NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • Aug - Sept - Oct 2005

Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec
Archives 2004 • 2003

Please submit news items for this page to news@gmfreeireland.org.

27 October 2005

Biotech industry slams EU Council GMO ruling

FoodProductionDaily.com, 26/10/2005, by Anthony Fletcher. - EuropaBio has slammed the EU Agricultural Council's decision to uphold a Greek ban on genetically modified (GM) corn, claiming that the judgement flies in the face of EFSA advice on biotech crops.

The organisation, which represents Europe's bioindustry, called the council's inability to reject the Greek Government's temporary ban on Monsanto's MON 810 corn as "disappointing".

"Neither the Greek Government nor any of the authorities have provided any validated scientific evidence to support either a ban or withholding approval to use these products in food," said Simon Barber, director of the plant biotechnology unit at EuropaBio.

"Consequently it is disappointing to see the council's lack of support for the law especially as it is was council that put in place the GM rules in the first place."

The council also failed to reach agreement on decisions to approve foods and food ingredients produced from Monsanto's herbicide-resistant maize GM maize GA 21 and MON 863, a transgenic corn used for food engineered by Monsanto to resist the corn rootworm insect, despite claims that positive safety assessments had been received from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

It is clear that Member States still need to be convinced that introducing genetically modified ingredients into food production is acceptable. From 1998 to 2004 the EU imposed a ban on approving any new GM crops.

Tough new rules on GM ingredient food labelling imposed last year have since cleared a way to end the ban, with a couple of new approvals already passed into the Official Journal.

But as this latest council decision shows, the EU remains significantly divided on this issue. The Commission has, to date, asked EU members over ten times to vote on authorising a GMO food or feed product. But in the large majority of cases, there was no agreement or simple deadlock.

EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries which has 50 direct global members and 25 national biotechnology associations representing 1,500 enterprises, will continue to lobby for GM approval.

The organisation has had some victories. Earlier this month for example, the Upper Austria Region failed to win its case at the EU Court of First Instance on the region's draft law to ban planting GMOs.

And it is also worth noting that under an obscure facet of the law known as the 'comitology procedure', Brussels can actually push through Mon 863 and GA21 through to law because the council has failed to reach a majority decision.

Farmers encouraged to go organic in major new campaign

The Irish Times, 27 October 2005. By Seán MacConnell. A major campaign to encourage more farmers to switch to the organic option is to get under way next month.

Organic farming has been growing slowly in Ireland since the 1960s and a surge in the numbers involved is expected because farmers are now free to farm in whatever way they wish following Cap reform.

There are just over 1,000 organic farmers in the State farming just over 30,000 hectares of land under organic production methods.

Although they farm less than 1 per cent of the agricultural land in the State, the Irish organic market is estimated to be worth §40 million annually. Ý

The market has been growing at the rate of almost 10 per cent a year and that growth is expected to continue into the future as farmers see opportunities to substitute their home-grown crops for imported organic food. Ý

Minister for Agriculture and Food Mary Coughlan yesterday announced details of National Organic Week from November 7th-13th. Ý

She said the public needed to be made aware of what organic food actually is, where and how it is produced and where they can buy it. Ý

Next month's campaign will involve point-of-sale material, window stickers, posters and recipe and information leaflets at consumer outlets. Ý

"Every country has its own advantages and I firmly believe there are large opportunities for Ireland in producing organic food," said Ms Coughlan. Ý

Farmers who want to convert to organic production from conventional farming have to go through a conversion period when they do not use artificial fertilisers on grass or crops, but there are conversion grants for doing this. Most farmers argue that these grants are too low. Ý

However, in recent years some successful conventional farm operators have made the switch. Ý

In most cases, crop yields in organic productions are lower, labour inputs higher and markets less readily available, but they normally deliver prices which are 10-25 per cent higher. Ý

25 October 2005

EU Ministers Clash Again on GMO Policy

Reuters News Service, 25 October 2005. By Jeremy Smith. LUXEMBOURG - EU farm ministers again revealed their long-standing rift over genetically modified (GMO) foods on Monday, failing to agree on approving new GMO imports or on an order for Greece to lift its national GMO ban.

The ministers were unable to muster enough of a majority under the EU's complex weighted voting system to reach any decisions. All GMOs under discussion are maize types made by US biotech giant Monsanto.

When this happens, the European Commission gains the legal power to approve a new GMO or -- in the case of Greece -- to issue an order to an EU state to reverse a national measure. This usually takes place within a few weeks.

Neither of the two GMO maize types where there was a request for import were for growing.

One product, a herbicide-resistant maize known as GA21, is designed to be used as an ingredient in food processing. The other, MON 863, is engineered to resist the corn rootworm insect and would be processed into animal feed.

Green groups have repeatedly criticised the safety assessments of GMO products submitted for EU approval, particularly that concerning MON 863, despite clean bills of health issued by the EU's leading food safety agency EFSA.

"Member states have rightly resisted pressure from the European Commission to authorise MON 863 maize, whose risk assessments were severely criticised by independent scientists," said Eric Gall, GMO campaigner at environment group Greenpeace.

"It (the Commission) should urgently respond to the many questions concerning the safety of this product and its flawed assessment," he told Reuters.

In a separate vote, the ministers also failed to secure a majority either to approve or reject a draft order for Greece to end a ban on planting seeds of another Monsanto GMO maize.

Last year the European Union authorised 17 different Monsanto maize seed strains from a parent crop for planting and sale across EU territory, flying in the face of widespread consumer resistance to GMO crops and foods.

EU law provides for countries to decide whether to allow such seeds on national territory. Greece used this provision in early 2005.

24 October 2005

Film provides 'Food' for thought

The Boston Globe, 21 October 2005. By Alison Arnett. Americans are famed for their short attention spans and their fixation on the banal. But what they eat -- now that's an issue they care about.

Genetically modified foods are the newest worry and the subject of "The Future of Food," a documentary film that opens today in larger cities. It starts with a narrative about Roundup, a Monsanto herbicide, and the company's Roundup Ready seeds, which have been altered so that herbicides don't kill them, then segues into the origins of chemical agriculture.

Filmmaker Deborah Koons Garcia quickly opens her lens to skewer the monolithic corporations such as Monsanto -- one of the pioneers in genetically modified organisms -- that control everything from seeds to retail food products. Garcia says she started out to do a film about pesticides, then became interested in the GMO question, and finally concentrated on the corporate aspect.

"The bigger issue," says Garcia, widow of Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead, "was the whole takeover of the food industry by big corporations."

Frances Moore Lappé, author of the 1970s ground-breaking "Diet for a Small Planet" and a food policy analyst, applauds the film's concentration on corporate control of farming. "Most Americans would be absolutely horrified at the level of bullying power" and "the concentration of wealth" that Monsanto and others wield, she says.

Although Lappe and Garcia both worry about genetically altered food and its health effects over the long term, Lappe presents another concern also voiced in the film. "My own theme song about the GMO question is what this says about . . . our demo- cracy." GMOs became "pervasive in our food system with no public debate," says Lappe.

Despite the somber tone of "The Future of Food," there's an optimism to it. Garcia speaks of a "powerful counter-revolution," and adds that "it's a human thing to want good, healthy food."

19 October 2005

GMOs cut greenhouse gas emissions, says new report

GM Watch, 19 October 2005. Monsanto has commissioned a report from PG Economics Ltd. The report was written by the company's directors: Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot. Barfoot also heads an organisation called Bioportfolio which has the motto: 'Serving the biotechnology industry' and both Brookes and Barfoot have a long and controversial history of producing reports that do exactly that. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=308&page=P.

A paper summarising the new report has also been published by the Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics (aka AgBioForum). Although this is being presented to journalists as a peer reviewed journal, it has CS Prakash on its board and it is funded by the Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance whose purpose is "to fund biotechnology research... directed at expanding the volume of profitable businesses in the US food and agricultural sector". http://www.imba.missouri.edu/.

The science in the new report is somewhat less than impressive. It's not even clear where half of their figures come from. Most of the references are presentations at biotech conferences and unpublished articles and very few appear to have been peer reviewed. Some of the cited papers are from PG Economics Ltd itself (whose biotech reports are mostly funded by the biotech industry), the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy (described by an article in Science as 'a pro-GM industry group'), ISAAA (industry funded), etc.

The most outlandish claim in the report is that biotech crops are helping to counter global warming. [Read the full story at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5825].

Rejection of GE food spreads in Eastern Europe

Greenpeace press release, 18 October 2005. Moscow, Russia - Greenpeace today published evidence that consumers and food producers in Poland and Russia have become strong opponents against genetically engineered (GE) food. In Poland, an opinion poll commissioned by Greenpeace shows that 76% of Polish consumers do not wish to eat food products that contain GE ingredients, such as GE soya and GE maize (1). The Russian ConsumersÇ Guide (2) reveals more than 450 food companies in the country that have adopted a GE free policy, among them are well known international brand names, such as Nestlé and Coca-Cola.

