednesday to discuss the working group proposals, the heart of which is a two-step scheme whereby biofuels would have to meet a threshold of greenhouse gas savings on what is produced by oil. This threshold would then be raised at a later date.

Officials close to the negotiations say that little agreement was reached a the initial meeting, but that diplomats were close to consensus on an initial threshold figure of 35 greenhouse gas savings on oil and the two-step approach.

Where disagreement remained was over the figure for the subsequent threshold and a date by which it would have to be met.

Regarding biofuel imports, the ongoing discussions will also investigation whether and how to monitor social and labour conditions.

Three options

There are three options on the table arising from the working group that are under consideration by EU diplomats.

The first, and most stringent, would require that countries exporting biofuels would have to be signatories to a minimum of ten out of twelve various international conventions on social and environmental standards.

The second would require that biofuel-exporting countries had passed sufficient domestic environmental legislation, particularly with regard to soil and water standards.

The third option would require some sort of reporting standards on environmental and social conditions be established, either by the country or the company involved.

A source close to the discussions told the EUobserver that in discussions on the criteria, the UK and the Netherlands have pushed for much higher greenhouse gas savings thresholds, of 50 to 55 percent, with Germany also supportive of a stricter threshold.

France however, is believed to be most strongly opposed to any upwards movement of the 35 percent figure. The source said this was because the country is very interested in developing crops for biofuels itself, but that little of what can be grown there offers a saving of over 35 percent. Spain is also believed to favour the lower threshold.

A Belgian official however said they are looking at the threshold from a different angle. As some second generation biofuels offer greenhouse gas savings on oil of 80 percent, but have yet to be fully developed, Belgium would like to see a review of the threshold every two to three years.

This would allow the possibility of adjusting the threshold to reflect the science of biofuels as it develops, and as more advanced forms of biofuels come online, the threshold can be increased as appropriate.

Frauke Thies, renewables campaigner with Greenpeace called the greenhouse gas emissions threshold of 35 percent "not enough to secure effective greenhouse gas savings and aid in the climate struggle.

"We're demanding at least 60 percent greenhouse gas savings on oil of at least 35 percent."

"What is curious is how many of the biofuel crops that can be grown in Europe hover at around or not much above a 35 percent savings. This is where this figure comes from.

"Biodiesel made from rapeseed for example has a savings on oil of 36 percent according to commission figures."

Indirect effects

Greenpeace spokesperson Mark Breddy said: "The question is: Do we adjust biofuels targets to ensure sustainability or do we adjust sustainability criteria to match our biofuels targets?"

Ms Thies is also worried that the criteria currently under discussion do not look at indirect land-use changes that result from biofuel crop cultivation.

Environmentalists say that problems arise not simply when farmers make a decision to begin growing biofuels instead of something else, but there is an 'indirect' problem when other land is used to replace what would have been grown otherwise.

In a speech to the European Policy Centre think-tank on Tuesday (6 May), agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said that the sustainability criteria proposals do factor in direct land conversion.

"We take this issue very seriously," she said.

However, she also said they do not take into account indirect land conversion fall-out "because there are no reliable studies to show that biofuel production causes indirect conversion."

Australia: Boost For Green Plastics From Plants

PlasticsNet, 8 May 2008.

Australian researchers are a step closer to turning plants into 'biofactories' capable of producing oils which can be used to replace petrochemicals used to manufacture a range of products.

Scientists working within the joint CSIRO/Grains Research and Development Corporation Crop Biofactories Initiative (CBI) have achieved a major advance by accumulating 30 per cent of an unusual fatty acid (UFA) in the model plant, Arabidopsis.

UFAs are usually sourced from petrochemicals to produce plastics, paints and cosmetics. CBI is developing new technologies for making a range of UFAs in oilseeds, to provide Australia with a head start in the emerging 'bioeconomy'.

"Using crops as biofactories has many advantages, beyond the replacement of dwindling petrochemical resources," says the leader of the crop development team, CSIRO's Dr Allan Green. "Global challenges such as population growth, climate change and the switch from non-renewable resources are opening up many more opportunities for bio-based products."

The production of biofactory plants can be matched to demand and will provide farmers with new, high-value crops bred to suit their growing conditions. The technology is low greenhouse gas generating, sustainable and can reinvigorate agribusiness.

"We are confident we have the right genes, an understanding of the biosynthesis pathways and the right breeding skills to produce an oilseed plant with commercially viable UFA levels in the near future," Dr Green says.

The team will announce the successful completion of the first stage of the CBI on 28 April during the Fifth Annual World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology & Bioprocessing (WCIBB), being held in Chicago, Illinois, from 27-30 April 2008.

The team's selection of safflower as the target crop will also be announced.

"Safflower is an ideal plant for industrial production for Australia," Dr Green says. "It is hardy and easy to grow, widely adapted to Australian production regions and easily isolated from food production systems."

