NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • 2004
30 December 2004
Minister to abolish UK's GM scrutiny body
Champion of consumer choice falls victim to rift
The Guardian, 29 December 29, 2004. by Paul Brown, environment correspondent.
The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, is to scrap an advisory committee after it repeatedly placed obstacles in the way of government plans to introduce genetically modified crops.
The commission established by the government to monitor ethical and social issues linked to GM crops is to be disbanded after its members insisted that conventional and organic farmers should be protected from contamination by GM crops - and be compensated if safeguards fail.
With the results of the latest GM trials due in February, Mrs Beckett, already known to be hostile to the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, is expected to announce its demise early next month, before it can cause further difficulties.
When public hostility to GM crops was at its height four years ago, the government defused the row by creating a commission to discuss the social, ethical and economic issues surrounding their introduction in the British countryside.
They put in charge Professor Malcolm Grant, the provost of University College London, and appointed a wide range of members, from opponents of GM crops to staff of biotech companies.
With the government, urged on by the scientific community, apparently sold on the idea of making Britain a world leader in biotech, the efforts of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission were largely ignored in Whitehall. This was partly because it seemed impossible, given the diverse membership, that the commission would agree on anything.
But the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and other pro-GM forces in the government, particularly Tony Blair, had not factored in the persuasive powers of Prof Grant, who managed to produce three influential consensus reports.
For the government, the most difficult of those emerged a year ago when the commission insisted the consumer should have the freedom to buy non-GM British food.
Although Defra says no final decision has been made, the committee has been told to complete all of its work as quickly as possible and make no plans for after April 1. Privately, members have been told the organisation is to be abolished.
Mrs Beckett, who proposed to the cabinet last February that the government should go ahead with GM crops, is believed to be in favour of proceeding as quickly as possible. The commission's reservations have long been an obstacle.
The latest test results on winter oilseed rape, the biggest potential GM crop in Britain, have not been published but the Guardian has learned that, unlike previous trials, they do not show serious detriment to the environment. The spring-sown varieties were ruled out 12 months ago because they damaged nature more than conventional crops.
Mrs Beckett has seized the opportunity to abolish the commission after an independent review of its first four years of operation concluded it should be replaced by a similar body with a wider remit. This is to accommodate changes in the EU's common agricultural policy which scrapped subsidies for maximum food production in favour of wider social and environmental priorities.
The commission has made life difficult for Mrs Beckett because it wants strict rules to protect farmers who do not want to grow GM crops, and restitution if unforeseen environmental damage occurs as a result of GM crops.
It demanded wide separation between GM and conventional crops to prevent cross-contamination, which would render conventional crops unsaleable to supermarkets. It recommended a compensation scheme for conventional and organic farmers, underwritten by the government. The government refuses to accept responsibility and says this must fall on the biotech industry, which also rejects the idea.
In the UK, permission to grow oilseed rape commercially will not be given imme diately because trials have not taken place to prove that the seeds provide a consistent and viable crop. This process takes two years, so the first crop could not be planted commercially until 2007.
A Defra spokesman said: "Because we have not made a formal announcement about the future of the commission, people are suspicious of what we are going to do. We are consulting with stakeholders, like English Nature."
The hostility between Defra and the commission is acknowledged in the independent review. It says relations with other sponsoring departments are good, but "strained" with the department running British agriculture.
The squabbling became so intense at times that Defra officials were excluded from meetings of the commission.
Sue Mayer, director of Genewatch UK and a commission member, said: "If the commission is abolished as planned with no other body picking up the social, ethical and economic dimensions of the GM debate, then the government will be failing the public again."
24 December 2004
GM foods should be banned, say doctors
Irish Examiner, 24 December 2004 (Letter to the Editor): The Irish Doctors' Environmental Association does not agree with the recent assertion by Prof David McConnell that we need GM foods for the 800 million starving people in the world.
People are starving because of unjust economic policies, not because they lack genetically engineered foods. These foods have never been tested for adverse health impact on humans and animal tests have given rise to concern.
Our association wants a complete ban on the growing of these plants and the sale of foods containing such products.
Dr Elizabeth Cullen,
Irish Doctorsí Environmental Association, Thomastown, Kilcullen, Co Kildare
Anger at Roche's GM abstention
Irish Independent, 24 December 2004. by Joe Humphreys. A farmers' representative group has joined environmental campaigners in condemning a decision by the Minister for the Environment, Mr Roche, to abstain on an EU vote to legalise a controversial new type of genetically modified (GM) food.
The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers' Association (ICSA) said the EU Commission was likely to authorise the use of the oilseed rape product GT73 because a qualified majority of EU environment ministers failed to vote against it.
Ireland was one of seven countries to abstain in the Council of Ministers' ballot on Monday.
Six countries voted in favour of authorising GT73, and 12 countries voted against, leaving the anti-GM lobby marginally short of the necessary majority to have the product banned.
A spokesman for the Department of the Environment said the decision to abstain was based on a number of reasons, including scientific advice.
He noted Ireland had sought strengthened procedures to monitor the loss of seed during transport but this proposal was not taken into account in the resolution put before the Council of Ministers.
ICSA rural development chairman Mr John Heney said the Minister's decision was symptomatic of a wider failure to have a proper debate on GM policy in Ireland.
"As a food-exporting nation that can benefit from a natural green image, this simply isn't good enough. GM production methods make farmers dependent on big business, and result in food production that consumers don't want."
Mr Michael O'Callaghan, co-ordinator of the GM Free Ireland Network, also warned that the EU Commission was now likely to approve GT73, which is patented by US multinational Monsanto.
He said the product, which was engineered to withstand a Monsanto weedkiller, was far more dangerous than other GM animal feeds because it was a living GM seed that sprouted easily and grew rapidly, thereby increasing the risk of contaminating other plants.
Independent MEP Ms Kathy Sinnott (Munster) was "outraged" by Mr Roche's decision to abstain in the vote, saying he had "no mandate from the Irish people" to do so.
22 December 2004
Minister criticised for abstaining on GM vote
Irish Independent, December 2004. By Aideen Shehan. Environment Minister Dick Roche has been criticised for abstaining on crucial EU decisions over genetically modified policy, meaning Ireland does not have a say on which new products are authorised.
The Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association said this was leading to a democratic deficit resulting in "decision making by default" by the European Commission because ministers were not making a decision.
This follows Monday's Farm Council meeting where Environment Ministers voted 135 to 78 against the authorisation of oilseed rape GT73, but failed to reach the qualified majority necessary to effect a decision because a number of countries including Ireland abstained from the vote.
Biotech giant Monsanto is seeking authorisation for the GT73 herbicide-resistant oilseed rape for use in industry and animal feed, but not for human consumption or to grow.
The ICSA said Ireland had failed to grasp the fact there was widespread consumer concern across Europe about GM production methods and that as a food-producing nation we could benefit from a natural green image.
"The effect of abstaining is to leave the door open for decision making by default, whereby the commission will allow for a more liberal pro-GMO regime, even though a majority of member states are against it," said John Heney, ICSA Rural Development Chairman.
Red Grouse facing extinction in Ulster
A survey has shown that the red grouse is close to extinction in Northern Ireland. Maeve Connolly reports on how environmentalists were saddened but not shocked by the news. The native red grouse is the latest Irish bird in danger of extinction with just 200 pairs left in the north, a new survey has found.
The numbers of the game bird left are now described as Ñperilously lowâ with environmentalists calling for immediate action to save the species.
The survey found that there are none of the birds in the hills of south Armagh and they are in danger of extinction in the Mournes. The loss of bog and moor land, the birds natural habitat, is principally being blamed for the fall in numbers. The bird is native to Ireland and Britain and has been listed as a åpriority species' in the north since 2000. Grouse feed on heather and are shy by nature. They live in remote areas and this has made it difficult to carry out a precise census. There is little difference in appearance between the sexes but the territorial disposition of the males enabled a census to be carried out for the first time.
"To identify where they were, tapes of male calls were played and the birds are so territorial they called back," according to Dr Michael Meharg from the bio-diversity unit of Environment and Heritage Service (EHS). Each return call meant the EHS had identified a mating pair of grouse. "The females are very secretive," Dr Meharg said. There is debate among the ornithological community as to whether the red grouse in Ireland differs from its feathered friends in Scotland or if the birds are a sub species of the willow grouse. The EHS is collecting feathers and will carry out DNA testing to get to the bottom of the argument. With a reddish plumage, the grouse is the size of a small chicken and is speckled to blend in with its surrounds although, according to Dr Meharg, in Ireland the bird's plumage is "a little more yellow or orange".
Dr John Faulkner, director of Natural Heritage in the EHS, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the survey findings. "Two hundred pairs scattered among the hills is a very small and fragmented population," he said. "The survey found no birds at all in the hills of south Armagh. In the Mournes grouse are clearly in danger of extinction."
The deterioration or destruction of their bog and moor land habitat agricultural practices in the past three decades is thought to be a principal reason for the low numbers. The game bird can be hunted in the north from August 12 until December 1 although the tradition is not as prevalent in Northern Ireland as parts of Scotland and north England. Grouse levels are high in these places and care is taken to maintain them. Gamekeepers keep predators at bay and the heather is burned in seven-year cycles to ensure the birds always have a rich and nutritious food source. This tradition has faded away in Northern Ireland.
The EHS report will be presented to the Northern Ireland bio-diversity group for consideration before a decision is made on what action is to be taken.
21 December 2004
EU Split Over GMO Rapeseed, Awaits Default Approval
Reuters. December 21, 2004. By Jeremy Smith.
BRUSSELS - EU environment ministers failed to agree on Monday on authorising imports of a genetically modified (GMO) rapeseed, the ninth occasion in a row where the bloc has been deadlocked over biotech foods, officials said. Again exposing the EU's deep divisions on the issue, the 25 ministers were unable to muster a majority either to approve or reject the import request for the rapeseed, known as GT73 and marketed by US biotech firm Monsanto.
"It will go back to the Commission now, probably in January, and the Commission has to approve it," a Commission official told reporters. The date for this will probably depend on the time needed to finalise the paperwork.
Although there was no formal vote, the ministers indicated there was no change to their known positions on GT73, which were circulated at a meeting of EU ambassadors last week.
Then six national delegations -- Finland, France, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden and the Netherlands -- said they were in favour of approving the rapeseed, diplomats said.
Ireland, Slovenia, Spain, Germany, Britain and the Czech Republic said they would abstain. The remainder were opposed.
GT73 rapeseed is modified to resist the non-selective herbicide glyphosate and allow farmers to manage weeds more effectively. Monsanto's request is for use in animal feed and industrial processing, not for growing.
Under the EU's complex decision-making process, if EU member states fail to agree after three months at ministerial level on allowing a new GMO into the bloc, then the Commission -- the bloc's executive arm -- may rubberstamp an authorisation.
It will be the third GMO to be authorised since the EU restarted approving new GMO products for import in May 2004, ending a de facto biotech moratorium that began in 1998.
Since 1998 all avenues have been explored to find a consensus among states opposed to gene crops and those in favour, leaving the executive to decide.
But the EU has not yet touched the more contentious issue of allowing new GMO crops to planted in Europe's fields -- the test of whether the bloc's biotech ban is really over -- and just a handful of GMO crops have won EU approval for growing.