The data reinforces earlier reports of consumer rejection of GE food, such as the study by the European Commission showing that only 14% of the European population believes that GE food is safe (3).

"Consumers all over Europe, east and west, are applying common sense and rejecting the genetic experiment with their food," said Geert Ritsema of Greenpeace International.

Greenpeace also published a statement by the Russian Soy Union stating that at present there is no commercial production of GE soya on Russian territory and that the Union "supports a moratorium on the cultivation of transgenic soya in Russia" (4).

Maciej Muskat, Greenpeace Central Eastern Europe campaigner in Poland said: "The food industry has to respect the wishes of Polish consumers and take risky and unwanted GE products off the shelves."

Some international retailers, who operate in Poland, such as the French Géant, have double standards. In Western Europe they have a GE free policy, but in Poland their consumers get no such guarantees. "Such double standards for GE food are inexplicable and unacceptable. Companies must act immediately and apply the same policy across the whole of Europe," said Muskat.

Greenpeace will also step up its campaign against GE food in Russia. Over the last ten months the environmental organisation managed to get 40 Russian food companies to commit to a GE free policy. However, there are still more than 500 companies on the Russian red list in the market. Greenpeace will continue to put pressure on these companies to change their GE policy. Natalia Olefirenko of Greenpeace Russia said: "The Russian Consumer's Guide will be mailed free of charge to every Russian citizen who contacts Greenpeace."

Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.

For more information

Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE campaigner +31 646 197 328
Maciej Muskat, Greenpeace CEE campaigner in Poland: + 48 509 058 651
Natalia Olefirenko, Greenpeace Russia campaigner +7 903 739 4956
Mhairi Dunlop, Greenpeace International Communications +44 7801 212 960

Notes to editors

(1) Opinion poll done by PBS on September 10-11th, 2005, on a representative sample of 1079 citizens: available in Polish and English from Greenpeace International

(2) Russian Consumers' Guide: http://www.greenpeace.ru

(3) European Commission, Special Eurobarometer: Europeans, Science and Technology, June 2005, page 62-64: http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf. This Eurobarometer was conducted between 3 January and 15 February 2005 in 32 European countries: the EU 25, the candidate countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey) and the so called EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Switserland).

(4) In a statement signed by their President Anatoly Ustyuzhanin the Russian Soy Union confirms that "There is currently no commercial production of genetically modified soya on the territory of the Russian Federation. The Soy Union supports a moratorium on the cultivation of transgenic soya in Russia, and promotes the development of production of foodstuffs manufactured from non-genetically modified plant raw materials cultivated in Russia": full statement in Russian and English available from Greenpeace International.

17 October 2005

Doctors oppose release of GMO seeds

Dublin, 17 October 2005. The Irish Doctors' Environmental Association has today called for a ban on the importation of Monsanto's live GMO seeds.

The Association spokesperson Dr. Elizabeth Cullen said "the health risks of introducing genetically modified animal feed and agricultural crops into the food chain need to be as thoroughly researched as the introduction of drugs produced by GM bacteria into medicine. This is patently not the case."

The call follows an EC decision of 31 August to allow the importation of Monsanto's patented genetically modified GT73 rape seed for use as animal feed, despite opposition from the majority of EU member states because of unanswered food and feed safety questions (1). GT73 is very different from other GM animal feedstuffs now widely used by Irish farmers, because it consists of patented living GMO seeds that are certain to produce a crop when spilled. Cross contamination by seed dispersal, volunteers and wind-borne pollen will inevitably infect all wild and cultivated oilseed rape within a matter of years, and may also transmit the modified genes into 11 related food crops including broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and turnips. A handful of spilled GT73 seeds would make it impossible for Irish farmers to grow non-GMO varieties of these food crops within a matter of years. (2)

Thirteen EU member states voted against the legalisation of GT73 following the discovery of a confidential Monsanto feeding study, which revealed potentially adverse effects including a 15% increase in the liver weight in rats. (3)

Monsanto still refuses to make the original data of these studies available for public scrutiny. (4)

GT73 oilseed rape is made tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate (produced by Monsanto under the brand name "Roundup") by introducing into the plant genetic material extracted from two different bacteria and a virus (5). Independent scientists say such transgenic organisms are genetically unstable and that their long-term health and ecological impacts are scientifically impossible to predict.

Serious and specific concerns about the health risks of GT37 have been expressed by the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, the US Center for Food Safety, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Institute for Responsible Technology, the UK Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Austrian Ministry of Health and Women, the Independent Science Panel on GM, the Institute for Science in Society, the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

Health concerns include the results of feeding studies which found an increase in the liver weight of rats, invalid tests for toxicology, and allergenicity tests that depended on widely questioned theoretical assumptions, rather than on actual testing. (6)

Moreover, evidence from the USA, Canada and Argentina shows that the introduction of "Roundup Ready" GM crops significantly increases the use of the weedkiller. This is of particular concern following the publication in June of new scientific evidence that the glyphosate-based herbicide may be 10 times more dangerous than previously known, with toxic effects on human placental cells, hormonal impacts, and lower sperm counts (7).

In 2000 the Government's Interdepartmental Group on Biotechnology recommended a thorough investigation of the health risks of GM foods (8). But in response to a letter from the Irish Doctors' Environmental Association, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland stated that neither it nor the European Commission have any plans to identify possible adverse health impacts from these foods on the human population (9).

At a D·il Debate on GT73 in December 2004, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland admitted that it does not have the capacity to conduct GMO risk assessments, and that it depends on what it is told by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (10)

But the EFSA has itself been widely criticized for failing to conduct comprehensive studies of the health risks of GM foods, and for relying on the risk assessments provided by Monsanto and the other biotech companies it is supposed to regulate. On 6 October, consumer, environmental and health groups across the EU challenged the European Food Safety Authority to fulfil its legal obligations to take into regard the long term safety and scientific uncertainties of GM foods, to review it scientific panels to make them impartial and independent from industry, and to improve its transparency. (11)

"Einstein once said that blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth," said Dr. Cullen. "Ireland should keep its GM-free status before it is contaminated beyond redemption. Genetic engineering of food is an unholy alliance between bad science and big business. The health of the Irish people must not be sacrificed in this no-win scenario."

Contact:

Dr. Elizabeth Cullen ï Irish Doctors Environmental Association ï mobile 086 061 7004

Michael O'Callaghan ï GM-free Ireland Network ï mobile 087 799 4761

Notes for editors

(1) European Commission press release announcing the legalisation of GT73: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php#EUGT73

The EC decision to legalise Monsanto's patented GT73 oilseed rape came despite opposition from a majority of EU Member States in a December 2004 vote in which Environment Minister Dick Roche abstained, thus resulting in failure to reach the so-called Qualified Majority Vote needed to prevent the legalisation. This failure enabled the EC College of Commissioners to approve the controversial seeds against the wishes of the majority on 31 August. The majority voted against the application because of unanswered food and feed safety questions.

In December 2004, EU Environment Ministers voted with a simple majority against the approval of GT73 for use as animal feed. 13 Ministers voted against the approval (135 votes), 6 in favour (78 votes) and 6 abstained - including Ireland (108 votes). Here is the voting record of the 25 EU member states:

For: SK, SE, FR, PT, FI, NL (78 votes)
Against: IT, GR, DK, PO, MT, BE, HU, LT, LV, CY, AT, EE, LU (135 votes)
Abstention: IE (Ireland), SI, ES, DE, CZ, UK (108 votes)
For more info on this vote, visit http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2004/GR_20_Dec_Monsanto.htm

(2) First live GMO animal feed legalized in the EU GM-free Ireland press release, 2 September 2005: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI21.pdf

(3) The official UK government advisors on GM foods and feeds - ACRE and ACAF - have said that they are not satisfied with the explanation that Monsanto has provided for the observed increased liver weight in rats fed GT73. They are are not convinced by EFSA's assurance that GT73 ''is as safe as conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals, and in the context of the proposed uses, for the environment.'' ACAF says it can only draw such conclusion "on receipt of satisfactory data from a further rat-feeding study using 15 per cent oilseed rape meal." Source: Statement by Mr. Elliot Morely, UK Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment. In: minutes of the UK's European Standing Committee A, Tuesday 2 November 2004.

(4) Greenpeace wrote several letters to national authorities to get hold of the Monsanto data on GT73. After Greenpeace won a court case allowing it access to Monsanto's confidential data of feeding trials with GM maize in June 2005, it was expected that the data on the feeding trials with GT73 would be made public; but so far the documents have not been published. Contrary to EU law German officials explicitly refuse access to the data. Greenpeace is awaiting a reaction from the government of the Netherlands, where Monsanto originally filed the data.