The CBI is a 12-year project which aims to add value to the Australian agricultural and chemical industries by developing technologies to produce novel industrial compounds from genetically modified oilseed crops.

The project focuses on three key areas; Industrial Oils, Complex Monomers and Protein Biopolymers. CBI project leaders will present the latest research findings in each of these three areas at the WCIBB in Chicago which will showcase innovations in the convergence of biotechnology, chemistry and agriculture.

Food prices and protest - Taking the strain
Political fallout has been limitedóso far

The Economist, 8 May 2008.

WHEN Haiti's prime minister resigned last month after a week of food riots, it seemed to confirm a warning that Bob Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, had given ten days before. He said 100m people were being pushed into hunger and malnutritionóand 30-odd countries faced social upheaval unless food policy improved and the rich world got its act together to help. A month on, policy has not improved, and the rich world's response has mostly been muddledóyet surprisingly, poor countries have been able to contain the unrest, albeit at heavy cost.

Simon Maxwell, head of Britain's Overseas Development Institute, a think-tank, says one problem is that donors need a single, simple guide on how and where to help, not a clamour of competing United Nations bureaucracies with different plans. There are moves in this direction. The first priority has been to finance the World Food Programme (WFP), the world's largest distributor of food aid. The WFP asked for $750m this year and has so far got about two-thirds of that.

The UN is also trying to make the international response more coherent. Ban Ki-moon, its secretary-general, has set up a task-force to co-ordinate what the UN agencies are doing and has called a food summit in early June to work out a plan.

Rich countries are already managing to be fairly incoherent without any UN infighting. The hope, at least among economists, was that higher prices would induce rich countries to cut state aid to farmers and ó says Paul Collier, a development expert at Oxford University ó "lead people to question their pleasant fantasies about GM [genetically-modified] food in Europe and biofuels in America." So far, there are few signs of that.

The current American farm bill proposes only modest cuts in ethanol subsidies. The EU has not changed its biofuels target (10% of all fuel by 2020); it continues to bully developing countries not to plant GM crops and this week refused permission to grow varieties of GM maize and GM potatoes in Europe.

While donors squabble, poor countries face riots. But so far, these have had less political impact than many expected. Around 30 countries have suffered protests but only Haiti has seen its government fall. In the Middle East, the part of the world most dependent on food imports, there have been demonstrations and strikes in Egypt, Morocco and Jordan. But all three countries withstood more serious food riots in the late 1970s and 1980s.

In some of the poorest countries, rising food prices have been causing less distress than might have been expected because benefits have also appeared. In Bangladesh, one of the most vulnerable countries, the rice crop is up 10%, prices are about four times production costs and wages for landless peasants are soaring.

Bangladesh has a lot of rural poverty. In countries with millions of urban poor, governments have so far survived demonstrations in part because they are seen to be reacting, whether by issuing ration cards (Egypt and Pakistan) or setting up and expanding social-protection programmes (this is happening almost everywhere, even America). Sometimes, admittedly, reactions are fairly daft. Thailand proposed an OPEC-style cartel for rice, an idea that went nowhere. Many food exporters have gone for beggar-thy-neighbour trade restrictions. Each time one limits or bans food exports, it pushes up world pricesóand other governments, equally anxious to keep food inside the country, follow suit. About 30 countries have imposed some form of trade restraint.

Food importers don't have the luxury of making such mistakes. They are buying time by, for example, boosting food subsidies or hiking wages. In Egypt, bread used to be about a fifth of the world price; now it is less than a tenth. Several Arab states have decreed hefty pay rises: 25% for public-sector workers in Syria, 30% in Egypt.

These policies are inflationary and expensive. Oil exporters, or countries like Egypt that benefit from big remittances from them may be able to afford them for a while. Others are not so lucky. In Indonesia, where half the population lives on less than $2 a day, inflation is 9% and food prices are soaring (the price of subsidised rice to the poor was jacked up 60% in April). The government is planning to fuel subsidies, which would make social protection and subsidised rice more affordable. The response: more protests.

USA: Risky business forİHollywood

International Herald Tribune, 8 May 2008. By Martha Bayles.

From the negative depiction of Washington in most Hollywood movies and the frequent criticism of Hollywood in Washington, you'd never guess the film industry and the U.S. government are an old married couple who quarrel at home but are united before the rest of theİworld.

This unity was on display last month in Washington at a contentious panel discussion sponsored by Vanderbilt University's Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy. The issue at hand was the export of American films to billions of people around the globe who both welcome and resentİthem.

Hollywood and Washington have cooperated closely on this export, now more than 10 times larger than America's import of foreign films, creating a balance of trade more favorable than that of any other industry saveİaerospace.

The problem, however, is that our old married couple achieves this by treating film like any other product - and in the process ignores foreign resentment toward Hollywood's enormous culturalİpower.