20 December 2004
EU advisory body urges tough GM seed purity law
Environment Daily, 20 December 2004. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has weighed into the GM debate by recommending 0.1% as the acceptable level for accidental contamination of conventional crops by biotech seeds.Ý A report from the advisory body gives a further indication that political opinion is turning against higher contamination levels mooted by the outgoing European Commission. The EESC also calls for greater harmonisation of national approaches to coexistence of GM and non-GM cultivation.Ý
_______________________
17 December 2004
Oversight on Bioengineered Crops Is Poor, Report Says
Washington Post, 16 December 2004. By Rick Weiss.
Federal oversight of crops genetically engineered to produce medications in their seeds and leaves is inadequate to prevent unwanted contamination of food crops, according to an analysis released yesterday by a scientific advocacy group. As a result, the report concludes, consumers are at risk of inadvertently dosing themselves with prescription drugs while eating a morning bowl of cereal.
The report, which biotech executives and regulators denounced as overwrought, is the latest to look at the small but rapidly growing "pharma" sector of agriculture, in which corn, soybeans and other plants are being designed to produce high-tech drugs or industrial compounds in their tissues.
The approach has many advantages over traditional systems for manufacturing those products, including potential cost savings, the report concludes. But it also raises the specter of accidental contamination of the food supply with blood thinners, hormones or any of the scores of biologically active compounds being made experimentally in plants.
"No one-not consumers, not food companies, not biotech companies-wants to discover drugs in our cornflakes," said Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a group long critical of the federal regulatory scheme for agricultural biotechnology.
The group commissioned six independent experts in the fields of agronomy, entomology and ecology to conduct an analysis of the fledgling industry, which makes a few chemicals for industrial uses and an array of drugs, none of which is yet approved for marketing. The analysis concluded that significant changes are needed in the way the Agriculture Department oversees the cultivation of such plants if the risk of contamination is to be brought close to zero.
"Genes can move in pollen by wind or insects. Seeds can get stuck in machinery or mixed in storage and transportation systems. There are very many routes of vulnerability," panel chairman David Andow of the University of Minnesota said yesterday in a telephone news conference timed to coincide with release of the report, "A Growing Concern: Protecting the Food Supply in an Era of Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops."
The expert panel-which Andow said operated independently of the UCS-recommended that any one of three approaches be taken: Grow pharma crops in geographically isolated parts of the country; set up a harvest, storage and processing system completely separate from the existing network of farm equipment, silos and other facilities used to grow and store food crops; or ban all outdoor cultivation of food crops engineered to make medications or chemicals-a move that would require companies to switch to less familiar plant species for their pharma experiments.
The UCS called for such a ban yesterday, saying it is unrealistic to think that any other system could prevent cross-contamination.
History shows that genetic isolation of crops is a challenge. In 2002, for example, ProdiGene Inc. botched efforts to contain a pig vaccine it was developing in corn. With contamination of field corn and soybeans suspected, large quantities of those crops had to be burned, and the USDA began to develop new rules.
In March 2003, those rules went into effect. They require larger buffer zones around pharma fields to decrease the odds that genealtered pollen will drift onto conventional crops; dedicated farm equipment to make sure altered seeds and other plant parts do not get mixed with food crops; a sevenfold increase in federal inspections of experimental fields; and other restrictions.
Those safeguards are "absolutely" adequate, said Cindy J. Smith, deputy administrator of biotechnology regulation for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which oversees pharma crops. Smith noted there were only 44 acres devoted to U.S. field trials of such crops this year.
The guidelines are "very stringent" said Lisa Dry, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "This is not some cavalier, 'Let's grow some duckweed and make some drugs!' "
Andrew Baum, president and chief executive of SemBioSys Genetics Inc., a Calgary-based pharma crop company growing drugs in safflower, said food crops are ideal for the new science because their biology is so well understood. He said he opposes a ban but welcomes governmental oversight, if nothing else, to allay the emerging business sector's liability concerns.
"We realize that if we screw this up, we're out of business," Baum said. "We want regulation, and we want it visible. I mean, bring it on."
16 December 2004
Mexican Lawmakers Approve Controversial GM Law
Reuters, Mexico City, December 16, 2004. Mexican lawmakers approved a new law on Tuesday to regulate genetically modified crops, but opponents said it catered more to the interests of big business than to the protection of centuries-old biodiversity.
Legislators in Mexico's lower house of Congress approved the law by a vote of 319 to 105, with 17 abstentions.
Supporters said it would enable the regulation of GM crops in Mexico and an evaluation of any possible risks to human health and the environment.
Opposition to the law came mostly from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which claimed, along with environmental groups like Greenpeace, that the new law would endanger corn diversity in Mexico, the birthplace of the grain.
"It's important to make clear that we are not completely satisfied with the result, given it does not express many of the demands we come across in the course of our work," said PRD deputy Jose Luis Cabrera.
Greenpeace has called the new legislation the "Monsanto Law," claiming it protects the economic interests of the multinational producer of genetically modified crops from policies that could cut into profits.
"This only benefits multinationals and supports the interests of a tiny elite in Mexico and goes against thousands of farmers," Greenpeace spokeswoman Cecilia Navarro told local media after one of the group's activists briefly entered the debating chamber in Congress.
A NAFTA environmental panel from Canada, the United States and Mexico recommended in October that Mexico adopt strict measures to control imports of genetically modified corn.
One recommended measure, which could only be carried out at considerable expense to companies like Monsanto, was that corn be milled at the border, before entering Mexico, in order to prevent contamination of its 7,000-year-old corn gene pool.
In recent weeks the report was attacked by US authorities as "fundamentally flawed and unscientific," and Mexican trade authorities said they had no plans to change import policies.
Mexican farmers say they need to stop imported corn that is genetically modified from mixing with local strains.
Mexico is viewed by scientists as the birthplace of corn and many fear that introducing transgenic or genetically modified corn could harm it.
Food Supply Vulnerable to Contamination by Drugs and Plastics from Gene-Altered Crops
UCS Calls for Ban on Food Crops Genetically Engineered to Produce Pharmaceuticals, Industrial Chemicals
Press Release from the Union of Concerned Scientists December 15, 2004
WASHINGTON, D.C. - For more than a decade, corn, soybeans, and other food crops genetically engineered to produce drugs, vaccines, and industrial chemicals have been grown on American farms. But a new report by six agricultural experts now warns that the food supply is vulnerable to contamination by these "pharmaceutical crops"unless substantial changes are made in the ways and places such crops are grown and managed.
Based on the experts' findings, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately ban the field production of corn, soybeans, and other food crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals. UCS recommends that the USDA spearhead a major campaign to encourage and fund safer alternatives like non-food crops or growing pharmaceutical food crops indoors... Continued.
We must have some vision of who we are, says bishop
Irish Times, 16 December 2004. By Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent.
The problem facing modern society is that there is no agreement on what a human being is or what it is supposed to do, according to the Bishop of Limerick, Dr Donal Murray.
"We must have some kind of vision of who we are. That is how we exercise our freedom,"he said.
Speaking last night at a conference on bioethics at the Institute of Technology, Carlow, he said it was very difficult to have an ethical discussion where there was no consensus. Lack of such consensus was why there was little meeting of minds in ethical discussion today where you have more heat than light.
"I believe the embryo is a human person. This is a crucial question. The whole of Christian tradition has held that everyone's life is deserving of respect,"he said.
Prof Santiago Sia, dean of Carlow College, said ethics was not merely a matter of going by the book - it was much more than following an agreed way of behaving. He said that science was concerned with pushing out boundaries and what can be done whereas ethics was about what ought and ought not to be done.
"Our knowledge of what is ethical is not absolute, though there may be absolute moral principles,"he said.
Prof Peter Whittaker of Lancaster University spoke about stem-cell research and the divisions of attitudes to it. He also said it could be unethical not to do things. He noted that the number of embryos stored across Europe was in six figures at this stage and said he felt it would be far more ethical to use these to save or improve life rather than have them destroyed.
Discussing genetically modified food, Trinity Professor of Genetics, Prof David McConnell, said the way Europe had treated scientists was unethical and immoral. He accused Europeans of "profound post-colonial arrogance"when it came to the use of GM in developing countries. "Our attitude is causing death and illness for no good reason,"he said. There were 800 million starving people in the world today, with 45,000 dying of hunger every 24 hours, he said.
"We have got to introduce GM technology if we are to feed these people - that is the view of GM scientists."
Public varies in views on science
Irish Times, 16 December 2004. Under the Microscope, by Dr William Reville. Which of the following statements are true and which are false?
(a) Lasers function by making sound-waves converge; (b) Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria; (c) Electrons are smaller than atoms; (d) The genes of the father determine whether a baby is a boy or a girl; (e) All radioactivity is man-made; (f) The Earth goes round the sun in a month; (g) The first humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs; (h) Radioactive milk can be made healthy by boiling it; (i) The sun rotates around the Earth; (j) Humans have evolved from older animal species; (k) The oxygen we breathe comes from plants; (l) Continents have been moving for millions of years and will continue to move; (m) The Earth's core is very hot.
These questions formed a small part of a large survey of European attitudes to and knowledge of science and technology in the 15 member states carried out on behalf of the Directorate General for Research of the EU in 2001.
The survey is called Eurobarometer 55.2. I will now give you the answers to the above questions. In the following list T and F indicate whether the statement is true or false and the succeeding numbers indicate the percentage of people who reported the statement as true, false or "don't know". (a) F, 26.6, 35.3, 38.1; (b) F, 41.3, 39.7, 19.0; (c) T, 41.3, 23, 35.7; (d) T, 48.1, 30.2, 21.6; (e) F, 26.5, 52.6, 20.9; (f) F, 22.9, 56.3; 20.9; (g) F, 20.3, 59.4, 20.3; (h) F, 11.8, 64.2, 24.0; (i) F, 26.1, 66.8, 7.1, (j) T, 68.6, 16.6, 14.8; (k) T, 79.7, 13.6, 6.7; (l) T, 81.8, 5.5, 12.7; T, 88.4, 3.5, 8.1.
Eurobarometer 55.2 is a follow-up on a 1992 survey. It gives a good snapshot of public appreciation and understanding of science. Most people (61 per cent) feel they are poorly informed about science but 45 per cent declare they are interested in the subject and 52 per cent say they are not interested.
The areas of greatest interest to Europeans are medicine, the environment and the Internet (particularly among younger people) and TV is the preferred medium for obtaining information on scientific developments.
Visiting science and technology museums is uncommon. Scientific knowledge has progressed little since the 1992 survey with the single exception of knowledge of the action of antibiotics on viruses.
In 1992, 27 per cent of people knew antibiotics were powerless against viruses whereas 39.7 per cent knew this in 2001.
The overall view of science among the general population remains positive. Some 80 per cent of people feel scientific progress will cure diseases such as AIDS and cancer and 72 per cent feel science will provide greater opportunities for future generations. However, science and technology are not considered to be a panacea for a series of problems such as poverty, famine and scarcity of natural resources.
Only 16.5 per cent of people agreed with the statement "science and technology can solve all problems". Also, politicians and weak-kneed academics please note, 75 per cent of people favour government support for basic scientific research even if "it only helps knowledge to progress".