(5) GT73 oilseed rape is made tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate (produced by Monsanto under the brand name "Roundup") by introducing into the plant genetic material extracted from two different bacteria (Agrobacterium tumefaciens and Ochrobactrum anthropi, and a modified figwort mosaic virus.

(6) Press release "No to GM Oilseed Rape GT73" published by the Institute of Science in Society on 22 September 2004: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NTGMORGT73.php

(7) Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller, which contains the chemical glyphosate, is the world's most common agricultural herbicide. It is widely used on Irish farms and may also be used in Coilte's monoculture tree plantations.

Genetically modified "Roundup Ready" crops have been responsible for increased use of the herbicide in recent years. Monsanto's sale of glyphosate has expanded approximately 20% each year through the 1990s, accounting for 67% of the company's total sales as of 200l. More Glyphosate is now being introduced into the environment and the human food chain through cultivation of GMO crops that are tolerant to the herbicide and contain glyphosate residues.

A recent study of Roundup presents new evidence that the glyphosate-based herbicide is far more toxic than the active ingredient alone. The study, published in the June 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, (Sophie Richard, Safa Moslemi, Herbert Sipahutar, Nora Benachour, and Gilles-Eric Seralini, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 6 June 2005, http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7728/7728.html and http://ga4.org/ct/k71TIKE1WzfS/) reports glyphosate toxicity to human placental cells within hours of exposure, at levels ten times lower than those found in agricultural use. The researchers also tested glyphosate and Roundup at lower concentrations for effects on sexual hormones, reporting effects at very low levels. This suggests that dilution with other ingredients in Roundup may, in fact, facilitate glyphosate's hormonal impacts.

Roundup is a mixture of glyphosate and other chemicals (commonly referred to as "inerts") designed to increase the herbicide's penetration into the target and its toxic effect. Since inerts are not listed as "active ingredients" the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not assess their health or environmental impacts, despite the fact that more than 300 chemicals on EPA's list of pesticide inert ingredients are or were once registered as pesticide active ingredients, and that inert ingredients often account for more than 50% of the pesticide product by volume.

(8) Report of the Interdepartmental Group on Modern Biotechnology, published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, October 2000:

"We recommend that independent generic research (not limited to any particular product) be conducted in this country into all aspects of GMOs including human health and safety, animal feed and live crops, and the effects of GMOs on the environment, including wildlife and biodiversity, having regard to our distinctive climate and geological conditions."

(9) Letter from Dr. Pat O'Mahoney, Chief Biotechnology Specialist, Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) to Dr. Elizabeth Cullen, Irish Doctors' Environmental Association, 8 August 2005:

"In response to your recent letter, I can inform you that neither the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, nor the European Commission, as far as I am aware, have any immediate plans to implement surveillance activity to identify possible adverse health impacts on the human population from genetically engineered foods."

(10) Transcript of the D·il Debate: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMO-24november2004.pdf

(11) See: http://www.efsa.eu.int/stakeholder_stakeholder_consultative_platform

Ten demands for the reform of the EFSA are supported by the European Public Health Alliance, Eurocoop, the European Environmental Bureau, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. The demands can be downloaded from: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf

On 6 October 2005 Greenpeace published a new scientific report on the risk assessment by the EFSA of a GM crop made by Swiss-based Syngenta, called Bt11. The Authority gave the green light in May 2005 to the cultivation of this maize, which could become the first GM plant allowed for growing in the EU since 1998. A gene from a soil bacteria was introduced in the maize genome to make it produce an insecticidal toxin. The new Greenpeace report shows that no serious investigation was conducted on the toxicity of this GM maize or its impact on the environment, such as detrimental effects on useful or protected insect species. Furthermore, already published scientific results on possible negative environmental consequences of this GM maize were widely ignored by EFSA. The report can be downloaded at:

In November 2004 Friends of the Earth published "Throwing caution to the wind", a detailed critique of the EFSA and its work on GM foods. The report can be downloaded here: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

Background information GT73

A full transcript of the Irish Parliamentary debate of 24 November 2004 on Monsanto's GT73:
www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMO-24november2004.pdf

The GM-free Ireland Network Briefing paper submitted for the Irish Parliamentary debate on 24 November 2004:
www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/briefings/GMFIbriefing1.pdf

Comprehensive fact sheet on GT73:
www.saveourseeds.org/dossier/fact_sheet_GT73.htm

European Commission press release announcing the legalisation of GT73:
www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php#EUGT73

UK Defra summary of concerns on GT73 (July 2004):
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice36.pdf

The official UK government advisors on GM foods and feeds ‚ ACRE and ACAF ‚ have said that they are not satisfied with the explanation that Monsanto has provided for the observed increased liver weight in rats fed GT73. They are are not convinced by EFSA's assurance that GT73 "is as safe as conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals, and in the context of the proposed uses, for the environment." ACAF says it can only draw such conclusion "on receipt of satisfactory data from a further rat-feeding study using 15 per cent oilseed rape meal." Source: Statement by Mr. Elliot Morely, UK Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment. In: minutes of the UK's European Standing Committee A, Tuesday 2 November 2004.

Greenpeace wrote several letters to national authorities to get hold of the Monsanto data on GT73. After Greenpeace won a court case allowing it access to Monsanto's confidential data of feeding trials with GM maize in June 2005, it was expected that the data on the feeding trials with GT73 would be made public; but so far the documents have not been published. Contrary to EU law German officials explicitly refuse access to the data. Greenpeace is awaiting a reaction from the government of the Netherlands, where Monsanto originally filed the data.

Reports on spread of GM oilseed rape in Japanese ports as result of spilled imports:
www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/oilseed_rape_in_japanese_ports_2005.pdf

Austrian Office for the Environment (UBA): Risk Assessment of GMO products in the EU ‚ Detailed analysis of toxicity assessment, allergenicity assessment and substantial equivalence in practice (July 2004):
www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/publikationen/BE253.pdf

Institute for Science in Society: No to GM Oilseed Rape GT73 (September 2004) Description of GT73 and why it should be rejected by Prof. Joe Cummins, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Ching:
www.i-sis.org.uk/NTGMORGT73.php

Greenpeace critique of EFSA opinion on GT73: Greenpeace technical critique of EFSA Opinion on Monsanto's Roundup Ready Oilseed Rape, GT73i which you can download from
www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/Greenpeace/GPTechCritiqueOfEFSAOpinion.pdf

Friends of the Earth critique of EFSA opinion on GT73: letter to the UK Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural affairs on 11 June 2004. Details may be found on page 10 of the Forging a GM Policy for Ireland briefing to the Irish Parliament on 24 November 2004, which you can download from
www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/briefings/GMFIbriefing1.pdf

14 October 2005

UN World Food Day - Asians Call for Ban on GE Rice

Greenpeace press release. Bangkok, 14 October 2005 -- A coalition of 17 organisations from across Asia today issued a World Food Day statement calling for a global ban on the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) rice.

"Rice is the world's most important staple food crop and we simply cannot allow a small number of biotech companies and GE scientists to determine the future of rice development," said Varoonvarn Svangsopakul of Greenpeace Southeast Asia. "GE rice is not a solution to world hunger. It poses unacceptable risks to health and the environment, as well as people's livelihoods."

The aggressive push from biotechnology companies wanting to introduce GE rice in Asia is facing increasing criticism from civil society organisations concerned about negative impacts on farmers, on the environment, health and agricultural sustainability.

The theme of this year's World Food Day sponsored by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is Agriculture and intercultural dialogue - celebrating the contribution of different cultures to world agriculture.

"GE rice poses threats to the centre of origin and diversity of rice in Asia, as well as the cultural diversity of rice-growing communities across the region. The introduction of GE rice is contradictory to the theme of this year's World Food Day celebration," said Dr Suman Sahai from Gene Campaign, India.

"The real way forward for sustainable agriculture and solution for hunger is through the protection and use of biodiversity rather than genetic engineering, and the promotion of ecological agriculture based on the traditional knowledge of farming communities," said Paul Borja, SEARICE, based in the Philippines.

"Bangladesh farmers have a long tradition of maintaining local rice diversity and they are resisting Syngenta's move to introduce Golden Rice," said Palash Baral, from UBINIG Bangladesh.

"With breeding and growing local rice varieties, Thailand farmers are able to enjoy nutritious food and stabilize their income," said Supanee Taneewut, RRAFA, Thailand.

Following a 2-day meeting outside Bangkok, representatives from 10 rice growing countries wearing traditional dresses will today deliver the GE-Free Rice Declaration to the FAO headquarters in Bangkok, along with a collection of rice varieties as a demonstration of the importance of maintaining rice diversity.

In the declaration, the group called for a ban on the development and cultivation of GE rice, and called upon the FAO to cease support for GE crops, and to instead support the development of sustainable, ecologically sound farming systems."