Many Americans assume that the popularity of American films is a natural outcome of global consumer preferences. And in much of the world, demand has always beenİstrong.

But equally strong have been the cajoling, persuading and downright strong-arm tactics that for years have been applied to foreign governments by the Motion Picture Association of America and various players in Washington, from the Defense Department to (most recently) the Office of the U.S. TradeİRepresentative.

These tactics have fostered resentment - and resistance. On the Washington panel, one speaker was a former minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps, who recently lobbied Unesco to adopt the Cultural Diversity Convention, a resolution affirming the right of any country to exempt "cultural goods and services" from the rules of international tradeİagreements.

This is not the first such initiative, and to opponents, it is just an excuse to erect protectionist barriers against the "free flow of information" (especially Hollywood films). To its advocates, it is a crucial defense of national cultures against the onslaught of "global mono-culture" (especially Hollywoodİfilms).

The Cultural Diversity Convention was adopted by Unesco in 2005 by a vote of 148 to 2, with only Israel joining America in opposition. The resolution is not binding. Even so, such a high-profile endorsement of cultural protectionism should worry both Hollywood andİWashington.

But Hollywood could care less. On the panel, Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association, jokingly recalled that when he was secretary of Agriculture under Bill Clinton, his European Union counterpart tried to block U.S. farm products on the grounds that "genetically modified food was cultural." The Cultural Diversity Convention, Glickman said, felt like "déjà vu all overİagain."

Yes, you heard right. The world's most powerful film lobbyist dismisses the idea that movies are culture and insists that they are mereİcommodities.

To repeat, this has long been the U.S. stance in high-pressure trade negotiations. After all, argues Curb Center director Bill Ivey in his new book, "Arts, Inc.," America has never had a ministry of culture, charged with supporting the arts at home and shaping their flow to the rest of the world. This is mainly because we've never wantedİone.

Yet this lack of leadership leaves Hollywood and Washington talking about America's most important cultural exports as though they were so many bioengineeredİeggplants.

It is also ironic, because when the Motion Picture Association was founded in 1922, it was in reaction to a 1915 Supreme Court decision that defined cinema as "business, pure and simple," and therefore not eligible for First Amendmentİprotection.

Because this ruling raised the specter of state censorship, the major film studios agreed to adopt the Production Code that restricted sex and violence. Only later did the courts redefine cinema as protected speech - which is to say, as artisticİexpression.

American film makers today have more freedom than any of their predecessors or peers. Sometimes the results are wonderful. But sometimes they are deeply offensive: empty spectacle, sniggering adolescent treatments of sex and ultra-violentİimagery.

As a result, millions of foreigners - not just ministers of culture, but also ordinary people - feel assaulted. When Hollywood and Washington respond to their concerns by reducing film to the status of "business, pure and simple," they add insult to perceivedİinjury.

Martha Bayles is writing a book about America's cultural image.

USA: The role of GMOs in Napa Valley wine production raises concerns

Plenty Magazine, 8 May 2008. By Nathalie Jordi.

The increasing, unadvertised research and development of GMO in Napa winemaking is starting to ring alarm bells. In three Napa Valley Register articles published last week, journalist Juliane Poirier Locke points to the genetically modified yeasts and genetically engineered grapevines that are being developed at UC Davis, Cornell, and other universities around the countryóor insinuating themselves into the winemaking industry in California and elsewhere.

The manipulation of grapevines is not a new concept. Ever since the phylloxera epidemic of the late 1800s, when most of the vineyards in Europe were destroyed, winemakers worked to hybridize or develop resistant rootstocks to make the vines stronger and disease-resistant. But today's engineering is much more high-tech: Geneticists are using genes from pears, peas, herb amaranth, synthetic material, and even African clawed frogs to create disease-resistant grapevines.

Although genetically engineered vines and fruit are still in the R&D phase, genetically modified yeasts have hit the market. The use of added yeasts isn't novelómost wines are now made with a wide range of commercial yeasts. But two new yeasts on the marketóML01 and ECMo01óhaven't just been cross-bred, they've been genetically engineered to prompt speedier fermentation and reduce urethane, a suspected carcinogen.

While no local winemakers have admitted to using these yeasts, they're not required to, and in a consumer climate so GMO-wary, who would? Locke, however, cites a 2006 Sacramento Bee article in which a distributor of yeasts is quoted stating that some GMO-yeast wines from California are already on the market.

Napa Valley, where Locke's articles were researched, has a few outspoken anti-GMO advocates who are meeting regularly to monitor the issue. PINA, or Preserving the Integrity of Napa's Agriculture, and the Napa GMO Stakeholder Group, are lobbying to pass the same kinds of bans on GMOs that Mendocino and Santa Cruz County have effectuated (a GMO ban in Sonoma County was rejected in 2005).