The public is divided on the issue of scientists' responsibility. Some 43 per cent agree with the statement "scientists are responsible for the misuse of their discoveries by others"and 42 per cent disagree. There is widespread desire for social control of science - 80 per cent of people agree with the statement that "the authorities should oblige scientists to obey ethical rules".
The public is definite in its opinion on genetically modified foods (GMF). Some 95 per cent of people want to have the right to choose whether to eat GMF, while 86 per cent of people want more information about GMF and 60 per cent believe that GMF could have negative effects on the environment.
The three most highly-regarded professions among the general population all have a scientific/technical dimension. Medical practitioners come first (chosen by 71 per cent), scientists come second (chosen by 45 per cent) and engineers come third (chosen by 30 per cent). Only 13.5 per cent choose business as the most esteemed profession and only 6.6 per cent choose politics.
Some other interesting findings reported were: 79 per cent of people said that "scientists and industrialists ought to co-operate"; 70 per cent said "more people ought to work in technological research and development in Europe"; 67 per cent reckoned "there should be more women in European scientific research".
Finally, we are experiencing something of a crisis in the matter of scientific vocations. The view of 42 per cent of people surveyed was, "This is a serious threat to future socio-economic development"; while 60 per cent said, "The authorities should try to remedy this situation". Rather worryingly, the top three reasons given by young people for lack of enthusiasm are (a) science lessons are unappealing, (b) science is too difficult and (c) young people are not interested in science. But I feel that the fourth reason given by young people and the population as a whole is critically important and this is the perception: salaries and career prospects are not sufficiently attractive in the scientific field. I feel that things would change radically if this perception were reversed.
William Reville is associate professor in biochemistry and director of microscopy at UCC.
6 December 2004
Shock pesticide levels in food
Guide shows 31,000 tonnes of chemicals on UK farmland
Belfast Telegraph, 6 December 2004. By Fiona McIlwaine Biggins. A shocking new guide to pesticide residues in our food highlights how much of what we eat has been treated with potentially lethal chemicals. The Soil Association's new 'What's Your Poison?' booklet points out that many chemicals used in agriculture pose a hazard to human health and the environment in general. The guide revealed that every year 31,000 tonnes of chemicals are applied to UK farmland. And while chemical companies have by law to provide safety information for the users of their products, consumers go on to eat the treated food.
The guide points out that most of the food we eat is produced from a farming system heavily reliant on these chemicals. Although they are used to kill targeted pests, diseases or weeds, the chemicals also create wider problems - damaging the natural balance of the soil, destroying wildlife and leaving chemical residues in a quarter of food. The Association also warned that there are "real uncertainties"about the effectiveness of official safety regulation of pesticides and some risks are unknown. A spokesperson for the Soil Association said: "People are right to be concerned about how food is produced and whether their health and that of their families is at unnecessary risk. "The damaging effect of farming with chemicals on the environment is accepted, yet the potential to damage human health has not been acknowledged by those appointed by the Government to control pesticides."
Some 30 years ago it was recognised that farm workers needed better protection from the harmful effects of the chemicals and protective clothing became a legal requirement. According to the Government, residues left by these same chemicals in food are at levels that do not pose any unacceptable risk to human health. The Soil Association believes people do not want chemical residues in their food and in response, the Food Standards Agency is now keen to find ways to minimise pesticide residues in food. However, according to the Soil Association, there are disputes over the most appropriate action and as a result very little has been achieved. The Government has still to prepare an effective pesticides reduction strategy for the UK - as it is required to do under EU rules.
Meanwhile, the National Farmers Union, which represents the views of UK farmers, said that chemicals are a "fundamental element of a farmer's business"and without them it would be difficult to grow enough food.
2 December 2004
China Likely to Decide on GMO Rice
in January
Planet Ark, 02.12.04. BEIJING - China is likely to decide within weeks
whether to become the world's first country to allow
commercial growing of genetically modified (GMO) rice,
government officials and activists said on Wednesday. If
approved, it would be the first major transgenic crop to be...
_______________________
1 December 2004
China looks to GM
rice to solve food problems
Business Report, South Africa, 30.11.04 November 30, 2004 Beijing -
China is on the verge of introducing genetically engineered
rice on a large scale as it seeks ways to adequately supply
the basic staple to its people, who make up one-fifth of
the world's population. Shrinking acreage, falling water...
_______________________
30 November 2004
EU'S food safety authority accused of industry bias
Brussels, Monday 29 November 2004 - A new report published today by Friends of the Earth heavily criticises the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for its constant position in favour of the biotechnology industry.(1) Later today the European Commission, using advice from the EFSA, will ask EU member states to vote on the import of a new genetically modified (GM) maize - called MON 863 - and also on whether countries should drop national bans of GM crops. Today's Friends of the Earth report - THROWING CAUTION TO THE WIND - is the first ever critique of the EFSA and its work on genetically modified (GM) foods. Earlier this year, the European Commission started using the EFSA scientific opinions as a basis to licence new GM foods. Dowload report (120kb PDF file)
EU backs away from clash over national GM bans
Environment Daily, 30 November 2004. EU states have failed to agree a proposal to overturn unilateral national bans on approved genetically modified (GM) crop varieties. The development, at a regulatory committee meeting in Brussels on Monday, drew a strong welcome from environmental groups.
Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg have banned specific GMOs approved in the EU citing health concerns. Based on scientific advice that none of the bans was supported by new evidence the European Commission proposed that they be asked to lift the bans or face legal action.
The regulatory committee also failed to approve or reject a proposed new GM maize variety (MON 863) for import to the EU. Decisions on both issues will now be passed to environment ministers.
Monday's decisions came as a new UK study concluded that GM crops have "no detrimental impact on biodiversity or farming methods"and can coexist with conventional cultivation. The 'Bright' study, looked at herbicide-resistant oilseed rape and sugarbeet grown in rotation with conventional crops over four years.
* Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE) claimed that Europe's food safety authority has taken "constant position in favour of the biotechnology industry". A FOEE report accuses Efsa scientists of having links with industry, and says the authority "continuously brushes aside evidence of differences and potential health effects of GM crops".
_______________________
Study finds benefits in GM crops
BBC Online. 30 November 2004. GM crops are no more harmful to the environment than conventional plant varieties, a major UK study has found. The Bright project looked at varieties of sugar beet and winter oil-seed rape which had been engineered to make them tolerant of specific herbicides. The novel crops were compared with non-GM cereals grown in rotation. The project concluded that the GM varieties, used in this way, did not deplete the soil of weed seeds needed by many birds and other wildlife.
_______________________
29 November 2004
German farmers to be liable for GM contamination
New Scientist, 27 November 2004. By Shaoni Bhattacharya. The German parliament has passed a controversial legal amendment that will protect farmers who grow conventional crops from any contamination by genetically modified versions.
The decision by the Bundestag on Friday means that GM farmers will be financially liable for any economic damage caused if their crops contaminate neighbouring non-GM products. The amendment now has to pass through the Bundesrat, the chamber of the federal states. The process is likely to be completed by the end of 2004.
The ruling obliges farmers of GM produce to take precautionary action to prevent "material negative effect"from their GM crops on neighbouring non-GM crops. For example, GM farmers should lay down minimum distances between fields.
A negative financial effect would include a situation, for example, where a conventional farmer was obliged to label their produce as "genetically modified"owing to cross-contamination. Under European Commission legislation, any produce which contains more than 0.9% GM material must be labelled as GM produce.
Certified organic farmers unable to label their produce as organic could also claim. The change in law will additionally demand a site register of where all GM crops are grown, as well as a compensation scheme.
"Biological experiment"
Environmentalists welcomed the law. "This law is good news for hundreds of millions of Europeans who do not wish to participate in the biggest biological experiment of our time and who want to eat food that is GM-free,"says Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Europe. "This law should now be the benchmark for similar legislation in other EU member states."
But some farmers were unhappy with the move, with the German farmer's union, DBV, expressing its "regret".
"The consequences of the law will be that research and development [of GM crops] are neglected, which are necessary to assess in an impartial way the advantages and disadvantages of this green genetic technology,"it says.
"This will have catastrophic consequences,"says Heinrich Cuypers, managing director of BioConValley, a federation of north German biotech companies. "It will set the use of biotechnology in agriculture back years,"he told the UK's Financial Times newspaper.
The new law also introduces the idea of joint and several liability where it is not clear which farm caused contamination if several neighbouring farms cultivate GM crops. "A farmer who has sustained damage will be free to decide which neighbour to claim compensation from,"states the amendment.
_______________________
Dicing with death: plans are being made to genetically engineer smallpox virus
New Scientist, 20 November 2004. Editorial. It seems hardly believable. Only two years ago the World Health Organisation voted to keep alive the last official stocks of smallpox virus. Yet since that stay of execution, smallpox researchers have grown in ambition,. and this week comes news that scientists will be permitted to modify the genes of live virus for the first time. Has our need to tinker with this killer virus changed so dramatically in the past two years? Have we thought this through?...
_______________________
Master and commander: in the land where DNA is king, is a lowly servant pulling the strings?
New Scientist magazine, 27 November 2004. Life as we know it is about to be transformed. Until recently, we have been pretty confident we understood the cast of molecular characters that rule life on Earth. Now it seems that a veritable army has simply evaded detection...
_______________________
EU to Debate Allowing in Monsanto GMO
Maize
Planet Ark, 29.11.04 BRUSSELS - EU specialists vote next week on whether
to allow imports of a gene-spliced maize variety, but face
a re-run of a deadlocked September meeting that exposed the
bloc's divisions over biotech policy. If approved by the
environment experts, the maize made by US agrochemicals...
_______________________
Swiss
approve stem-cell research law
International Herald Tribune, France, 29.11.04 By Fiona Fleck The GENEVA
Swiss voters have backed a law allowing stem-cell research
in the first national referendum on an issue that has
divided both the European Union and the United States. More
than 66 percent of the 1.15 million Swiss who voted Sunday...
_______________________
27 November 2004
EU Nature fund to change
The Irish Times, 27 November 2004. The LIFE Nature fund, the EU's only dedicated financial commitment to biodiversity, is in serious trouble according to a report in the current issue of Wings magazine.
The current LIFE regulations run until the end of 2006. It is proposed that from 2007 a generalised environment fund called LIFE+ will cover all EU environmental activites.
This, according to Oran O'Sullivan and Coilin MacLochlainn of BirdWatch Ireland, will include few of the elements of LIFE Nature, such as funds for species protection and the restoration of habitats. Instead, it will support projects to raise public awareness of ways to manage protected sites. In response to queries from Birdlife and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the European Commission has said that while LIFE Nature would cease to exist, overall funds for nature conservation will increase to over ï6 billion. However, Birdwatch Ireland fears the management of threatened habitats may not be prioritised.
"Biodiversity is an abbreviation for biological diversity and we could not surivive without it,"says Elaine Keegan, biodiversity officer of Clare County Council. Keegan will give a talk entitled "Variety is the Spice of Life"in the Victoria Hotel, Eyre Square, Galway on Tuesday, November 30th, at 8 p.m.