For further information contact

Uaphan Chamnan-Ua, Greenpeace Southeast Asia media officer: + 661 928 2426
Varoonvarn Svangsopakul, Greenpeace Southeast Asia campaigner: + 661 929 7373

Photos available

Greenpeace International Photo Desk, John Novis, + 31 653 819 121

Environment threatened by free trade laws
Better alternatives to the WTO exist, says new research

Friends of the Earth Europe - Greenpeace press release, 14 October 2005. Brussels/Geneva. The World Trade Organisation is the worst possible place to protect international environmental agreements from free trade rules, new research published today reveals (1). The report "Is the WTO way the only way?" is published as government officials meet in Geneva (2) in a desperate attempt to reach agreement on a global trade deal before the WTO Ministerial Conference in December in Hong Kong.

The report, published by Adelphi Consult, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace, highlights how international agreements to protect the environment are threatened by current negotiations at the World Trade Organization. It shows that there are effective and viable ways to safeguard environmental agreements from trade rules outside the WTO, notably the International Court of Justice and the United Nations.

The report also investigates how the WTO deals with environmental related trade disputes. The latest high-profile transatlantic row between Europe and the United States, Canada and Argentina is over genetically modified organisms (GMOs or GM food). The US-led complaint argues that Europe's reluctance to embrace GM foods is damaging their farmers and is a barrier to trade. The report assessment concludes that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism proves overly secretive, lacks environmental expertise and is severely limiting the involvement of the public, including the press. It is thus not suited to deal with disputes such as the one on GM. The report looks instead at a number of alternative options for settling disputes. It recommends that to uphold environmental agreements, the United Nations or the International Court of Justice are better venues for resolving trade disputes with environmental impacts than the WTO. (1)

Friends of the Earth trade campaigner Alexandra Wandel said:

"The World Trade Organisation must get its hands off our environment. The World Trade Organisation is the wrong place to decide how we set environmental protection rules. The report outlines alternatives to the WTO which governments should pursue now."

Greenpeace International's Trade Policy Advisor Daniel Mittler, concludes: "Governments must act now to ensure that laws that protect people and the environment cannot be undermined by the WTO. They claim that no alternatives to the WTO exist. This report shows that they are lying."

Contacts

Alexandra Wandel, Trade Programme Co-ordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe +49 172 748 3953

Adrian Bebb, GMO Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe +49 1609 490 1163

Daniel Mittler, Trade Policy Advisor, Greenpeace International, +49 171 876 5345

Notes to editors

1. The report, "Is the WTO way the only way? Safeguarding Multilateral Environmental Agreements from international trade rules and settling trade and environment disputes outside the WTO" is published by Adelphi Consult, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace. It is available to download from:
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/alternatives_WTOdisputes.pdf

2. A special negotiating session of the Committee on Trade and Environment discussing the relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and Trade Rules is taking place in Geneva on Friday 14 October 2005. Governments had launched negotiations on MEAs as part of the Doha round of negotiations in November 2001.

WTO ruling on GMOs delayed until January 2006

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development / Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 5 October 2005. The WTO dispute panel adjudicating the case brought by the US, Canada, and Argentina against EU regulations on genetically-modified products has once again pushed back the date for issuing its preliminary ruling, this time to January 2006. Panel Chair Christian Haberli informed the parties to the dispute on 3 October that the panel would be unable to meet the 10 October deadline that it had announced in July (see BRIDGES Weekly, 3 Aug 2005, www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-08-03/wtoinbrief.htm#2). This means that the much-awaited ruling will not be released before the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in December.

The controversial case springs from the complainants' allegation that the EU's failure to approve any genetically-modified organisms (GMO) between 1998 and 2004 constitutes a de facto moratorium that, along with marketing and import bans within the EU, is not scientifically justified and thus contrary to WTO rules. Some see the dispute as a test case for how the WTO will deal with precautionary decision-making. The panel was originally expected to make its report in September 2004.

Haberli's statement cited the same reasons that had been given in the previous three postponements, namely that the panel had to consider a large volume of information, including analyses from specialists and experts.

Trade sources speculate that the ruling was delayed out of fear that its findings could adversely affect negotiations in Hong Kong, especially given that civil society reactions to the verdict are expected to be significant.

GM Crop 'Ruins Fields For 15 Years'

The Independent - UK, 9 October 2005. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. GM crops contaminate the countryside for up to 15 years after they've been harvested, startling new government research shows. The findings cast a cloud over the prospects of growing the modified crops in Britain, suggesting that farmers who try them out for one season will find fields blighted for a decade and a half.

Financed by GM companies and Margaret Beckett's Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the report effectively torpedoes the Government's strategy for introducing GM oilseed rape to this country.

Ministers have stipulated that the crops should not be grown until rules are worked out to enable them to "co-exist " with conventional ones. But the research shows that this is effectively impossible.

The study, published by the Royal Society, examined 5 sites across England and Scotland where modified oilseed rape has been cultivated, and found significant amounts of GM plants growing even after the sites had been returned to ordinary crops. It concludes that the research reveals "a potentially serious problem associated with the temporal persistence of rape seeds in soil."

The researchers found that 9 years after a single modified crop, an average of two GM rape plants would grow in every square metre of an affected field. After 15 years, this came down to one plant per square metre - still enough to break the EC limits on permissible GM contamination.

Last night Pete Riley, the director of GM Freeze, said; "It is becoming clearer and clearer that it is going to be impossible to grow GM crops in Britain."

Download the report from www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/other/GMOrapeseed.pdf

10 October 2005

Warning over genetically modified animal feed

Ireland On-line Businesss Headlines, 10 October 2005. Anti-GM campaigners are waging a battle to keep a newly-approved, genetically-modified animal feed, which they warn is a huge threat to the environment and farmers, out of Ireland.

Protesters claim the new oilseed rape feed, which is the first live genetically modified seed to be introduced into the country, will inevitably escape into the wider environment and contaminate crops.

Farming groups have warned that a failure to keep Ireland's crops GM-free will be ëeconomic suicide' for the Irish farmers, with European consumers avoiding products containing the modified foodstuffs.

Last month, EU commissioners approved food giant Monsanto's GT73 oilseed rape for use as animal feed in Europe.

The move followed a Council of Ministers meeting last December, which despite objections from a number of countries, did not reject the Commission's proposal to introduce the feed because of qualified majority procedures.

Minister for the Environment Dick Roche, who was one of several ministers who abstained in the vote, said in January his abstention was in line with the long-standing positive but precautionary approach to modern biotechnology by successive Governments in Ireland.

He also said he had received a favourable opinion of the product from the Environmental Protection Agency

But the GM-Free Ireland Network has launched an emergency campaign to stop the feedstuff' introduction, which it claims could contaminate existing crops, ruin organic farming and violate property rights.

The network's chairman Michael O'Callaghan said: "The concern is although it was legalised as animal feed, it's the first time that any animal feed consists of live genetically modified organisms.

"If a ship arrives in any port with this cargo, inevitably seeds will spill because they're very small, and it would become a crop."

He said if the seeds were to sprout, oil seed rape crops and wild varieties within 26 km ‚ and possibly much further afield ‚ would be contaminated.

There was also the additional threat of cross-pollination with other members of the Brassica family, which includes broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, turnip, radish and mustard, he said.

"If a single shipment of this stuff comes in, all wild and cultivated oilseed rape will inevitably get contaminated within about five years.

"Farmers wouldn't be able to grow non-GM crops," he said.

In addition, there is currently no protection under patent law to prevent Monsanto effectively owning the crops of farmers who find their plants have become contaminated with the GM product, he warned.

Mr O'Callaghan said once the animal feed had sprouted in Ireland, it would be very hard to remove the plants altogether, "short of people going out and rooting them up".

"But the problem with oil seed rape comes because it's also a wild plant in Ireland ‚ it will get in one way or another unless steps are taken to prevent it."

The GM-Free Ireland Network, which represents more than 32,000 farmers, food producers, retailers, restaurants, hotels, NGOs and consumers, is calling for the Government to ban the product and for Irish regions to become GM free in the same way as areas such as Tuscany have.

Mr O'Callaghan said the network had written to the Taoiseach and every TD, Senator and MEP in Ireland demanding immediate action, and had gained the support of a number of TDs from different parties as well as farmers and farming unions.

John Heney, rural development chairman for the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, said while it was already virtually impossible to avoid giving GM feedstuffs to animals in Ireland, there were currently no live crops grown and it would be easy for the country to be GM-free,

Mr Heney, a cattle farmer from Co Tipperary, said all that would change with the introduction of the seed, which would be a huge threat to Ireland's bio-integrity.

"This will be the first really big threat to our environment ‚ it's a live seed, it will make its way into the natural environment."

"There will be spillage near the ports and we will have GM making its way in the wild.

"That's another big step on the GM road and it's very worrying."

He said consumers were increasingly against buying genetically modified products and it would be in the interests of Irish farmers to keep their products GM-free.