Many people believe we can solve our pest problems without the use of GMOs. "The history of agriculture shows us that there will always be another pest," said Miguel Altieri, a professor of agroecology at UC Berkeley. "Will we have to keep re-engineering the vines for each one? The solution is not in genetic re-engineering but in making our agricultural systems more resilient." He believes in a more diverse vineyard, in which insects have food choices other than the grapevine.

Battles like these are being fought in every sector of the industry, from wine to vegetables to cheesemaking. Which side of the lobby will prevail?

GM debate in Wales hots up

Checkbiotech.org, 8 May 2008. By Andrew Forgrave.

Industry leaders have called for a profound shift in agricultural policy to prevent Welsh farming being left behind by its competitors.

Late 20th-century anti-production policies are no longer valid in a world of falling incomes and looming food shortages, said CLA Wales Julian Salmon. İ

And Prof Chris Pollock, the Assembly Government's chief scientific adviser, was quoted in the Observer newspaper saying it was "perverse" to rule out technologies such as GM crops "as the world begins to starve". İ

Both comments are seen as a challenge to Cardiff 's hard-line opposition to GM technology. İ

Dr Brian John, of campaign group GM Free Cymru, immediately called for Prof Pollock to be sacked and accused Mr Salmon of cosying up to the pro-GM lobby. İ

He said: "Prof Pollock is a breach of the code by which scientific advisers keep quiet on issues where their opinions differ from those of their employers." İ

Controversy erupted at last week's Women's Food and Farming Union conference in Bridgend. İ

During a debate on the rate of non-food GM approvals ‚ much slower in the EU than elsewhere ‚ Mr Salmon complained that, as a result, soya exports to Europe for meat production were prohibitively expensive, with disastrous consequences for the UK 's poultry and pig sectors. İ

He contrasted domestic attitudes with those in the US and emerging economies which have been much quicker to embrace new food production technologies. İ

"In this country it is seen as heresy to question populist opposition to bio-technologies, and even to challenge orthodox climate change science," he said. İ

"I cannot see the logic or rationale of shutting the door on the enlightenment that science provides, and which has got us as a species to where we are today." İ

Mr Salmon said there needed to be a debate on the future direction of Welsh agriculture. İ

He pointed to last month's creation of a the new research giant, the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (Ibers), Aberystwyth, to address 21st century challenges such as climate change, fuel alternatives and food shortages. İ

"As things stand, Wales will be producing world-class food production research that will only be beneficial to our competitors," he said. İ

Farmer Henry Fell told the WFU conference that, without a scientific revolution, including GM, world food production would have to spread to environmentally fragile land. İ

He was supported by Prof Pollock who, in the Observer, was quoted: "To stop widespread starvation, we will either have to plough up the planet's last wild places to grow more food or improve crop yields. İ

"GM technology allows farmers to do the latter ‚ without digging up rainforests. It is therefore perverse to rule out that technology for no good reason." İ

Dr John rejected claims that EU farmers were suffering high prices for livestock feed because of GM approval rates, claiming US livestock farmers were experiencing similar problems. İ

High grain prices were being driven by biofuels, global demand and weather patterns, he said. Moreover, GM crops were unproven in terms of increased yields and drought tolerance. İ

"The anti-GM watchdog group suggests that Mr Salmon is either a willing stooge for the GM industry, or that he is gullible enough to actually believe the hype that comes out of the industry's highly sophisticated PR machine," Dr John added. İ

He claimed Prof Pollock, who retired last year as Iger director in Aberystwyth, was a well-known GM proponent. He is current chairman of Defra's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. İ

"Prof Pollock is effectively saying that those who 'rule out technology' ‚ including the Welsh Assembly ‚ are behaving perversely, since they have 'no good reason' for their opinions and policies," said Dr John. İ

Rural affairs minister Elin Jones told the WRU conference there was political consensus in Wales against the introduction of GM crops. İ

"This has cross-party support in the National Assembly," she added.

Australia: People must be across risks and benefits of GM crops: Academic

ABC News, 8 May 2008.

A legal academic has told a Tasmanian parliamentary inquiry more than science should be considered in deciding whether to extend or lift a ban on genetically modified foods. The University of Tasmania's Dean of Law, Don Chalmers, is also on a Federal Government's gene technology ethics committee.

Professor Chalmers told the Tasmanian joint select committee there can never be a total guarantee that GM foods are safe.

He says the public must be well informed to assess the potential risks and benefits. "With all technology, not just simply GMOs, that there are going to be people involved in the use of those technologies," he said.

"That means there's individual rights involved, there's the social questions because of the effects and of course if we've got the technology and others haven't some people are going to profit from it, which are economic questions."