26 November 2004
IUCN Urges Time Out for Genetically Modified Organisms
Environmental News Service, Bangkok, Thailand, November 22, 2004 (ENS) - Members of the world's largest conservation organization today called for a halt to the release of genetically modified organisms. Meeting in Bangkok, delegates from 1,000 organizations at the IUCN World Conservation Congress are debating 114 motions to decide the future direction of IUCN ‚ The World Conservation Union.
IUCN Director General Achim Steiner is leading 4,000 delegates from governments and non-governmental organizations through two weeks of heated debates and tough decisions.
The question with respect to genetically modified organisms boiled down to whether the IUCN should encourage a moratorium on genetically modified organisms, or help establish a sound body of knowledge on their environmental risks and impacts. At the Members Business Assembly today, delegates from both the government and the NGO sectors approved a moratorium by a wide margin.
[Note: The resolution was adopted with 84 votes of State Members in favour of it, 48 against and 12 not taking a position. Amongst the NGO Members, 219 voted in favour of the resolution, 22 against and 59 abstained. Each State Member has three votes, NGO Members have one.]
Press release and full text of resolution
22 November 2004
GM firms finally give up on planting in Britain
Independent on Sunday, 21 November 2004. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. Industry has dropped its last attempts to get GM seeds approved for growing in Britain, in a final surrender of its dream to spread modified crops rapidly across the country.
Bayer CropScience has withdrawn the only two remaining applications for government permission for the seeds - a winter and a spring oilseed rape, both modified to tolerate one of the firm's herbicides. Supporters of the technology say this will put back their commercial use in Britain for years. Environmentalists cite it as one more indication that they are never likely to be grown here.
The withdrawal of the applications marks a sharp contrast to the situation when The Independent on Sunday began its campaign over genetic modification nearly six years ago. At that time, 53 different GM seeds were awaiting approval, and widespread cultivation was assumed to be only a year away.
The Government had put all its weight behind the technology, aiming to make Britain its "European hub", and Tony Blair privately dismissed opposition as a "flash in the pan".
But rising public concern forced the Government to introduce a moratorium while tests were carried out on the effects on the environment of growing GM crops. The trials - the results of which were reported last year - found that the way GM beet and spring oilseed rape were cultivated damaged wildlife more than the growing of conventional crops (the results for winter oilseed rape are due to be published shortly).
The trials appeared to clear GM maize, but the IoS revealed that the verdict was invalid because a pesticide central to the clearance was about to be banned. The Government still gave approval for the maize to be grown - the only one given to a GM crop in Britain. But shortly afterwards, Bayer announced it would not proceed, saying that the controls on how the maize would be cultivated were too strict.
GM advocates presented this as a temporary setback, arguing that new varieties could be grown as early as 2006. Now, however, industry, ministers and environmentalists agree that the abandonment of the last applications means it will be the end of this decade, at the earliest , before any GM crops can be grown.
Any new application will now have to go through a long process to be approved. First, it will have to be passed by the European Union, an unlikely prospect as it has a moratorium on GM crops. Even if that hurdle were surmounted, the crop would have to go through two years of trials in Britain, and then get government approval - a process that will be fought by protesters.
Last week Bayer said it would not even try to carry out trials in Britain until the Government took strong measures to stop protesters pulling up the plants. And ministers now believe that there is no market for the crops, so they would not be grown even if approval were granted.
Yesterday, Pete Riley, director of the anti-GM campaign Five Year Freeze, said: "This development makes it even less likely that modified crops will ever be grown in Britain. The Government should now abandon its doomed obsession with GM crops and put together a coherent strategy to put the whole of UK farming on a sustainable basis."
17 November 2004
Greenpeace hails Bayer India GM
pullout
Reuters, November 16, 2004. Environment pressure group Greenpeace said on Monday it welcomed news that leading crop technology company Bayer had pulled out of genetic modification trials in India to focus on conventional plant breeding.
But Bayer -- which earlier this year ended development trials of GM maize and oilseed rape in Britain and Australia -- countered that it had ended the Indian trials of GM cabbage, cauliflower, aubergine, tomato and mustard seed some time ago.
"These projects were discontinued a couple of years ago due to changes in our global research strategy,"Bayer said on a letter to Greenpeace which the environment group released to the media on Monday.
"Overall, Bayer Cropscience India will continue to focus in the coming years on its conventional plant breeding research programme,"said the letter, signed by the company's head of corporate communications in India.
At its headquarters in Germany, a company spokesman said the GM business came to Bayer from its acquisition of Aventis CropScience in 2002, and it had never had any GM products on the market in India.
But Greenpeace noted the pullout decision had not been publicised and said the news would be a major blow to the pro-GM lobby.
"The significance of Bayer's decision cannot be overestimated,"it said in a statement. "Bayer's retreat from GM research is part of a larger pattern of retreat in the global GM industry."
Italy accepts biotech crops but allows regions to ban them
ROME (AFP) 11 November 2004. The Italian government gave the green light for genetically
modified (GMO) crops but said regions were free to ban them if their
citizens wished. Already 13 of the country's 20 regions, 27 provinces and
nearly 1,500 towns and communities have proclaimed themselves "GMO-free
zones"and they will be able to continue doing so. But Agriculture
Minister Gianni Alemanno said decree adopted by the cabinet would allow
for "coexistence"between opponents and supporters of biotech crops. The
government has stressed the need to defend traditional farming methods as
well as the right of consumers and producers to choose. He said 70
percent of Italians are opposed to genetic modification of crops. While
allowing biotech production, the law insists on extreme caution to avoid
cross-contamination by GMO seeds in the country's highly fragmented
agricultural land. The law had been delayed by the reticence of Prime
Minister Silvuio Berlusconi, who said his government had been elected to
give more rather than less freedom to citizens. But Alemanno said liberty
had to be accompanied by rules. Defenders of engineered crops had a
champion in former Health Minister Umberto Veronesi, who said there were
no products more carefully controlled.
Scheme to protect corncrake succeeds
The Irish Times, 17 November 2004. The corncrake, an endangered species, is making a comeback thanks to a unique National Parks and Wildlife scheme to protect the nesting grounds of the elusive calling bird. Tom Shiel reports.
According to figures from BirdWatch Ireland the results mark a milestone for corncrakes in the west with numbers returning to levels found immediately prior to the introduction of BirdWatch's emergency plan.
Then the population was in a tailspin, with a 90 per cent drop in numbers in the period 1988 to 1993.
A total of 33 calling (male) birds were counted this year between Sligo and Connemara.
This is up from 27 last year and more than twice as many as the low point in 2000 when the regional population dropped to just 14 birds.
This year's total included 15 calling birds on the shores of Blacksod Bay, Co Mayo - the most since the 1980s; three on the south Mayo coast; one each at Ballycastle and Westport; five in Sligo; seven in Connemara and the first on Clare Island, Co Mayo, in 25 years.
There was a rise from 82 last year to 90 in Donegal while the numbers in the Shannon Callows remained at 22.
The grant scheme offers a cash incentive to farmers to delay mowing until after the nesting season.
16 November 2004
Row over GM Papaya to
Surface at Environment Meet
Inter Press Service. 15 Nov. 2004. By Sonny Inbaraj, Bangkok
(IPS) - Thailand's most popular fruit, the papaya, is the
subject of a heated debate here on genetically modified
(GM) crops - an issue that will be taken up at a global
environmental conference this week. This has pit..
_______________________
GM crop safety tests 'flawed', new scientific paper shows
EU approval of Monsanto's GM corn questioned
GM Watch Daily. Brussels, November 16, 2004. A peer-reviewed scientific paper published
today in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews debunks the myth that
genetically modified (GM) crops are thoroughly tested, regulated and proven
safe.
The paper, "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods"[1], includes a comprehensive case study of two types of
insecticide-producing GM corn (chiefly the MON810 variety of biotech giant
Monsanto Co.), showing how flawed testing and regulation permitted these
varieties onto world markets despite evidence that they could cause food
allergies. The European Commission recently approved 17 corn hybrids
derived from MON810. A number of countries including Poland, Austria, Italy,
Germany, Greece and Denmark have recently criticised the Commissions
approval of the corn. [2]
The scientific paper reveals fundamental flaws in how biotech companies test
and the U.S. government regulates GM crops. The paper thus raises serious
questions about whether GM foods, which have been on the market since 1994,
are in fact safe, as claimed by the biotech industry and U.S. regulators.
Authors Dr. David Schubert (cell biologist and medical researcher at
California's Salk Institute) and William Freese (research analyst with
Friends of the Earth U.S) base their meticulously documented, 25-page paper
on nearly 100 sources, including little-known U.S. regulatory documents and
unpublished studies by biotech companies. [3]
"One thing that surprised us is that U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively
on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are
not published in journals or subjected to peer review,"said co-author
Schubert.
Added Freese: "In one case, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored
a published study by an Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist
suggesting that GM corn could cause food allergies, and instead asked
Monsanto and Syngenta to essentially re-do FDA's analysis."
The US is the world's largest exporter of GM crops and accounts for nearly
two-thirds of all biotech crops planted globally. GM soy and GM corn
account for 83 percent of all GM crops planted on the planet.
"The picture that emerges from our study of U.S. regulation of GM foods is a
rubber-stamp 'approval process' designed to increase public confidence in,
but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods,"said Schubert.
"We outline a testing scheme that would be a first step toward putting
regulation of GM foods on a scientific footing,"he added.
Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "This paper blows a hole
in the myth that GM foods are well tested and well regulated in the United
States. It also raises serious question marks over the safety of genetically
modified foods that the European Commission is forcing onto the market."
NOTES TO EDITORS:
[1] E-mail one of the contacts above for a copy of the article, which forms
part of Volume 21 of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews
(http://www.intercept.co.uk/gb/not.asp?id=RS6LS3L6S6ROFD&rec=oui&pos=0&refer
er=%2Fgb%2Fdetail.asp%3Faction%3Dcurrent).
[2] At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting on 18 october 2004 a
number of countries voiced their concerns
ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/agricult/82235.pdf
[2] About the authors:
David Schubert, Ph.D is on the faculty of the Salk Institute of Biological
Studies in San Diego, California, where he is head of the Cellular
Neurobiology Laboratory. He has a B.A. in chemistry and a Ph.D. in cell
biology. Dr. Schubert's fields of scientific expertise are molecular
genetics, cell biology, and protein chemistry. He has published over 200
reviewed manuscripts in these areas and has written and lectured on the
potential health hazards associated with genetically modified crops. William
Freese has worked as research analyst with Friends of the Earth since July
2000. He was part of the team that discovered GM StarLink corn, unapproved
for human consumption, in the food supply. He has helped inform the public
and the food industry about the irresponsible practice of "biopharming"(www.foe.org/biopharm), and has written and lectured on many aspects of GM
crops and their regulation. Freese has a B.A. in chemistry from Grinnell
College.