"From a marketing point of view the only hope we have as farmers is to supply a premium product in a quality market."

Mr Heney said farmers had a lot to lose and nothing to gain from GM products, which were only being pushed by big business.

"From a farming interest point of view it is economic suicide to go down the GM road," he said.

Genetically engineered organisms out of control in Romania
Ex-Monsanto director speaks out

Greenpeace press release, Bucharest, 10 October 2005 - Massive illegal cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) crops threatens farmers and the economy in Romania. At a Greenpeace press conference today in Bucharest, Monsanto's former general manager in Romania warned that Romanian authorities have totally lost control over genetically modified organisms in the country.

During a research tour in Romania, Greenpeace discovered illegal growing of GE soya in ten counties of the country's total 42. Greenpeace presented findings (1) that prove that Romanian authorities have lost control over the situation. Romania, a future member of the EU, is the only country in Europe where planting of the controversial Roundup Ready (RR) soya is allowed. The country has the largest GE-cultivated landscape in Europe; officially half the 140,000 hectares of soya planted in 2005 is registered to be GE. However, according to representatives of farmers' associations and even biotech giant Monsanto's former Romanian manager, up to 90% of soya is GE. The core of the problem is due to genetically engineered crops contaminating the traditional cultures, as well as the illegal selling of GE soya seeds.

Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace Central-Eastern European (CEE) campaigner in Romania said: "In the past few months we have found GE potatoes, GE plums and now it turns out that even the commercial planting of GE soya happens illegally. What's next? The Romanian government must act immediately and take back control of the situation."

Mr. Dragos Dima, former Monsanto general manager in Romania agrees with the fears. Speaking at the press conference, he said: "Such a huge surface of uncertified GM soya is not tolerable due to lack of monitoring and control systems. I left the company because I expressed my concerns regarding the introduction of GM technology in Romania. I believed that neither Romania nor the company were ready and able to monitor and control the GM technology. Unfortunately, the management has not listened to my concerns and the situation today shows a total lack of control over the GM technology."

Mr. Dima left Monsanto in December 1998, while GE soy was introduced in Romania in 1999.

"Monsanto knowingly pushed Romania in a technology that had to lead to a situation out of control. Romanian farmers and food companies now have to suffer the economic consequences," added Paun.

Since their introduction in 1996, GE crops have contaminated food, feed, seed and the environment right across the globe. Worldwide over 100 incidents of illegal or unlabelled GE contamination have been documented in 27 countries on 5 continents - and those represent only the recorded incidents. For more information visit www.gmocontaminationregister.org

Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.

Further information

Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace CEE campaigner in Romania, phone: +40 744 351977
Anamaria Bogdan, Greenpeace CEE Media in Romania, phone: +40 0721 632396
Susanne Fromwald, Greenpeace CEE scientist in Austria, phone: +43 664 6126706

Notes to editors

(1) The report "A Documentation of Contamination and Illegal GM Soya cultivation in Romania" in Romanian language is based on findings of Greenpeace in August 2005. Analytical results mentioned in the report were done by the Umweltbundesamt, an independent, EU-certified laboratory for polymerase chain reactions, PCRs, in Vienna, Austria. PCR analysis is a genetic test for plants or food to see whether genetic modifications are present in a specific sample.

(2) If they want to plant Roundup Ready soya, farmers only need to register with the authorities. It only is considered illegal as if they don't register.

Contact

Judit L. Kalovits, Greenpeace International Communications
Cellular: +31.621.296.914.
Mail: judit.kalovits@int.greenpeace.org

6 October 2005

Europe's Food Safety Authority challenged as new stakeholder initiative begins

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, Brussels/Parma, 6th October 2005 - Consumer, environmental and health groups have today challenged the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to put public and environmental safety before commercial interests. The call comes as the EFSA begins a new Stakeholder Platform in Parma, Italy.(1)

The organisations welcome the initiative by EFSA to listen to the views of stakeholders but urge EFSA to make serious changes in its work and procedures. In particular the groups are highly critical of the EFSA's work on genetically modified foods (GMOs).

The consumer, environmental and health groups have today published ten demands for the EFSA (2), calling on it to:

* Fulfil its legal obligations to take into regard the long term safety of foods as well as the scientific uncertainties

* Review its scientific panels to make them impartial and independent from industry

* Improve its transparency and implement its Code of good administration behaviour

Greenpeace have also issued today a new report into the failings of the EFSA's scientific work on genetically modified foods. (3) In November last year Friends of the Earth published a detailed critique of EFSA, accusing it of industry bias. (4) Both organisations call on EFSA to stop releasing any further opinions on GMOs until the problems identified have been sorted out.

According to the European Environmental Bureau, the establishment of the Stakeholders Platform is a welcome step towards improving the relationship between civil society organisations and the Food Safety Authority. However the Authority has to improve its work and procedures to contribute to ensure a high level of protection of health and environment.

Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth said: ""The European Food Safety Authority has clearly made its mind up that genetically modified foods are safe and ignores any evidence or views that question that position. Its opinions to date have constantly supported the biotechnology industry and it disregards voices of concern from either the public or the national member states. It is time there was a major review of the scientists working for the EFSA to make the Authority impartial and independent of industry."

Christoph Then of Greenpeace said: "Potential risks of GM plants have too often been groundlessly dismissed by the EFSA, despite scientific concerns. Our new report on GM maize Bt11 shows that it fails to carry out a full risk assessment of GMOs, as required by EU legislation."

EURO COOP hopes that the Stakeholder Forum will help EFSA in gaining credibility as a risk assessor in the eyes of consumers and food operators.

Contacts:

Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe +49 1609 490 1163
Christoph Then, Greenpeace International +49 171 8780832
Francesco Montanari, EURO COOP +322 285 00 74

Notes to editors

1. For information on the Stakeholder Platform see:
http://www.efsa.eu.int/stakeholder_stakeholder_consultative_platform.

2. The ten demands are supported by the European Public Health Alliance, Eurocoop, the European Environmental Bureau, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. The demands can be downloaded from here:
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf.

3. Greenpeace have published today a new scientific report on the risk assessment by the EFSA of a GM crop made by Swiss-based Syngenta, called Bt11. The Authority gave the green light in May 2005 to the cultivation of this maize, which could become the first GM plant allowed for growing in the EU since 1998. A gene from a soil bacteria was introduced in the maize genome to make it produce an insecticidal toxin. . The new Greenpeace report shows that no serious investigation was conducted on the toxicity of this GM maize or its impact on the environment, such as detrimental effects on useful or protected insect species. Furthermore, already published scientific results on possible negative environmental consequences of this GM maize were widely ignored by EFSA. The report can be downloaded at: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/Bt11reportOct05.pdf.

4. In November 2004 Friends of the Earth published "Throwing caution to the wind", a detailed critique of the EFSA and its work on GM foods. The report can be downloaded here: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf.

EU Court Rejects Austria Attempt for GMO-Free Zone

Reuters News Service, October 6, 2005. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS - A bid by a region of Austria to ban genetically modified (GMO) crops and food suffered another blow on Wednesday when a top EU court rejected an appeal against a 2003 decision that such a ban was illegal.

The Court of First Instance (CFI), the EU's second highest court based in Luxembourg, rejected the four elements of Austria's appeal and ordered it to pay costs.

Acting on behalf of Upper Austria, Vienna informed the European Commission in early 2003 of a draft law to outlaw all GMOs in that region for three years. It was the first attempt by an EU member state to create a legally approved GMO-free zone.

But the ban never entered force as it first needed approval from the Commission which polices the EU's single market.

Then, in September, the Commission ruled that there was no new scientific evidence to justify such a ban -- meaning it would be illegal for Upper Austria to impose one by putting its draft law into force. So Vienna then appealed to the CFI.

"The actions must be dismissed in their entirety," the CFI said in its ruling, obtained by Reuters.

Austria, whose government is known to be sceptical of GMO technology, has two months to appeal against the ruling.

Vienna has consistently rejected all new GMO approvals since December 2003 when the EU restarted GMO voting to try and break an unofficial biotech ban that finally ended in May 2004.

Legal grey area

GMO-free zones are a legal grey area in the EU, where more than 70 percent of consumers do not want biotech foods, fearing the damage that GMO crops may cause to the environment and the potential risks that GMO foods pose for human health.

Their legal basis is unclear since EU law does allow several GMOs such as maize, rapeseed and carnation types to be grown anywhere in the bloc. These were approved before the EU began its five-year moratorium on new GMOs, lifted in May 2004. Upper Austria has been a test case for GMO-free zones in the European Union, whose member governments consistently fail to agree on allowing any new GMO products for import, or growing.

Since the European Commission rejected its request to become GMO-free, more than a hundred regions in countries from Britain to Italy and Greece have banded together in a loose-knit network to try and stop biotech crops being grown in their areas.