Kenya: An Angry Son And the Hungry of the World Get a Raw Deal

The Nation (Nairobi), 8 May 2008. By Charles Onyango-Obbo. [Extract only. For full text see http://allafrica.com/stories/200805080072.html]

Zimbabwe's economic crisis (inflation is now 170,000 per cent) has left many of its citizens going hungry. Now, says the World Bank, 100 million people in the world are facing severe hunger too as global prices of food shoot through the roof.

But like the soaring oil prices that have enabled the giant oil companies to rake in unprecedented profits, there are multinationals that are making a killing from the high food prices.

According to a report in The Independent on Sunday, Monsato (famous for its controversial genetically modified foods) last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February this year had more than doubled over the same period in 2007, from $543m (Sh33bn) to $1.2bn (Sh76bn).

Its profits increased from $1.44bn (Sh89bn) to $2.2bn (Sh136bn). Cargill's net earnings soared by 85 per cent from $553m (Sh34bn), to $1.12bn (Sh69bn) over the same three months.

AND ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND, one of the world's largest agricultural processors of soy, corn and wheat, increased its net earnings by 42 per cent in the first three months of this year from $363m (Sh22bn) to $517m (Sh32bn).

The operating profit of its grains merchant merchandising and handling operations jumped 16-fold.

The unjust thing about some of this is that, according to a new authoritative study carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US, contrary to the hype that genetic modification increases crop yields, the opposite is actually true. Genetic production, the study found, cuts the productivity of crops. GM soya, for example, produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent.

The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsato GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.

Mid last month the biggest study of its kind ever conducted - the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development - concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.

Now, that leaves us in a tight spot.

Ireland: Call to review GM feed restrictions

Irish Examiner (Farm supplement), 8 May 2008. By Stephen Cadogan (editor).

THE EU's system for importing livestock feeds made from genetically modified crops has been slammed as "fundamentally unbalanced and discriminatory" by the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development chairman Neil Parish.

He has asked the European Commission to review its zero-tolerance regime on imported feed stuffs containing traces of GM soya or maize.

With the power to veto or even dismiss the commission, the Parliament has emerged as an important ally for livestock farmers who have to pay more for feeds because of import restrictions.

Irish farmers are worst affected because they rely more on imports of animal feed than any other EU country, with more than 50% of animal feed ingredients imported. Ironically, Ireland is one of the member states restricting the feed imports. Their votes against GM animal feeds in EU committees such as the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health reflect the 58% opposition to genetically modified organisms among EU citizens. Meanwhile, revealed Mr Parish, EU consumers are offered imported meats, 90% of which come from animals fed on GM crops, many of which are unapproved in the EU.

Livestock farmers in Europe have to compete against these imports without access to millions of tonnes of GM feeds from the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina.

Mr Parish pointed out that any container arriving in an EU port from these countries, with even a trace of non-approved GM contamination, may be sent back.

Meanwhile, farmers and feed millers here had to wait 34 months for Herculex maize to be approved for import into the EU - more than 50 varieties of GM feed await approval.

Mr Parish has asked the commission to speed up its approval for new varieties of GM feed deemed safe by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

"It is a great irony that we import poultry, pig and beef meet from outside the EU from animals fed on products we deny our own farmers. This helps no one. Consumers have no idea whether their meat has been fed on GM, and farmers have to pay through the nose for feed," said Mr Parish.

"We also have to address the zero tolerance issue. I am not suggesting a free-for-all on GM, but we must ensure any threshold is fair and achievable for non-GM feed. With new varieties of GM soya being planted around the world, it will be virtually impossible to guarantee any shipment into the EU is truly GM-free. I doubt anyone will bother sending GM-free shipments to the EU as a result, and this will make non-GM feed even scarcer and more expensive for our farmers.

If the EU does not take urgent action, we are in danger of exporting much of our industry outside of the EU," said the high-ranking MEP, who farms in Somerset.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

This article by the editor of the Irish Examiner farm supplement, Stephan Cadogan, is full of disinformation designed to dupe Irish farmers into becoming unwiting pawns in the war to deprive them of their capacity and human right to produce the safe GM-free food which EU consumers demand:

•

Cadogan's opening statement gives the false impression that the EU's system for importing GM animal feed has been slammed as "fundamentally unbalanced and discriminatory" by the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture. In reality it reflects only the views of its controversial chairman, Neil Parish.

•

Cadogan claims the European Parliament "has the power to veto or even dismiss the Commission" on GM animal feed approvals - which is absolutely false. The Parliament has no say in the process whatsoever, let alone any veto or right to dismiss. The European Parliament is not consulted when the EU deliberates the authorisation of new varieties of GM crops. Nor is the Committee of the Regions, nor the European Economic and Social Committee. The Commission's undemocratic "comitology" procedure allows unelected EC bureaucrats to approve GMOs for feed, food and cultivation against the wishes of the majority of member states.

•

He implies the Parliament favours GMO, while in reality it rejects them.