[3] In the U.S. regulatory system, the EPA, not the FDA, has primary
responsibility for GM plants that produce insecticides.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
David Schubert (co-author) in California: +01 858-453-4100 ext. 1528; e-mail:
schubert@salk.edu
William Freese (co-author) in Washington, DC: +01 301-985-3011; e-mail:
billfreese@prodigy.net
Geert Ritsema, Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels (Belgium),
+31-6-29005908; e-mail: geert.ritsema@foeeurope.org
Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International, London (UK), +39-333-1498049;
e-mail: juan.lopez@foeeurope.org
Clare Oxborrow, Friends of the Earth in London (UK), +44-20-75661716; e-mail:
media@foe.co.uk
Key Findings
"Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods"By William Freese & David Schubert
Deficiencies in U.S. government regulation:
* The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require testing of GM
foods, but rather has a "voluntary consultation"process. Companies that
voluntarily consult with the FDA sometimes fail to respond to FDA requests
for additional information. FDA reviews "summary data,"not full studies,
making a critical review impossible. FDA does not approve GM crops as safe;
instead, the GM crop developer is made responsible for the safety of its
product.
* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates
insecticide-producing GM plants. EPA often fails to collect data for review
of potential human health impacts and accepts substandard testing by biotech
companies. EPA has ignored evidence from independent researchers that
conflicts with company-provided information. EPA raises the maximum
permissible levels of herbicide residues on crops to facilitate introduction
of herbicide-tolerant GM crops.
* The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) has
not established rigorous rules to prevent GM crops from contaminating
conventional crops, even when the contamination could lead to creation of
difficult to control "superweeds."USDA permits cultivation of GM
pharmaceutical crops, despite two contamination incidents necessitating
destruction of large quantities of corn and soybeans. The USDA does not
test neighboring fields for GM contamination or require companies to supply
test kits.
Flaws in biotech company testing practices:
* The use of surrogate GM proteins for testing rather than the GM
plant-produced proteins that people actually consume * The failure of
companies to test for most possible unintended effects of the unpredictable
genetic engineering process; in particular, there is a lack of long-term
animal feeding studies
* The tendency of companies to manipulate test
conditions to get the desired results, facilitated by the failure of
regulatory agencies to establish test protocols
Case study of GM corn:
* Evidence that insecticide-producing GM corn may cause food allergies has
been ignored by the EPA
* Increased lignin levels in some GM corn varieties
was not detected before commercial sale and has still not been explained
(lignin is the woody substance in stalks)
* FDA has fundamentally flawed
molecular information on Monsanto's MON810 corn, reflecting the weakness of
its voluntary consultation process
Outline of science-based testing scheme:
* Long-term animal feeding trials with the whole GE crop to test for
carcinogenic, reproductive and other adverse effects * Test for potential of
GM crop compounds to cause mutations
* Test for full range of unintended effects with metabolic profiling
* Test for allergenic potential according to strict, internationally accepted
protocol
15 November 2004
We need to clear the air: the Irish ENGO scene
The Irish Times, 15 November 2004. By Iva Pocock. Why is it so hard to mobilise people to lobby the Government on environmental issues of national importance, asks Iva Pocock.
When former minister for finance, Charlie McCreevy, announced shortly before he headed off to Brussels this autumn that the Government's plan to introduce a carbon tax was being axed, he was widely condemned.
Opposition parties decried his decision - failing to tackle escalating greenhouse gas emissions would ultimately cost Irish taxpayers hundreds of millions of euro by way of a massive penalty for not meeting Kyoto targets, they said. Academics expressed disappointment - ESRI economist John Fitzgerald said abandoning the tax left Ireland with "no other instrument"for meeting these targets - and environmentalists threw up their hands in despair saying the about-turn effectively consigned our National Climate Change Strategy to the dustbin.
But nobody took to the streets.
Not a single protester marched up Merrion Street to the Department of Finance and nobody stood outside the Custom House, then home to Martin Cullen, then minister for the environment, co-responsible for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
So why couldn't Ireland's environmental organisations muster a protest against such a major U-turn in public policy? What's going on with the environmental movement?
It's debatable whether there is a such a movement at all, says Sadhbh O'Neill, a former Green Party councillor and co-ordinator for An Taisce.
"There's a definite sector in terms of there being some 20 or 30 groups, some local, some national. They speak out for the environment, but is it a movement?"The lack of protest over McCreevy's axing of the carbon tax wouldn't have happened if "there was a strong environmental sector", she says. "They'd have hounded him. The general inertia over Kyoto and the fact that the public are happy to be ripped off is a symptom of the malaise in the sector."
Former editor of Earthwatch magazine Lothar Luken, who has been involved in environmental campaigning for over 30 years - first in anti-nuclear work in his native Germany, then in Bantry, Co Cork, where he has lived for 25 years - believes there is no such movement in Ireland.
"It's like a fish that has no water to swim in. You particularly see that if you look at the treatment of An Taisce."
Other environmentalists, such as An Taisce president Éanna Ní Lamhna, say there is a movement but that it "does not have the same clout about it"as, say, the environmental movement in Germany.
Why? "Generally among Irish people it's to do with our history,"she says. "There were no environmental studies of any description taught at school until 1971."Our acceptance of the "Bord Fáilte image"of Ireland as a clean and green island with no problems is another factor, she says.
That the Irish environmental lobby has "a long way to go"fits into "a pathway which is almost a textbook situation whereby countries don't tend . . . to have environmental problems as long as they haven't developed economically,"says Pat Finnegan of Grian (Greenhouse Ireland Action Network), a lobby group focused on climate change.
"There's always a lag in terms of environmental effects becoming visible and then there's a lag again until you have the sort of public appreciation of those effects. Those are the two stages you need before you get the public behind the environmental agenda."O'Neill reckons our environmental malaise is due to the fact that we didn't go through the kind of heavy industrial development found in other northern European countries.
The strong community-based response to issues such as building roads through archaeologically-unique landscapes and much larger than predicted traffic levels, and to incinerators and super-dumps is "a strength of the environmental movement here compared to other countries,"says David Healy, Green Party councillor for Fingal and a member of Friends of the Irish Environment, the group that tracks implementation of EU environmental directives here.
The difficulty is in getting such campaigners to protect the national interest, says O'Neill. "People will all be up in arms and an action group will get set up in 30 minutes, expecting environmental organisations to get involved but the solidarity will be one-way."In other words, local campaigners often don't seem to channel their concerns - although they may not be mere not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) concerns - into support for organisations that lobby on national policy.
"The difficulty is in gaining membership in order to gather a critical mass,"she says.
One organisation that hopes to build a mutually constructive relationship between the many local environmental action groups and itself, is the newly relaunched Friends of the Earth Ireland.
"Most of the groups don't have the resources to create strategies, joined-up thinking, linkages between economic, political and environmental outcomes,"said director Mark Deary at the organisation's launch last month. "We would hope to allow these local groups to continue to campaign, but in the context of a whole series of arguments. That we can help them understand that this is not NIMBY-ism but the outcome of a bad political decision and that there is an organisation in Ireland that is generating these ideas."The re-establishment of an international environmental organisation in Ireland has boosted morale amongst the sector.
The absence in the Republic over the last few years of one of the so-called "big three"international organisations - Friends of the Earth (FoE, whose former Irish association, Earthwatch, had little clout prior to its closure through bankruptcy last year), Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund - "is a large part of why we are having so many environmental problems,"says Finnegan. "If Friends of the Earth can come along and get the respect the issues require, that'll be good."
Although Mary Kelly, director-general of the Environmental Protection Agency, does not agree with FoE's declaration of Ireland as the "dirty man of Europe", she welcomes its establishment. "Friends of the Earth have a good reputation internationally and . . . are known for producing good policy papers so I think it'll be a good resource for Ireland."One obstacle the new organisation faces is its close ties to the Green Party - two directors, Mark Deary and Malcolm Noonan, are Green Party councillors.
"I think it has been one of the weaknesses of the environmental movement in Ireland that it has tended to identify itself too closely with just one party,"said Eamon Gilmore TD, Labour's environment spokesman, at the FoE launch. "If any movement is to be successful it has to be able to appeal to a wider spectrum of political opinion than one political party."
Ciaran Cuffe TD, the Green Party's environment spokesman, agrees.
"I think it's really important for an NGO to be as ecumenical as possible. In every political party there are people who are committed to the environment, and I hope that that broad political spread is represented in the board of FoE in the future."
Given the uphill struggle other environmental organisations have experienced, FoE has its work cut out. However, there are signs that the environmental message is beginning to be heard.
"I think the policy makers are becoming more aware that they are facing real problems and that we are not talking nonsense,"says Healy. This may be partly because the NGOs are now working more closely together than ever before - in 2001, Irish NGOs formed a joint secretariat in order to administer core funding from the Department of the Environment, albeit nine years after such a move in Germany.
In 2004, the 20 or so member groups received € 245,000 to cover their core costs from the department because it "acknowledges the positive and pro-active approach NGOs make to policy-making and to public debate,"says a spokesman. Some 20,000 of this is to support submissions on "consultation calls"on policy development by the department and the EPA. Last year, environmental NGOs responded to 45 consultation calls, from the Department of the Environment, the EPA and other departments and authorities.
"We're doing amazing things with very little resources. All the submissions NGOs made to policy last year are substantial,"says Healy. "Compared to consultancy rates this is very, very good value."
So while nobody may be protesting on the streets over the failure to put the environment at the core of policy-making, environmentalists are intent on making their voices heard.
12 November 2004
Monsanto lower after NAFTA report on modified corn
NEW YORK (AFX) - Monsanto Co.'s stock felt slight selling pressure Wednesday after a NAFTA commission's report concluded that the accidental spread of genetically modified corn to Mexico from the U.S. should be limited or stopped. The stock traded down 22 cents at $42.24. St. Louis-based Monsanto produces genetically modified corn and other plants as well as Roundup, a widely used herbicide. Press reports Wednesday said the report, written by a group of geneticists convened under NAFTA, didn't accept the U.S. view that modified corn in essence is not different from conventionally bred corn hybrids. Panel members said the spread of genetically modified corn to Mexico was unacceptable because the country's government never approved the hybrids. Mexican farmers asked NAFTA to undertake the study after researchers concluded genetically modified corn accidentally spread to Mexico from the U.S. through cross-pollination. Scientists have genetically modified corn and other plants to protect them against diseases and pests, but most commercially available genetically modified plants are modified to allow them to withstand greater applications of pesticides. This story was supplied by CBSMarketWatch. For further information see www.cbsmarketwatch.com.
11 November 2004
Sinn FÈin warning over GM foods policy
Online.ie. Tuesday, November 9, 2004. The European Commission is intent on allowing genetically-modified foods to be grown in Ireland, it was claimed today.
Sinn Féin MEP Bairbre de Brun said the body had moved to ensure all EU member states followed a common policy on GM foods.
She claimed the Commission said that Ireland would not be able to ban GM crops within its borders.
The news comes just two weeks after the European Commission cleared the path for the import of genetically-modified maize into the EU for public consumption.
"The EU Commission is intent on allowing GM foods to be grown in EU member states,"Ms de Brun said.
"The European Commission has already ratified the import of GM foods into the EU for public consumption. The citizens of EU member states are being subjected to a sustained campaign by the European Commission and Monsanto for a move towards the growing of crops in Ireland - north and south.
"The effects of GM foods on the general public are still unclear."
Ms de Brun said Irish consumers are genuinely concerned about the introduction of GM maize after environmental groups like Friends of the Earth argued its introduction has not been met with stringent long-term testing.
"Sinn Féin is strongly opposed to the introduction of genetically-modified foods and we will continue to actively campaign for Ireland to be declared a GM-free zone at local, national and EU level,"she said.