But they learnt from the Upper Austria example, using other provisions in EU laws regulating the environment and single market to make their case for a GMO-free zone.

"The movement against genetically modified crops will not be stopped by one legal ruling," said Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe in a statement on Wednesday.

"Thousands of local governments and regions across Europe are voting to ban these unwanted and risky crops."

5 October 2005

European Court of Justice rules against Upper Austrian GMO-ban

GMO Free Regions press release, 5 October 2005. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) today dismissed a complaint of the Region of Upper Austria against the European Commission. The Commission had rejected a draft law of the Austrian Region to generally prohibit the use of genetically modified crops and animals on its territory. Upper Austria wanted a total ban on cultivating genetically modified crops to protect conventional and organic crops, as well as wildlife, from potential contamination. In 2003 the EU Commission refused, arguing Austria had presented no new scientific evidence to support such a ban, and could not opt out of EU-wide rules of GMO risk assessment and approval.

Upper Austrian ministers of agriculture and environment deplored the decision and announced to find other ways to keep the Region GMO free.

The Vice-President of the European Parliament's Agricultural Committee, Graefe zu Baringdorf (Greens) also deplored the decision and called for EU wide regulations which would allow European Regions to ban the use of GMOs. The Courts decision confirmed that present regulations were not sufficient to protect the regional right to self-determination. In addition, zu Baringdorf argued, the decision would only create massive new layers of bureaucracy, as regions and member states would have to ban and restrict the use of each individual GM crop instead of establishing general measures. Co-existence of GM and non-GM crops was unrealistic for small scale farming areas. Friends of the Earth also called for new EU regulations.

Under EU directive 2001/18, risk assessment and general approval of GMOs is to be decided by the Union. However, Article 26a (1) of the directive provides that "Member States may take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products." This so called co-existence clause according to the EU Commission requires that the appropriate measures need to be justified for each individual GMO and does not justify a general ban in a certain region or member state.

After the EU Commission rejected the Upper Austrian GM-prohibition law project in September 2003 (under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty ) other regions have already developed and adopted more specific laws imposing conditions and restrictions for the cultivation of GMOs, which in effect will also prevent the growing of GM crops, but formally avoid a general prohibition.

Friends of the Earth (October 6 2005): Commission urged to review EU law
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/HH_05_Oct_ECJ.htm

European Commission, Press release (September 2003): Commission rejects request to establish a temporary ban on the use of GMOs in Upper Austria
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/1194&forma t=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

European Food Safety Authority comments (July 2003) "on issues relating to human health and the environment and not on other issues such as information relating to the management of co-existence."
http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/178/opinion_gmo_011.pdf

Upper Austrian GMO prohibition law of 2002 (in German)
http://www.saveoruseeds.org/downloads/oberoesterreich_gvo_verbot.pdf

For more details and updates see:

http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/news/news.php
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/countries/austria/austria.html

European Court Overrules ban on GM crops
Commission urged to review EU law

Friends of the Earth Press Release, Brussels, October 5 2005 ‚ Friends of the Earth Europe has called for a new European law that will allow regions to ban genetically modified crops. The call follows today's ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the region of Upper Austria who had introduced a law effectively banning the growing of genetically modified crops (GMOs).

The Genetechnology Prohibition law was passed by Upper Austria's provincial parliament in January 2003. It took a precautionary stance and argued that as long as the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non GM crops was not solved, the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would be banned for a period of three years. [1]

Nearly three years on, the ruling against Upper Austria comes at a time when there are still no EU-wide coexistence measures in place to protect farming and consumers from GMO contamination.

Upper Austria is just one of 164 Regions and 4500 local authorities in the EU to have declared themselves GMO-free. [2]

The European Commission is opposed to GM-free zones and vetoed the Upper Austrian law under Treaty article 95(5), the "environmental guarantee" clause. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published an opinion that stated that no new evidence for health or environmental risks was presented by the Region to justify its law. Friends of the Earth Europe published a damming critique of the EFSA in November 2004, accusing it of bias and going beyond its remit to benefit the biotechnology industry. Since its conception the EFSA has rejected virtually every concern raised by Member States' about the safety of GM foods and crops. [3]

Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said:

"The movement against genetically modified crops will not be stopped by one legal ruling. Thousands of local governments and regions across Europe are voting to ban these unwanted and risky crops. It is time that European law reflected the wishes of the majority and stopped these crops until their safety can be assured. "

For more information contact:

Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe GMO campaign coordinator:
+322 542 01 80
+324 74 857 638 (mobile)

Notes:

[1] The Upper Austria law is still only a draft due to the Commission's refusal to accept it. It was notified under document number C(2003 3117) OJ 2003 L230 p.34 The law was based on a scientific paper written by Werner Mueller of Global 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria) "GVO freie Bewirtschaftungsgebiete: Konzeption und Analyse von Szenarien und Umsetzungsschritten". http://www.eco-risk.at/de/stage1/download.php?offname=gvofreieZonen&extension=pdf&id=4

[2] A map of all GMO-free Regions and country/Regional information can be found at http://www.gmofree-europe.org/

[3] "Throwing caution to the wind: a review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops." Friends of the Earth Europe, November 2004: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

29 September 2005

Ferris rejects Government excuses on GM

Sinn Féin press release, 29 September, 2005. The Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Agriculture and Food, Martin Ferris TD, has rejected as completely inadequate the explanations given for the Irish Government's latest acquiescence in the opening up of this country to Genetically Modified produce. Deputy Ferris was responding to replies to questions he had placed regarding the decision to abstain on an EU vote allowing the importation of a Monsanto patented GM rape seed for use as animal feed.

Deputy Ferris said: "Once again, Environment Minister Dick Roche has followed his predecessors in excusing Ireland's craven attitude towards the GM corporations on the grounds that the statutory authorities here have advised a 'positive but precautionary' approach. Once again he fails to provide any reason why the importation of GM produce might be a positive development in the face of significant scientific evidence to the contrary, as well as overwhelming public opposition.

"Likewise, Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan claims that she is satisfied with the controls available under EU regulations to ensure that a GM animal food will have no negative implications for Irish farming. The very fact that it will further undermine the image of this island as the origin of safe traditionally produced food is negative enough. The real issue, however, is that none of these products ought to be allowed unless they are proven to have benefits that no other has. They do not, and there is no evidence that they do. The only conclusion that can be reached, therefore, is that GM products are being permitted on a purely commercial basis. That is, the commercial interests of the giant GM corporations. As far as the Irish Government is concerned, it would appear that the interests of Irish farmers and consumers come a poor second."

27 September 2005

India's GMO-free soymeal exports to increase

Hindustan Times, Mumbai, September 26, 2005. India's soymeal exports are expected to pick up after a slow start with countries like Japan showing keen interest in the meal because it is non-genetically modified, a leading exporter said on Monday.

India is a key soymeal exporter in the Asian region, traditionally selling to countries like South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan.

"One can estimate about 100,000 tonnes of soymeal sales booked from the new crop so far and in the first week of October bigger sales are on the anvil," Davish Jain, Managing Director of the Indore-based Prestige Group, told Reuters in an interview.

Jain said Japan was keen to pick up more Indian soymeal because of its natural purity.

"The volume of exports for Japanese markets could be doubled or trebled from this year's 250,000-300,000 tonnes if right efforts are made to meet their requirements."

"There is demand from Japan for non-GMO soymeal. India produces this kind of soymeal and does not allow GM seeds."

Read the article: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1501493,00020013.htm

Polish Marshals want GMO-free Poland

On the 9th of September 2005 the Assembly of Marshals of the Polish Provinces (*) issued a statement on the planting of genetically modified plants (GMO) in Poland.

In this statement the Assembly of Marshals has, among other things, agreed that:

• approval for cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can damage the public image of the Polish countryside which nowadays is considered as a source of healthy, ecological and high quality food;

• man can never get total control over the biology of life, and therefore can never prevent the uncontrolled release of GMOs.

• the stated goal of the agri-biotech industry is to increase the efficiency in farming. But the main problem for farmers in Poland as other EU countries, is not to raise efficiency but to be able to sell their produce on the present market

• action needs to be taken for the preservation of the environment and for crop protection against the introduction of genetically modified plants that could cause irreversible change (...)

• in accordance with the statements of consumers, who seek safe and healthy agricultural products, it is necessary to support environmentally friendly food production methods (...)

• the European Union authorities have not taken into account the numerous protests made by local governments in Poland's 13 Provinces and in other European Regions. EC laws (Directive 2001/18/EC and 2002/53/EC) benefits the producers of genetically modified seeds, or or are interpreted as doing so.

The Assembly of Marshals of the Polish Provinces concluded as follows:

a) The Polish Government should prepare a motion to the European Commission to ban the import of genetically modified products in all areas of the country,

b) Polish MEPs will introduce this issue for debate in the European Parliament in order to achieve a ruling which will allow all EU countries to make their own decisions in this very important matter.