In June 2003 the Parliament ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which clearly recognises the legal right of individual signatory countries (including Ireland) to ban the importation of live GMOs based on the Precautionary Principle.

In November 2005, at the European Parliament Conference on GMOs Safeguarding Sustainable European Agriculture: Coexistence, GMO Free Zones and the Promotion of Quality Food Produce in Europe, Regional Ministers and MEPs re-iterated the right of EU regions to ban the use of GMOs, the right to practice quality GM-free farming and food production, and the need to provide for regional decision-making in proposed new EU level legislation on the so-called "coexistence" of GM crops, contrary to the discredited "one-size fits all" National measures that the Commission was then proposing (see http://www.gmofree-conference.org/Proceedings.htm); this call is also backed by the Assembly of European Regions www.a-e-r.org, representing more than 250 member regions from 33 European countries and 13 interregional organisations.

In the lead-up to the meeting of the parties to the Convention on Biodiversity in March 2006, the Parliament overwhelmingly voted against the relese of GM Terminator seeds.

In June 2006, the EU Parliament issued a Declaration calling for every member state and region to have the right to completely prohibit the import, growing and sale of genetically modified organisms; it urged the Council and the European Commission to implement strict and unlimited liability for gene technology firms concerning all damages to the environment, health and the economy which result from the introduction and utilisation of GMOs; and called for all patent rights on living organisms to be declared invalid (see www.europarl.europa.eu/decladoc/document/2006/P6_DCL(2006)0014/P6_DCL(2006)0014_EN.doc.

In March 2007 the Parliament strongly opposed an EC proposal to allow GM contamination of organic food, and completely rejected a controversial draft resolution to weaken GM food and farming regulations.

•

Cadogan's claim that Irish farmers are "worst affected" by the EU's "zero tolerance" for unapproved GMOs is the opposite of the truth. Irish farmers are least affected for the simple reason that Irish cattle and sheep enjoy a mostly grass-based diet, thus consuming far less compound feeds (including GM ingredients) per capita than livestock in most other EU member states. Moreover, Irish farmers can thus phase out risky GM feedstuffs with less hassle than their EU competitors, many of whom are already well on their way to doing so.

•

His claim that "Ireland is one of the member states restricting the feed imports" with "votes against GM animal feeds" is false. Ireland used to vote in favour of them, but has recently resorted to abstaining - thus empowering the unelected EC bureaucrats to decide in favour of legalising them, via the so-called "comitology" process that autmatically ends up approving GMOs against the wishes of the majority of EU member states, retailers and consumers.

•

He implies that European farmers are suffering "without access to millions of tonnes of GM feeds from the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina". In reality the EU continues to import millions of tonnes of EU-approved GM feedstsuffs from these countries.

•

While it is true that EU livestock farmers have to compete against cheaper imports of meat from Brazil (where livestock are routinely fed on GM feeds that are not approved in the EU), it would be a mistake to follow their example by relaxing EU safety standards in a "race to the bottom" that would quickly exclude Irish beef and dairy produce from EU supermarket shelves which are increasingly excluding produce from GM-fed livestock and introducing GM-free labels for meat and dairy produce, as in Germany.

•

Cadogan fails to point out that one million citizens of EU member states signed a petition demanding mandatory labelling for meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients, in order to guarantee consumer's human right to choose what we eat. (http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/one-million-petition). With this label in place, EU consumers who don't want GM-fed animal produce will be free to chose the safe GM-free alternatives.

•

Cadogan repeats Parish's statement that imported shipments "with even a trace of non-approved GM contamination" may be sent back, without mention of the fact that the 5,131 tonne shipment of animal feed contaminated by the then illegal GM Herculex maize (intercepted by GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace in Dublin port last year) entered the EU food chain through Ireland after half of it was fraudulently sold to Irish farmers because the Department of Agriculture failed to test it before it was placed on the market, relying on fake "GM-free" export certificates from the USA. And rather than being "sent back" to the USA, the importer, R&H Hall sat on it for months and then sold the rest after Herculex was eventually approved by the EC months later. Ironically, the now-approved Herculex was subsequently found to be itself contaminated by another illegal GM ingredient called "Event 32"!

•

He quotes Parish's statement about the European Food Safety Authority's claims that GM feed is "deemed safe", without mentioning EFSA's own admission that it is unable to carry out the legally required assessment of indirect and long-term impacts. In April 2008, the Commission agreed that EFSA would need two more years to develop its capacity to do so. On 7 May 2008, the Commission re-iterated its recognition that EFSA does not have the capacity to conduct proper risk assessments and relies on safety claims made by the applicant companies!

•

He fails to mention that the EU does not approve new GM varieties without evaluating their health risks, and that the scientific evidence of their health impacts on livestock and humans includes liver damage, kidney damage, pre-cancerous growths, and allergic reactions.