Sinn Féin Agriculture spokesman Martin Ferris also added his voice to the fight and pointed out that Sinn Féin was the only party campaigning on an All-Ireland basis for GM-free status.
"We intend to pursue this through legislation in the Dáil and our councillors throughout Ireland will be placing motions in support of this to their respective local authorities,"he added.
6 November 2004
Brussels says no member state can prohibit GM crops
Irish Independent, 6 November 2004. By Aideen Sheehan, Agriculture Correspondent.
IRELAND will not be able to ban growing genetically modified (GM) crops within its boundaries, the EU Commission has warned.
Macra na Feirme President Thomas Honner said it had been made clear to them in Brussels that no member state could ban GM crops and as certain crops had now been approved for use, they could be grown anywhere in the EU.
EU Commission official Gijs Berends, with responsibility for GM foods, made it clear that member states could not decide to prohibit the growing of commission-approved products.
"The only set of circumstances in which the Irish government could block the growing of GM products was if Ireland uncovered new scientific evidence questioning the products' safety and even this would be temporary until the Commission examined any such evidence,"said Mr Honner.
A Department of Agriculture spokesman said they expected guidelines for GM crops being prepared by an inter-departmental agency would be ready soon.
4 November 2004
Activists Take Fire at CGIAR
Inter Press Service, 02.11.04. By
Diego Cevallos MEXICO CITY, Nov 2 (IPS) - Environmentalists
and farm activists in Mexico are criticising the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) for allegedly distancing itself from small farmers
and pandering to transnational biotech corporations that...
_______________________
Jose Bove arrested
GM-free Cymru, 4 November 2004. On July 25th 2004, 1,500 activists led by José Bové and members of Confederation Paysanne Europe (CPE), removed a trial crop of GM maize at
Levignac, near Toulouse, France. On 14th August, CPE and 160 farmers and
activists removed another GM maize crop. On 5th September, 600 farmers and
activists, including women and children were teargassed by gendarmes and
helicopters as they attempted to decontaminate another field in the village
of Solomiac in the Gers region. Nine campaigners, including José Bové, are due to appear in court on November 8th and yet more people at a later date. CPE are calling on farmers,
campaigners and food organisations worldwide to send statements of support by
6th November. A petion is being circulated which states "We unite behind the actions of French farmers, including Confederation
Paysanne Europe, in support of the destruction of GM crops this summer to
safeguard our environmental and farming futures."
_______________________
3 November 2004
Green coalition lobbies for NI environmental protection agency
Irish News, 3 November 2004.
A host of green groups will this morning launch the latest bid to bring Northern Ireland's environmental protection laws into line with Republic and Britain. Representatives from the Coalition for Environmental Protection, which includes Friends of the Earth, the National Trust and seven other green lobby groups, are set to press NIO environment minister Angela Smith to create of an environmental protection agency. Northern Ireland remains to the only part of Britain and Ireland that has no independent environmental regulator. The role of safeguarding the north's natural heritage currently falls on the Environmental & Heritage Service - an executive agency within the Department of the Environment. However, recent research conducted by the green coalition highlighted a general lack of faith in the government agency's role as an environmental watchdog. "Our consultation revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the protection afforded to our environment and majority support for the creation of an independent environmental protection agency,"coalition spokes-man Aidan Lonegran said. He said the green groups would be showing Ms Smith the research findings and calling for a review of environmental governance. Friends of the Earth director John Woods said that the coalition's research had painted a "grim picture"and that environmental protection in the north needs to be modernised.
1 November 2004
Challenges planted in the rice industry
www.chinaview.cn Beijing, Oct. 29 2004.
(Xinhuanet) -- Bai Shunhua is grinning with delight when he
catches a fish from the muddy water in the paddy field. The
rice has just been harvested, leaving a swath of stalks in
the water-logged field. The water is draining away slowly through an opening in the mud walls enclosing the terraced paddy field, in which Bai and his family are wading about bare-footed as they try to catch fish they have bred. Bai said they have caught some 50 kilograms of fish per mu (one 15th of a hectare) from the field. "We'll leave some for ourselves to eat and sell the rest in the nearby market,"Bai said, standing knee deep in the mud and water and holding a circular net of fish in the scorching midday sun...
_______________________
29 October 2004
EU authorises Monsanto GMO maize for
import
Reuters News Service / Planet Ark, 28.10.04. By Jeremy Smith. Brussels - The European Union authorised imports of
a genetically modified (GMO) maize made by world biotech
pioneer Monsanto this
week, its second approval since lifting a five-year ban on
new GMOs, officials said. "It is adopted, there were no problems,"an official at the European Commision, the EU's executive arm, told Reuters. The Commission used a legal default procedure that kicks in after months of deadlock between EU governments to issue an approval for a Roundup Ready maize type known as NK603.
The maize has been modified to resist the herbicide glyphosate to allow farmers to manage weeds better. When imported, it will be used to make products such as starch, oil, maize gluten feed and maize meal, and for use in animal feed.
Tuesday's approval is the EU's second after the 25-nation bloc restarted new GMO authorisations in mid-May and put an end to a longstanding moratorium on new biotech imports that had angered major trading partners such as the United States. That happened when the Commission cleared the sale of a tinned biotech sweet maize known as Bt-11, made by Swiss firm Syngenta (SYNN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research) , using its own powers to permit imports.
Under the EU's complex decision-making process, if EU member states fail to agree after three months at ministerial level on allowing a new GMO into the bloc, then the Commission may rubberstamp an authorisation.
GREENS ANGRY
European consumers remain largely hostile to biotech foods with opposition rated at more than 70 percent. Supermarkets and food manufacturers have responded to this and still tend to avoid stocking produce that contains GMOs.
Green groups were angered by the decision, made by the current EU executive in its last week in office.
"This is a shameful final act by the outgoing European Commission,"said Geert Ritsema, GMO campaigner at environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth Europe, in a statement.
"Despite scientific disagreements over its safety and huge public rejection the Commission decided instead to put the interests of corporate America before the safety of Europeans."
Diplomats say the Commission may well open the door to more GMO imports over the next 12 months despite deep divisions among the EU's 25 member states over the whole issue of biotechnology.
The EU's quirky process for taking decisions means the rifts among national governments make it easy for the Commission to apply the rubber stamp to GMO applications, they say.
27 October 2004
New GM symbol for labels under consideration
Irish Independent October 26, 2004. A special symbol to be used in the labelling of GM products is being explored by the Department of Agriculture's
consumer liaison panel. Marian Finucane, chairperson of the
consumer liaison panel, said the panel considers effective...
Bioengineered crops on ballot in 3 counties
San Francisco Chronicle, USA, 24.10.04. By Greg Lucas. Following
Mendocino County's lead in the March primary, activists in
three counties have placed bans on the growing of
genetically modified crops on the November ballot. Proposed...
_______________________
22 October 2004
GE corn exports to Mexico risk
species
Stuff.co.nz, New Zealand, 19 October 2004. Envionmental lobby
group Greenpeace today released a report that recommends
that all US maize entering Mexico should be milled upon
entry, to prevent harm to the native species from which the
entire world's corn crops have been bred. The report was...
_______________________
India, China turn to GM
crops in battle to feed billions
ABC Online, Australia, 18.10.04. Asian giants India and
China are accelerating investment in biotechnology research
to fight the odds in agriculture and feed their teeming
millions. Scientists at a workshop in one of India's
biggest gene research centres say China and India account...
_______________________
18 October 2004
Brazil's president OKs genetically modified soy
USA Today, 10/16/2004. By Alan
Clendenning, Associated Press SAO PAULO, Brazil. Brazil's
president issued a controversial executive order allowing
farmers to plant genetically modified soybeans, just as the
planting season in the world's second-largest soy producer...
_______________________
17 October 2004
Ulster bees threatened by varroa mite
Belfast Telegraph, 16 October 2004. Northern Ireland's bees are under threat from the Varroa Destructor mite. But help is on the way for hundreds of apiarists across the province. World authority on Varroa, Professor Dewy Carron flies into the province next week to address a major conference organised by the Institute of Northern Ireland Beekeepers. "The Varroa Destructor is a real pest,"said Institute chairman Michael Young. "No country in the world is safe from this predator. It arrived in Ireland a few years ago and the last place free of the mite was Hillsborough. That was until a few weeks ago when it was found in hives there. It is perfect timing having Professor Carron coming to our conference. He is a world authority on this predator and we are hoping for some hints on how to deal with it. The conference, in Hillsborough Courthouse on October 23 will also feature Rashad Moemin of Queen's University and Jim Loughrey of Roe Valley Beekeepers Association.
14 October 2004
New radioactivity limit could sink shellfish
NewScientist.com news service. 12 October 04. By Rob Edwards.
Thousands of tonnes of British shellfish currently eaten in Europe could be banned under new international safety limits for radioactivity in food, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has warned.
Lobsters, cockles and scallops from the north west of England and the south west of Scotland are so contaminated with plutonium from the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria that they will breach limits due to be introduced by the United Nations in 2005.
Although the new limits are welcomed by radiation experts, they are regarded as "not proportionate to the actual risk"by the FSA. And they have angered the multi-million pound shellfishing industry.
Douglas Macleod, chairman of the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers, said that limits should only be set on the basis of robust science backed by credible risk assessments. "Why should the industry be unnecessarily crucified if there is no real risk?"he asked.
Cancer risk
The UN's Codex Alimentarius Commission - which brings together the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organisation - is proposing a safety limit for plutonium in food of one becquerel per kilogram. The aim is to reduce the long-term risk of getting cancer from eating these foods to below one in a million.
The proposal takes into account emerging scientific uncertainties about the health risks of small amounts of plutonium inside the body and is in line with radiation safety limits recommended by other regulatory authorities internationally, in the US and in the UK.
The proposed limit seems "reasonable"to Ian Jackson, a radiation consultant from Cheshire, England. He pointed out that the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield had discharged more plutonium into the sea than those in France and Japan.
Winkles picked
Concentrations of plutonium and related isotopes in all the shellfish sampled by the FSA between the Ribble estuary at Preston and Kirkcudbright on the North Solway coast in 2002 exceeded 1Bq/kg. Winkles from St Bees, next to Sellafield, contained 66 Bq/kg.
The area includes one of Europe's biggest cockle fisheries - Morecambe Bay - which is expected to produce up to 10,000 tonnes in 2004. Most of the shellfish harvested from the region are exported to Spain, France and the Netherlands.
The new safety limits would have a major economic impact, according to Jim Andrew, from the north west England Sea Fisheries Committee, a regulatory authority. "But if there is a risk to public health, that has got to come first,"he said.
9 October 2004
Toxin build-up is
highest in young: study finds more chemicals in children
than adults
Friday October 8, 2004 The Guardian. Paul Brown, environment correspondent. Children
as young as nine have more manufactured chemicals in their
blood than their grandparents and these substances are
suspected of disrupting development and hormones, according to tests on seven volunteer families across the country.
_______________________
Farmer admits GM trial role
Age, Australia, October 8, 2004. By
Melissa Marino Regional Affairs Reporter. A Horsham farmer has identified himself as being
involved in secret Bayer CropScience genetically modified...