(*) The Assembly of Marshals of the Polish Provinces is the opinion-making and advisory body representing the interest of all provinces (Poland is divided into 16 provinces). The Assembly has been holding regular meetings analyzing propositions for changes in the governments' acts and other regulations, as well as discussing the problems of provinces. Each meeting is concluded with common statements that are accepted by all Marshals. Whole statement (in Polish): http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/index.php?id=129

25 September 2005

GMOs and the right of self-determination

Record-bee.com, Lake County, California. By the Lake County Publishing Editorial Board, 23 September 2005. On Tuesday, the board of supervisors will discuss whether or not to accept an ordinance crafted by a local group, Coalition for Responsible Agriculture (CRG) that places a 30-month moratorium on the introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa in Lake County.

Developed by Monsanto, one of the world's largest and most powerful multinational corporations, this alfalfa is meant to be resistant to one of Monsanto's own products, Roundup, a powerful herbicide. The corporation suggests that this will allow growers to use its herbicide to kill weeds while not harming the alfalfa itself.

The government cleared the crop for release in July. Agricultural publications have cited its potential for greater yields and weed resistance; at the same time, concerns have emerged from various corners.

CRG members have compared the seed's introduction to letting a genie out of a bottle; other GMO opponents around the country call the issue a "Pandora's box" that, once opened, can't be closed.

Their concerns aren't isolated. An August article in Kennewick, Wash.'s Tri-City Herald says alfalfa growers in the region's Columbia Basin are concerned that Japanese export markets will reject the crop based on the perception that "the product is unnatural" and could affect both people and the milk from dairy cows that eat the hay.

An August 2004 article from the University of California's Agriculture and Natural Resources Department touts the seed as promising while mentioning "weed shift," a phenomenon in which weeds Roundup doesn't control proliferate, and that certain weeds develop resistance to Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate.

In Lake County where approximately 108,000 acres are devoted to some type of agricultural use less than 100 acres of the crop is grown by a handful of farmers, said agricultural commissioner Steve Hajik.

Hajik said he doesn't know of any local farmers planning to use the seed. While there is, he said, a search on for an alternate crop to pears, the acreage of which continues to decline, he added, "I don't know if alfalfa is it."

It's unlikely that this seed would either be introduced or much used in Lake County, which Chuck March executive director of the Lake County Farm Bureau and a moratorium opponent told us this week.

"It's almost a non-issue in Lake County," he said.

Yet you wouldn't know that by the flood of e-mails we've received from "think tanks" across the country urging us to oppose the moratorium. These groups aren't unbiased; in fact, they're all funded, at least in part, by Monsanto.

When we questioned these groups about their affiliations, and then asked them, "What's the rush?" about introducing the crop, their hard-sell tactics immediately took a harder edge, accusing us of bias.

That told us this matter is less about helping farmers and more about helping Monsanto, and the safety of Lake County's ecosystem doesn't figure anywhere.

For March, the moratorium is "the first step for an all-out ban on GMOs." Such a ban, he said, could prevent positive steps forward in crop development such as winegrapes resistant to Pierce's disease.

"Our whole position is that it (GMOs) should be regulated at the state level, not local," said March. State agencies, like the Department of Food and Agriculture, March said, are better equipped to set GMO regulations, much as they do with pesticides.

Yet, we believe this issue is about self-determination, allowing local citizens and officials to judge products on their merit and benefits, on a case-by-case basis, instead of leaving the decisions to distant, politically charged processes behind closed doors in Sacramento.

This matter requires an approach that blends caution, concern for everyone involved and a respect for the environment.

The Record-Bee supports the 30-month moratorium on Roundup Ready alfalfa. Long-term, careful study and anecdotal evidence in the open market will address concerns about the seed, and tell us if it is truly safe.

We're not saying that we favor a total GMO ban. But we do believe that we need to think carefully before opening a door that, once opened, can never be closed.

The Lake County Publishing Editorial Board includes Publisher Gregg McConnell, Editor Elizabeth Larson, News Editor David Stoneberg and Sports Editor Brian Sumpter

22 September 2005

Modified Feed 'Bad for SA's Meat, Dairy Export Hopes'

Business Day (Johannesburg), September 20, 2005. By Tamar Kahn. CAPE TOWN: South African meat and dairy producers risk losing European export markets if they feed their livestock on genetically modified crops, US author Jeffrey Smith said yesterday.

Smith, the author of Seeds of Deception, is a high-profile campaigner against genetically modified crops, which he says are unsafe for human consumption.

He is touring SA at the invitation of the local activist group Safeage, which is lobbying for a total ban on these products.

"There is a massive rejection of genetically modified ingredients in human food in Europe, and growing demand that animals are fed on conventional crops," said Smith.

"The strengthening of labelling laws means the market for genetically modified crops worldwide is decreasing. To invest in it now could be a financial, health and environmental disaster."

The European Union required animal and human food to be labelled if it contained more than 0,9% genetically modified ingredients, but a legal loophole meant products derived from animals fed on genetically modified crops did not require labels, said Greenpeace policy adviser Eric Gall.

He said European consumer pressure had driven French supermarket group Carrefour to agree to phase out poultry and pork raised on genetically modified feed.

Of 1000 Britons polled in August 2003 in a study commissioned by Greenpeace, 77% said they would prefer to eat or buy dairy, meat or fish products fed on a nongenetically modified diet.

However, Smith's remarks were dismissed by the South African Meat Exporters Council's executive director Manie Booysens, who said SA was a net importer of meat.

"We don't export anything at all, and if we did, we'd prefer to export to the Middle East."

Booysens said a handful of meat producers had exported to niche markets in Europe on a short-term basis, but the industry generally preferred to source customers in the Southern African Development Community.

Smith said insufficient research had been conducted on the safety of genetically modified crops.

"What the industry does not do is criminal," he said, dismissing industry claims that genetically modified crops had been more extensively tested than any other food in human history.

Too few of the crop tests considered human safety issues, as most tests considered agricultural issues such as crop yields and pest resistance, he said. "I'm hoping to bring information to SA about the dangers of genetically modified foods and crops, and the means by which industry manipulation and political collusion, not sound science, were responsible for their approval in the US and Europe.

"It is a myth that if there were serious problems with genetically engineered food, everyone would know about it because everyone is eating it. Any common problem, or one that is mild, or takes a long time to show up, would be next to impossible to identify," he said.

SA produces genetically modified maize, soy and cotton on a commercial scale.

21 September 2005

EU farm ministers deadlocked over GMO maize approval

Reuters News Service, Sep 20, 2005 - By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU agriculture ministers fell short of a required majority vote on Tuesday to authorise imports of a genetically modified (GMO) maize, again revealing their deep divisions over biotech foods, officials said.

The maize, known by its code number 1507, is jointly made by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co., and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen Seeds. Their application is for import and processing for animal feed use.

It is modified to resist certain insects and herbicides.

Denmark, usually a staunch opponent of GMO foods, changed its position and voted in favor of authorization but this was not enough to alter the balance between the EU-25's "pro" and "anti" GMO camps under the EU's weighted voting system, he said.

While the requested use is not cultivation, Pioneer/Mycogen have also submitted a separate application for growing. But there is no date set for a debate on this by technical experts ó the first stage in the EU authorization process.

The ministers' failure to agree either to approve or reject the application means that an authorization is likely to be rubber-stamped by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, within the next month or so.

This is allowed under EU law when ministers are unable to reach a consensus on a GMO approval when there has also been a inconclusive vote by EU-25 national experts. This happened in May with 1507 maize when environment experts could not agree.

Despite last year's lifting of an effective biotech moratorium by a legal default procedure, EU countries have not managed to agree by themselves on a GMO approval since 1998 ó although Denmark's change in position has reduced the minority number of EU countries that are able to block an authorization.

Luxembourg, Greece and Austria are other members of this group and consistently vote against GMO approvals. They are offset by countries like Britain, Finland and the Netherlands that almost always vote in favor. Others sit on the fence, or vary their vote according to the product concerned. "It's heartening that more member states voted positively this time than in the regulatory (experts') committee," said Mike Hall, European Communications Manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred.

"Just as Denmark was one of the countries responsible for the moratorium, it's heartening to see they have voted in recognition of the EU's science-based evaluation of this product," he told Reuters.

In Europe, consumers have been far more reluctant than in the U.S. to accept GMO products, while manufacturers of GMO foods insist they are safe.

Don't trust favourable GM reports - expert

The Star (South Africa), 20 September 2005. By Penny Sukhraj. An author on a mission to expose the dangers of genetically modified food has arrived in South Africa with tales of corporate espionage and biotech bullies.

"If there was no deception in the United States (about GM food), I would not be here," Jeffrey Smith said on Saturday.

The bestselling writer, who is at the forefront of the fight against GM foods with his international exposÈ Seeds of Deception, is touring the African continent, raising awareness of the dangers of GM foods.