•

He quotes Parish's complaint that EU farmers "have to pay through the nose for feed" in a way that implies that high feed costs are caused by EU reluctance to approve untested GM varieties. In reality feed costs have also risen in the USA, and certified non-GMO feed from the USA, Brazil and other countries is widely available for only a small premium, which can be re-couped from EU retailers and consumers who pay more for safe food.

•

He fails to question Parish's assertion that "truly GM-free" animal feed is "virtually impossible" to guarantee. In reality, non-GMO soya meal, independently certified to be over 99.9 per cent GM-free has been - and continues to be - shipped to Europe from various countries including the USA and Brazil, where the Agrenco Group (http://www.agrencogroup.com) and IMCOPA (http://www.imcopa.com.br) have the capacity to provide the entire EU market for soya meal feed with GM-free product!

43 EU Regions have adopted GM-free quality agriculture policies: see the GM-free Ireland report on the European Conference on GM-free Animal feed: Quality production and European regional agricultural strategy held in December 2007 at the European Committee of the Regions in Brussels: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/GMFI-GM-free-Soya-conf.pdf (3.2MB pdf download).

See also the forthcoming International Non-GMO Soy Summit 2008: Strategic Alliances for Sustainable, Responsible Non-GMO Soy to be held in Brussels on 7 - 9 October 2008 http://www.avantel.de/soysummit2008

As one of the world's most powerful trading blocks, the EU has sufficient economic clout to demand that farmers in the USA and other countries planning to export to the EU cultivate the kind of GM-free crops which our regulators, markets, retailers and consumers demand. The EU can also request these exporting countries to stop approving new GM crops which are not wanted in Europe, following the lead of Argentina and Brazil which are cautious about approving new GM crops that could hurt their exports to the EU.

Instead of promoting the race to the bottom advocated by Neil Parish and Stephen Cadogan, Ireland should strongly urge its fellow EU Member States and the European Commission to continue to push for producer countries to cultivate the safe GM-free animal feed and food which European consumers demand.

Ireland should follow the good advice of Friends of the Earth Europe to:

•

work at the EU level to develop plant protein crops in Europe with a view to becoming less dependent on animal feed imports which would be the solution to getting real GM-free animal products, in line with the wishes of the majority of consumers, and

•

ensure that the EU resists pressures to weaken its GMO regulations and instead promotes and defends high health and safety standards for consumers, animals and the environment around the world.

An Insatiable Global Hunger for Grain

The Pig Site, 8 May 2008.

Wheat is by far the most traded grain as it is so adaptable to many uses, but production for the world market has so far been the privilege of a handful of countries.

But the economic growth of emerging nations, coupled with their urbanisation, has profoundly changed people's eating habits. They are eating more, particularly meat. The Chinese, for example, consumed five times more meat in 2005 than in 1980. Three kilogrammes of grain are needed to produce 1kg of poultry; more than double that is needed for 1kg of beef. Feed and oil-producing grain are part of livestock's daily diet.

With a growing world population and a better quality of life in emerging nations, the demand for grain is growing inexorably. International wheat exports tripled between 1960 and the beginning of the millennium. Egypt, which used to supply the wheat for ancient Rome, has become the product's leading importer. Increased cheap imports during the times of plenty strangled local agriculture in the Mediterranean region and sub-Saharan Africa . The food bill for these countries has reached exorbitant levels.

In a report by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in June 2007, the economist Adam Prakash concluded that food imports will cost 90% more on average than in 2000 for the least advanced countries (3). The UN experts drove the point home a few months later. At a press conference in Dakar on 9 November 2007, Henri Josserand, head of the Global Information and Early Warning Service at the FAO, calculated that the food bill for African nations had grown by a third, or even 50% for the most dependent among them, between 2006 and 2007.

3rd World Human Hunger

African populations are suffering the consequences of rising grain prices, and there have been hunger riots and demonstrations against the cost of bread. Meanwhile, grain is breaking all records on the American markets.

Food security is once again causing concern, even in industrialised nations. Observers such as Jean Ziegler (until recently UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food) raise the spectre of famine in west Africa. Even in the United Kingdom, where agriculture was long ago sacrificed in favour of industrial revolution (1), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) raised concerns about the dangers facing food security in a study published in December 2006 (2).

Just over a year later there is real anger on the streets about the high cost of living ‚ in the UK but also, and especially, in the South where people depend on imports to feed themselves but with incomes that are unimaginable for the British. Prices (milk, oil, rice and wheat) have exploded and the surge has been most spectacular on the grain markets.

Prices doubled during the summer of 2007 when farmers in the North were harvesting. The price of wheat rose from $200 to $400 per ton between May and September at the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, the benchmark for the international grain trade. The same occurred in Paris where milling wheat peaked at §300 ($477) per ton at the beginning of September. Prices rose again in mid-March when the United States had almost exhausted its export capabilities. One bushel (27kg) passed the symbolic $13 mark ‚ a record. In one year the price of wheat increased by 130% on the American futures market. Millers and manufacturers of pasta and livestock feed in developed countries were taken by surprise and protested loudly.