_______________________
7 October 2004
Europe is
united: no bioengineered food
International Herald Tribune, Wednesday, October 06, 2004 GENEVA. By Elisabeth Rosenthal/IHT IHT. Some are smokers. Some drink too much. Some admit they love red meat. But
virtually all shoppers here at the Migros Supermarket on the
bustling Rue des Paquis are united in avoiding a risk they regard as unacceptable: genetically modified food.
That is easy to do here in Switzerland, as in the rest of Europe, where food containing such ingredients must be labeled by law. Many large retailers, like Migros, have essentially stopped stocking the products, regarding them as bad for public image.
_______________________
2 October 2004
Greenpeace 6-point GMO plan
The Nation (Thailand) October 1, 2004. The Agriculture Ministry's measures to curb the spread
of genetically modified (GM) papayas in Khon Kaen could
trigger more 'genetic pollution', Greenpeace Southeast Asia
warned yesterday at a press conference. The GM papaya trees...
1 October 2004
The Travels of a Bioengineered Gene
The New York Times, 30 September 2004. Editorial. A study showing that genes from a type of genetically engineered grass migrated much farther than anyone had thought possible virtually demands a careful reassessment of how such plants are regulated. We must ensure that the genes from genetically engineered plants do not escape into the wild and wreak havoc in natural ecosystems.
The grass, a creeping bentgrass developed by Monsanto and Scotts, has been modified genetically so it can tolerate Roundup herbicide, which is made by Monsanto. Golf course owners who use creeping bentgrass on their greens and fairways could adopt the bioengineered version, then spray Roundup to kill weeds without killing the grass.
There is no evidence yet that any of the genetically engineered crops already in wide use in this country, like modified corn, soybeans and cotton, have caused any significant environmental harm. It is also true that the bentgrass at issue has characteristics that could make it more difficult to control than most crop plants. It is a perennial that does not have to be planted every year, its pollen is small and light and thus easily carried by the wind, and it has a dozen or so wild relatives that it can cross-pollinate.
For all these reasons, the Agriculture Department, which must decide whether to allow the genetically engineered grass to be marketed, is conducting a full-scale environmental impact assessment. This is the first time it has subjected a genetically engineered plant to such rigorous scrutiny. The concern is that the herbicide-resistance genes may spread to relatives in the wild, thus complicating the task of controlling vegetation with Roundup herbicides in many landscapes.
Bentgrass hardly ranks with global warming, nuclear waste or air and water pollution as a critical environmental problem. But the study raises broader questions about regulating biotechnology.
When assessing the likelihood that genes will spread from bioengineered plants, scientists typically study small test plots and look for the effects nearby. Scotts initially estimated that the pollen would travel only about 1,000 feet. But when Environmental Protection Agency scientists studied gene dispersal from some 400 acres of genetically modified grass, they found that some genes reached sentinel plants of the same species as far as 13 miles away and wild relatives almost 9 miles away. Whatever they decide about bentgrass, regulators will need to reassess whether they are looking hard enough and far enough for the potential impacts of genetically modified plants.
Coughlan outlines challenges facing farmers
The Irish Times, 1 October 2004.
The new Minister for Agriculture and Food, Ms Coughlan, identified sustainability as the single most important issue in agriculture when she held her first press conference at the National Ploughing Championships in Carlow yesterday.
Ms Coughlan said agriculture was in the process of change over recent years, especially in the areas of food quality and consumer affairs. She said she had kept up with the changes, had been very involved in agriculture since 1987 and had represented an agricultural constituency for many years.
"It's not something I was not accustomed to, and people like myself have been involved in plenty of committees. I expected to stay where I was, and was a bit surprised when I was moved,"she added.
She had attended the ploughing championships two years ago to announce improvements in the Farm Assist scheme and she would continue to urge smaller farmers to apply for the scheme.
She said sustainability was a vital issue facing agriculture - how to keep farmers on the land and interest young people in staying on the land.
"The word at the end of the day is 'sustainability'. It's about how you can address the issue of young people who are not particularly interested in farming and at the same time the necessity to support one of the most important industries we have in this country,"she said.
Ms Coughlan said she would like to see a balance between larger and small farms, and support for those with income difficulties.
"I know small farms better than the larger farms . . . To those who say small farms are not economic and it is silly to support them, I totally disagree because there are other issues such as the quality of life and rural life generally, and if that means we have part-time farming, I would be all for it,"she said.
She did not think it was right that if a small farm was not economically viable the farmer would have to get out and she wanted small enterprises supported through REPS (Rural Environment Protection Schemes).
"At the same time we have to deal with the challenge of huge competition, high quality standards and the necessity for invention, investment in new product, and all of these have an economic aspect to them, but I also think you have to have a balance,"she said.
Asked about the high price of Irish food, Ms Coughlan said the issue of consumer affairs was a matter for another ministry, but as a woman she was concerned about the issue of price and quality.
She said the farming organisations had to change to produce high-quality products, and it was the sale and marketing of that produce which was extremely important.
She said she did not see farmers cutting back production after decoupling was introduced and hoped it would not happen.
"I feel we have had a lot of challenges with European restrictions which were uncomfortable for many farmers.
"But the Government is very aware of any impact these will have, and the agri industry is very strong in my view and a great employer, and anything that would upset or undermine it is something we would have to address,"she said.
Ms Anna May McHugh said the 187,00 attendance at the championships was the highest on record. The traffic problems had eased on the second day, and the event had run very smoothly.
The event at Grangeford, near Tullow, Co Carlow, cost over §1.8 million, and the site will be the venue for the world championships in 2006.
Coughlan 'must shift focus onto food'
Irish Independent, 1 October 2004. By Grainne Cunningham
NEW Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, was challenged yesterday to do more to support the small creative food producers who lure tourists to Ireland with their delicious produce.
Former chief of the Food Safety Authority, Patrick Wall, said the policy makers needed to do more than repeat the mantra 'Ireland, the food island' if they wanted the country to reap the rewards from artisan producers.
Launching John and Sally McKenna's new Bridgestone Irish Food Guide, Dr Wall said these small, local producers were the "haute couture"of our food industry and could put the country "up in lights"internationally.
Dr Wall said it would be interesting to see what approach the new minister took.
"Ireland can't compete with countries with economies of scale, cheap labour and no environmental protection,"he said, emphasising the need for premium products.
And John McKenna called on the minister to mandate county councils to support farmers' markets and to protect and promote artisan producers.
In the new guide on all that is good to eat in Ireland, some counties are poorly represented, he said, adding that much work needed to be done. Counties such as Offaly Longford and Roscommon have slim pickings for foodies, the guide reveals.
The McKennas' guide includes shops, restaurants and markets from all 32 counties. "The book is unified by creative people whether they have a company which stocks kitchens or they smoke fish,"Mr McKenna said.
The Dublin listings offer guidance on where to eat the best salami or sushi as well as recommendations for take-home food for the 'can't cook, too tired' and 'can't cook, never tried' brigades.
In between, the guide provides a taste of what to expect from farmers' markets, delis and other food outlets as well as information on gourmet dining to simple but well-done eateries,
The book is designed for your pocket or glove compartment so the next time you are stranded in some strange Irish town, at least you will know where to eat.
29 September 2004
Call to push organic farming as 70pc produce imported
Irish Independent, 29 September 2004. By Aideen Sheehan. Farmers who want to switch to organic farming must be helped because over 70pc of organic food eaten in Ireland is currently imported, Green Party leader Trevor Sargent said yesterday.
Ireland lags way behind most European countries in producing organic food, which accounts for less than 1pc of all farmland compared with 11pc in countries such as Austria, Mr Sargent said at the Ploughing Championships.
"To address this imbalance, the Government needs to provide practical aid to the organic farming industry in the form of a major marketing drive,"he said. He called for an advisory board to give information to farmers switching to organic farming methods.
Recent reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy presented a real opportunity to increase the amount of organically-farmed land, Mr Sargent said.
Ireland should also be declared a genetically modified (GM) free zone as GM crops had been less profitable than conventional farm produce and the Irish public remained opposed to GM products, he said.
Meanwhile farmers' markets are to be encouraged through a new Small Food Business plan under the LEADER programme aimed at boosting the sector.
Community and Rural Affairs Minister Eamon O'Cuiv said there were complicated issues facing this sector, but golden opportunities existed for rural communities.
Best practice guidelines are to be drawn up for markets. Plan Coordinator Isobel Fletcher has been charged with researching the sector and deloping proposals for a support package for small food businesses to include technical support and training.
Taoiseach rules out changes in farming service
The Irish Times, 29 September 2004. By Sean Mac Connell. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, yesterday ruled out any major structural change at the Department of Agriculture, as has happened in other European countries where mainstream farm production has been demoted and rural development and other aspects of the ministry promoted.
Agriculture was still very important in Ireland, Mr Ahern told journalists when he officially opened the National Ploughing Championships yesterday.
More than 60,000 attended the opening day, the largest-ever first-day attendance at the championships which are being held at Grangeford, between Tullow and Carlow town.
Accompanied by the outgoing Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mr Walsh, who was on his last official outing as Minister, Mr Ahern refused to give any inkling about who was likely to be the new minister, but did say the reshuffle would reflect the needs of the country.
Paying tribute to Mr Walsh, the Taoiseach said the Department of Agriculture would need to take account of the huge consumer interest that was part of the whole agri-business, and that was where the future lay.
When it was put to him that many other European countries had taken the word "agriculture"out of the title of their departments, the Taoiseach said he did not agree with that point of view.
"Agriculture is still a very important industry,"he said.
Earlier the Taoiseach had toured the main farm organisation stands at the grounds before paying a visit to the Fianna Fáil tent.
He also visited the ploughing site and spoke to some of the competitors.
While on site he also met the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, and the Minister of State at his own Department, Mr Tom Parlon.
Also present yesterday was the leader of Fine Gael, Mr Enda Kenny, who paid tribute to Mr Walsh.
Mr Kenny said that within the next few weeks he would be naming new spokespeople, not because of the Government reshuffle but because of his party's recent successes.
He said the election of Mr Simon Coveney and Mr Gay Mitchell to the European Parliament, and the selection of Mr John Bruton as EU ambassador in the US, had meant that he would have to name new people and he would be doing so, but not immediately.
The Green Party launched an attack on Government farming policy at the championships and criticised the possibility that GM crops would be grown in the State.
Mr Trevor Sargent, the party leader, said he was in the process of meeting the farm organisations in an attempt to have Ireland made a GM-free zone, and to date the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers' Association had committed itself to the idea.
He called on the Government to provide real support and incentives to Irish farmers who wanted to switch to organic means of production, which currently represented less than 1 per cent of farmed land in Ireland.
He said that as a consequence there was a real demand for organic produce, with 70 per cent of the €37 million market here having to be imported.
"To address this imbalance the Government needs to provide practical aid to the organic farming industry in the form of a major marketing drive,"he said.
Mr Sargent added that an advisory board should be established to give practical information and advice to farmers as they changed to organic methods of farming.
There were the normal traffic delays on the site, which most people found was particularly suitable for the event, but no serious traffic jams yesterday, except on the Carlow side of the site, where there were some delays in the morning and again as people left.