But for several years there has been a noticeable difference between supply and demand. The final reserves (what is left in the silos of producer countries before the start of the harvest) have been shrinking while demand has been growing. The market is no longer regulated by the growth of supply but by the use of the accumulated reserves of the large exporter countries.

In 2007 this precarious balance collapsed for two reasons: increased demand generated by the boom in biofuels, and poor harvests due to the vagaries of the weather. These two phenomena came to a head as tension grew, caused by the growing demand of emerging nations such as China .

Biofuels absorb 10% of world corn production, but this is only partially responsible for the spectacular surge in grain prices because US companies, its main manufacturers, increased their corn production to meet this new demand. However, according to the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the ethanol industry could increase the price of corn by at least a quarter, and possibly by as much as 72%, by 2020 (see "Ethanol: the new anti-depressant").

Weather played a crucial role in 2007. Drought in Australia, lack of sun and too much rain in Europe, frost in Argentina ; all weakened production. No one is talking about a shortage at this point but, in the trading rooms where sales and purchasing decisions are based mainly on final reserves, such a substantial drop encouraged a surge in prices throughout the season.

First to benefit

The large exporter nations are the first to benefit from the situation. The leader of the pack, the US, registered record agricultural export revenue in 2007 ‚ $85bn. According to estimates from the United States Department of Agriculture, the 2008 harvest looks even more promising. In France grain farmers have doubled their income. The large trading companies are also, discreetly, recording astronomical results.

Anger is brewing at the other end of the chain in the developing countries which are net importers. Riots have broken out in Mexico, Senegal, Morocco and Mauritania . Local agriculture cannot cover the population's needs in these countries.

The increased cost of groceries may be bearable in developed economies where food represents only 14% of household expenses, but it becomes unmanageable in sub-Saharan African nations where 60% of income is taken up by food.

In the face of such food inflation, emerging nations which have traditionally been exporters have raised barriers to keep local prices at an affordable level. Argentina (4) and Russia have imposed taxes on exports as well as restricting the amount distributed. When these measures are reflected on the world market, the tension is pushed up a notch.

The most exposed countries, the net importers, have resorted to subsidies when their finances allow it. In Morocco last September the rise in bread prices set by the bakers union provoked violent demonstrations in several towns. Fearing that the anger in the streets would lead to riots, the government preferred to cancel the increase and suspend several taxes on importing wheat to support the millers. The Tunisian government even asked bakers to reduce the weight of bread to avoid increasing the price.

'Food aid vanishes'

According to the agronomist Marc Dufumier, an expert on comparative agriculture, famine can be triggered by the most insignificant climatic incident and will be even more difficult to deal with at a time when world food aid reserves are becoming dangerously low.

"Food aid vanishes when the price of wheat rises," he says. "Countries in the northern hemisphere are generous when they have a surplus. Aid reduces reserves and contributes to supporting prices at home. But as soon as prices take off, they sell to anyone who has a solvent demand."

Figures published by the International Grains Council (5) confirm this. During 2005-06 8.3m tons of grain were exported as food aid; only 7.4m tons were exported in 2006/2007. Aid is expected to fall to 6m tons for the season which is now coming to an end.

The hunger riots show no signs of burning themselves out. While supply does not satisfy demand, prices will continue to rise. To reverse this trend, governments could ask their populations to eat less couscous, bread and particularly meat, but this suggestion is hardly likely to be favourably received in countries where food standards are just starting to improve ‚ not to mention those who have not even seen such improvement thus far.

In China, for example, the health minister is encouraging women to consume dairy products to absorb more calcium. Milk requires livestock, and grain to feed them. Demand will almost certainly grow in the years to come.

Investors seduced

There is the speculative trend too. In the autumn of 2007 Financeagri, a French firm specialising in raw agricultural materials, encouraged its subsidiaries in an email to "play a part in the volatility of agricultural markets. Don't just be a spectator. Find out more." Their commercial offer illustrates the current revolution taking place on the agricultural futures markets. Initially created to cover the risk of price variation, they have become a hunting ground for all kinds of speculators, be they regular (investors and negotiators) or occasional (farmers). The arrival of regular investors has had a sharp effect on listings by feeding price volatility.

Agricultural indexes, which reflect the current evolution, are popular with investment funds. According to Barcap (a Barclays subsidiary specialising in investment), between the end of the first and fourth quarters of 2007 ‚ when the grain markets really took off ‚ the volume of capital managed by listed investment funds (ETFs in finance jargon) on European agricultural products grew fivefold from $156m to $911m (6). The same source has indicated that the amount of capital placed on the American agricultural markets jumped even further, increasing sevenfold between the first and last quarters of 2007.