Monsanto prods South
American nations on soy royalties
Planet Ark, 28.09.2004. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Monsanto Co., a company
that has pioneered the development of bioengineered crops,
is pushing hard to recover millions of dollars in lost
revenue in three South American countries where farmers have sown its wonder seeds without paying royalties.
But, despite a determined lobbying drive in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay - the three top soybean exporters after the United States - these nations are unlikely to act quickly enough to satisfy the St. Louis-based agricultural giant, which would like reforms in place now, with the 2004/2005 planting season just beginning...
_______________________
Brazil: Lula Between Greens and
Farmers on GMC
Brazzil.com, Brazil, 28 September 2004. Movements
grounded in civil society raised their voices last week
against the possibility of a new provisional executive
decree (Medida ProvisÛria - MP) authorizing the cultivation
and commercialization of transgenic products in Brazil.
Last September 22, members of Greenpeace held a protest demonstration in front of the Planalto Palace, in BrasÌlia, to deter publication of the measure.
Brazilian groups belonging to social movements also sent a letter last week to President Luiz In·cio Lula da Silva criticizing the authorizing of genetically modified crops, also known as GMC, without any prior study of environmental impact or health risks to consumers...
_______________________
28 September 2004
GMO Crops: A Cautionary Tale
The Nation (Thailand) September 27, 2004. The Indonesian
experiment with genetically modified cotton failed, but
valuable lessons can be gleaned. The Thai Cabinet recently
rejected a proposal by the Agriculture Ministry ' which
carried the full support of Prime Minister Thaksin...
_______________________
Can Biotech Crops Be Good
Neighbors?
The New York Times September 26, 2004. By Andrew Pollack. Toivo Lahti grows papaya on
the Big Island of Hawaii. Over the last few years, he
watched other growers start planting trees that were...
_______________________
Farming's future
The Irish Times, 28 September 2004. Some 150,000 people are expected to visit the National Ploughing Championships in Grangeford, Tullow, Co Carlow this week where they will see the biggest agricultural show in Europe and one of the world's most important ploughing contests. Most of them will be farming families on leave at the end of the season. The size of the show and sheer range of the hundreds of exhibitors and trade stands show they pack a large commercial punch despite gloomy talk about the future of farming and yesterday's protests outside meat factories over prices.
It is a time of serious transition in Irish agriculture. Next year will see the introduction of the first single payments from the EU to tens of thousands of farmers, following the decision to decouple farm subsidies from production. The average payment will be §11,000; but it is a deceptive figure since the 30,000 or so full-time commercial farmers will receive more than this, while many part-time ones will get much less.
Of the 130,000 farmers figuring in national statistics 80,000 have off-farm jobs, have spouses working or are receiving social welfare. Overall the farm population has dropped from 14 per cent of the national workforce to 5 per cent over the last 10 years. Only 6 per cent of those living in country areas rely solely on agriculture for their incomes. But agriculture supports substantial industries with large workforces and exports elsewhere in the economy.
Such figures tell a story of undoubted social and agricultural success as much as they indicate an uncertain future for farming in Ireland. Maintaining such a large non-farming population in rural areas is a substantial social policy achievement. It can be sustained over the next generation for many families by the annual EU cheques, which require that the land be kept in good agricultural and environmental order. There are more and more outlets for imaginative off-farm or farm-related enterprises among the part-time population if the opportunities are taken up and similar openings for dynamic farmers as demographic change rationalises ownership.
Whether they will be taken up effectively is as uncertain as the likely impact of decoupling. Much will depend on constructive farm leadership. Too often it is negative and reactive rather than forward looking, whether on environmental protection, world trade talks, CAP financing or urban access to the countryside.
A more constructive and productive approach would be to communicate the opportunities facing agriculture and rural Ireland and how they relate to the wider Irish community.
Frankenfish: Just another monster?
Canadian Geographic Magazine. 27 September 2004. By Dan Blouin. Genetic technology has entered aquaculture, but not many are catching the .wave
Transgenic salmon may appear to be the best thing since tartar sauce for the
business of aquaculture, but so far it seems fish farmers and consumers
alike just aren't taking the bait.
At a 30 percent growth rate faster than wild salmon, "frankenfish"are bigger and stronger at a younger age, raising the question as to
whether or not non-GM fish would even have a chance in the wild.
Often dubbed "Frankenfish,"transgenic salmon have had DNA segments spliced
into their cells - for instance, genes coded for anti-freezing proteins or
growth hormones. Absorbed by the fish's eggs, these stowaway genes enable
the salmon to grow faster and to survive in colder water. But the resulting
transgenic fish haven't been approved as food by Health Canada or the FDA.
Still, there are those in the industry who think transgenics may be the
answer to recent salmon farming woes. Garth Fletcher, president of Aqua
Bounty Canada, is one of them; he has been breeding transgenics for years,
making sure the new genes are stable through multiple generations. But
Fletcher's major concern with transgenics is food safety.
"We're talking about making sure there's no nutritional difference between
these fish and what's available out on the market. We look at a nutritional
profile of fatty acids, proteins, lipids and the allergenicity,"Fletcher
says.
Others worry that transgenic salmon could escape from farms and wipe out
wild populations - the "Trojan gene"hypothesis.
Fred Whoriskey, vice-president of research and environment for the Atlantic
Salmon Federation, says current literature has alleviated at least one
concern about transgenic fish. "It doesn't look like they'll be monsters; we
won't have to worry about seven- to nine-foot salmon swimming upriver and
eating someone's kid,"he says with a laugh.
But he points out that there's a limit to what you can do with transgenes.
"You can implant a wonderful gene that'll grow 30 percent faster, but it
doesn't exceed the natural capacities for wild fish populations,"Whoriskey
says.
Even so, being bigger at a younger age could give transgenics an edge in the
wild. Mark Abrahams, a professor of zoology at the University of Manitoba,
has studied the behaviour of transgenic salmon in response to natural
predators. He found the larger, transgenic fish would feed longer when near
predators than their smaller, natural cousins. And more food generally means
stronger fish. But Abrahams says it's difficult to discover if transgenic
fish would suffer higher mortality for their bold behaviour.
"The problem is, if you're working on transgenic animals, you're working
under very strict guidelines and conditions. The predators you bring in
don't really have time to acclimate. So it raises the question of if this is
really real,"Abrahams says.
Even if these fish are someday deemed safe, the industry might not be
willing to accept them.
"Our industry likes what we have now,"says David Rideout, executive
director of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance. "I have yet to have
one member say to me, 'David, you've got to get us some of these transgenic
fish.' What they are saying is 'Why are we getting tagged with using these
transgenic fish when we're so opposed to it?' "
"Even if scientists give us the OK and say these fish are safe to use, if
consumers are opposed to it, we won't do it,"Rideout warns. "Consumers
rule."
27 September 2004
Return of the corncrake to Ulster?
The Irish News, 25 September 2004. The distinctive call of the 'lesser-spotted' corncrake is being heard in the fields of Northern Ireland again. The rare bird, once a common sight in the north, was spotted on Rathlin Island and in Co Fermanagh this summer, according to the RSPB. However, it is too early to say if the return will be long-lived, as there have not been any reports of the birds breeding. Healthy numbers of corncrakes - so-called because of their unique 'crex' call - currently exist on Tory Island off the Co Donegal coast and in the Shannon Callows area. The birds traditionally nest in Ireland between April and September before migrating to Africa. The brown-coloured bird, which is slightly smaller than a chicken and is related to the moorhen and coot, is notoriously shy. Its coyness contributed to its decline when intensive farming practices became commonplace. In the past, farmers used hand tools to take one cut of silage from fields. This, plus the fact that the farmer generally worked from the centre of the field towards its perimeter, gave the corncrake and its young time to escape. The mechanisation of the process - which is now often repeated several times during the summer - twinned with a change to cutting from the field's perimeter, meant corncrakes could neither escape the machinery nor find long grass in which to nest and breed. A spokeswoman for the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) said: "Corncrakes are still coming back here and we will eventually get them back with the right management and the help of farmers."Corncrakes were recorded in Northern Ireland last year for the first time since 1997.
Strangford fishing ban welcomed
The Irish News, 25 September 2004. Two leading Northern Ire-land environment groups have joined forces to welcome a pledge by the DoE and Dard to safeguard mussel beds in Strangford lough by extending a ban on trawling. The departments expressed concern at confirmation that horse mussel reefs in one of Ireland's most famous loughs had deteriorated and expressed their commitment to the on-going protection and urgent restoration of "this unique marine feature". Officials were commenting after the publication of a new report that examined the lough's reefs which support uniquely varied ecosystems. The horse mussel beds, which form living reefs on the lough bed, are a distinctive feature of Strangford Lough and essential to the continued wellbeing of its marine ecosystem."
The departments commissioned Queen's University to undertake the Strangford Lough Ecological Change Investigation (SLECI) to establish the possible causes of their decline. In its interim report the SLECI team found that the horse mussel communities in the lough had deteriorated to such a large degree that they were "no longer in favourable conservation status."Dard, supported by DOE, has confirmed that a temporary ban on fishing the lough with mobile equipment, which was first in-troduced last December, would continue indefinitely.
The Joint Marine Partnership, made up of WWF Northern Ireland and the Ulster Wildlife Trust, last night welcomed the government's commitment to continue the ban. They also welcomed news that work on a restoration plan for the reefs had begun and urged the government to come to a swift decision on compensation for the fishermen aff-ected by the ban. The groups said it was important that the Queen's report discounted climate change and pollution as factors for the de-cline of the reefs.
24 September 2004
Coming Soon - Gene-Engineered
Insects
Planet Ark, 23.09.2004 USA: September 23, 2004 WASHINGTON - Coming soon to
a jungle near you - mosquitoes genetically engineered so
they cannot give people malaria. But this time scientists
want to do it right. Mindful of labels like "Frankenfoods"given to genetically modified crops, and of attacks against...
_______________________
22 September 2004
Wind carries GM pollen record distances
New Scientist, 20 September 2004. Pollen from a genetically modified grass has blown on the wind and pollinated other grasses up to 21 kilometres away, says a new study. This distance is "much further than previously measured", say the authors, and is thought to be a record for any GM pollen. The discovery comes as regulators decide whether to allow the planting of the GM creeping bentgrass on golf course putting greens across the US.
_______________________
Genes From Engineered Grass Spread for
Miles, Study Finds
New York Times, 21.09.2004. By Andrew Pollack. A new study shows that
genes from genetically engineered grass can spread much
farther than previously known, a finding that raises
questions about the straying of other plants altered through
biotechnology and that could hurt the efforts of two...
_______________________
EU readies for another clash on
approving new GMO
Planet Ark, 21.09.2004 BRUSSELS - EU governments look as divided
as ever over genetically modified (GMO) food as a new
request for importing a biotech maize type engineered by
U.S. biotech giant Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) comes up for approval. If approved by EU environment experts, the maize - modified to resist the corn rootworm insect - would be used in animal feed, but not for growing or for human consumption. The experts, representing EU governments, will meet on Monday to discuss whether to allow imports of the maize. If they agree, it would be the second genetically modified (GMO) product to receive EU-wide approval since a five-year blockade on new approvals was lifted, by legal default, in May. But so far, the EU is as split over biotechnology as when in 1998 several countries said they would reject any new authorisations until the EU's biotech laws were tougher.