Smith is founding director of the US-based Institute for Responsible Technology.

It took a lecture on harmful effects of GM foods 10 years to stir him to educate people on issues of genetically modified organisms (GMO), a topic immersed in technical jargon with ultimately little concern for the consumer, who is most affected.

Smith worked in the industry for a laboratory involved in GMO detection and wrote his book after he left the industry.

The work reads like a thriller, with stories of how international biotech corporations bribed officials and even threatened scientists who exposed the harmful effects of GM foods.

He has also documented how evidence, proving the unpredictable dangers, side-effects and by-products of GM foods, was stolen.

Even research documents were fudged, with crucial chunks of data which would hinder or prevent the approval of GM foods, omitted.

There is little debate about genetic modification in South Africa, where GM products include about 10 percent of maize, 30 percent of soya and up to 80 percent of cotton. Consumers are unaware of the ultimate dangers of splicing genes of one species and inserting them into another.

It is in this naive context, said Smith, that companies like giant multinational Monsanto - primarily responsible for pushing GM foods globally - are targeting developing nations.

"Countries like South Africa are seen as launch points for the developing world. South Africa appears to be hijacked in much the same way US regulatory agencies have been hijacked.

Smith has documented cases of blatant industry collusion and exposed the enormous food safety risks which have come as a result of corrupt methods of approving GM foods.

"Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven out of 40 died in two weeks. Despite this, the crop was approved without further testing," said Smith, warning that Africa's leaders should look critically at research presented by those in the biotech industry.

"We should enforce a ban on GM foods, but there is so much money and political power in this, it may take dead bodies to change the situation," he said.

Militant French Farmer On Trial For Destroying GMO Crop

Associated Press, 20 September 2005. TOULOUSE, France (AP)--France's best-known farmer, Jose >Bové, was greeted by applause Tuesday as he and eight others entered a courthouse to stand trial for ripping up a field of genetically modified corn.

Bové and the other defendants, including Green Party lawmaker Noel Mamere, face prison terms and fines if convicted of uprooting a crop in July 2004 that belonged to U.S. seed company which is a subsidiary of E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DD).

Dozens of supporters, some in masks, greeted the defendants at the courthouse in the southern city of Toulouse, vowing to continue their mission.

>Bové, as a repeat offender, faces a 10-year prison term and EUR150,000 fine. The mustachioed sheep farmer served just over a month in prison in 2003 for destroying a field of GMO corn and rice crops. He is most famous for ransacking a McDonald's (MCD) restaurant in 1999 that was under construction in southern France.

The eight other defendants each face five years in prison and a EUR75,000 fine. The trial ends Wednesday.

The crop they attacked in the town of Menville belonged to Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., based in Johnston, Iowa. At the time Bove called it an act of "civil disobedience" and said others would follow.

"Eat Safe, Eat Smart Buy-Cott" Puts Consumers' Mouth Where Their Money Is
Health Freedom Organization Says "No" to GMOs

"Why Buy What Can Kill You? Eat Safe, Eat Smart" Says The Natural Solutions Foundation which is inviting consumers to participate in a nation-wide "Say No to GMO Buy-Cott" and purchase safe, natural foods in place of Genetically Modified (GMOs) ones.

(PRWEB Press Release) September 20, 2005 -- "Eat Safe, Eat Smart" means saying "No" to Genetically Modified Foods, according to the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF), a leading Health Freedom organization. Unlike a Boycott, which tells people what not to purchase, a "Buy-Cott" is an affirmative action giving consumers positive options for their purchases.

Reacting to the concerns of consumers who are uncomfortable eating untested, experimental foods with biotech modifications Mother Nature never thought of, Natural Solutions Foundation reminds them that they now have an option. They can join others around the country in purchasing natural foods which have not been genetically modified and supporting companies that make non GMO foods. This requires special vigilance in the US since the unlabeled use of GMOs in the food supply is legal despite the large numbers of emerging health and environmental hazards associated with their long-term consumption.

Although the US does not require Biotech companies to demonstrate that their GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) foods are safe for either humans or the environment, an emerging body of disturbing scientific evidence shows that consuming these foods can damage every organ system in the body. Glyphosate, widely used in GMO crops (Roundup (C)) for example, is known to double the rate of spontaneous abortions, increase pediatric neurological disorders, is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal, blood toxicities, birth defects and cancer.
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/documents/science/ISP/GM%20Forest%20Trees.pdf

Consumers are increasingly leery of unlabeled, untested GMOs mixed into their food supply. The "Eat Safe, Eat Smart Buy-Cott" offers practical, simple and easy steps for making the shift from the so-called "Frankenfoods" to natural, uncontaminated foods by offering the names of companies which do not use GMOs and suggesting simple ways to make sure food is GMO free.

Consumers are increasingly aware that GMOs do not have to be tested for safety before being approved for release onto farms and into the food supply. Instead, corporate science (which can be suppressed if unfavorable) has mixed foods with randomly inserted mutating genes, into the American food supply. They is a growing awareness that the results of independent safety studies, when conducted, have been dismal. http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm

Other than glowing corporate praise, little science suggests that these untested foods are safe.http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html Toxic crops, GMO crops which suppress human immune function, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/GM-AIDS-Deadly-Ho.htm, and unexpected results from GMOs unpredictable genetic instability are cause for serious concern. Even the determination of "substantial equivalence" (assuring that food sensory qualities resemble unmodified food) is voluntary.

The Natural Solutions Foundation,http:/www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, a leading broadly-focused Health Freedom organization, is devoted to preserving Natural Health options including helping consumers to make informed food and health choices. The "Eat Safe, Eat Smart Buy-Cott" empowers consumers to "put their mouths where their money is" by purchasing and eating safe food while simultaneously supporting the market for unaltered, untested and potentially deadly foods.

Unlabeled use of GMOs (never evaluated for safety) is now routine in the US since most soy (85%) and canola oil (54%) are GMOs. Large amounts of corn (45%), wheat, potatoes, papaya and increasing amounts of beets, sweet potatoes, squash and an increasing number of other crops are GMOs. The US is the world's leading producer of GMO crops and 63% of the world's GMO cultivation occurs here. http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/display.php3?FactsheetID=2

The Natural Solutions Foundation, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, offers concerned Americans information and options for democratic action and consumer choices to preserve, protect and defend their health freedom by focusing on Codex Alimentarius, GMO-free food options and health-related legislative alerts.

17 September 2005

EU to Debate Approving Two New GMO Maizes Next Week

Reuters News Service, 16 September 2005. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS - Genetically modified (GMO) foods return to the European Union's menu next week when experts and ministers consider authorising two new GMO maizes and maybe break the EU's biotech deadlock, officials said on Thursday.

Little progress is expected in either debate that would tip the balance of the EU's "pro" and "anti" camps, they said. This means that under EU law, the European Commission would eventually end up issuing a rubberstamp approval for both GMOs.

Despite last year's lifting of an effective biotech moratorium by a legal default procedure, EU countries have not managed to agree by themselves on a GMO approval since 1998.

The first maize up for debate, by a panel of EU-25 environment experts on Monday, is a hybrid GMO made by US biotech giant Monsanto for use in industrial processing.

This is a cross between two distinct maize types known as MON 863, which can provide plant protection against certain pests, specifically corn rootworm, and MON 810, which is resistant to other pests such as caterpillars and certain worms.

Producing hybrid maize involves making separate lines that are then crossed to make a hybrid seed, allowing for desirable traits to be selected to enhance agricultural performance.

The second GMO maize will be discussed by EU farm ministers on Tuesday after a inconclusive vote by environment experts in May that led to the dossier being escalated to ministers.

Very little has changed in voting positions since then.

"I don't expect any changes in those positions. I expect the Council (of EU ministers) to reach its non-decision very quickly," a senior British official representing the current EU presidency told a news briefing.

That maize, known by its code number 1507, is jointly made by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co., and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen Seeds. Their application is for import and processing for animal feed use.

In Europe, consumers have been far more reluctant than in the US to accept GMO products, often dubbed as "Frankenstein foods", while manufacturers of GMO foods insist they are safe.

16 September 2005

GM crop contamination may spark review

AAP / The Age, Thursday, September 15, 2005. AUSTRALIA. The federal and state governments are being urged to consider national liability laws after canola [oilseed rape] crops in four states were contaminated with genetically modified (GM) material.

The West Australian government said the legal framework surrounding the GM technology and its escape into GM-free crops needed an urgent review in the wake of the nation's biggest ever contamination cases.

It was revealed that millions of canola seedlings in NSW have been destroyed after one variety in a crop trial was found to be genetically modified.

The case follows trace levels of Bayer CropScience's herbicide resistant canola turning up in GM-free crops in Victoria and South Australia.

And WA Agriculture Minister Kim Chance announced on Wednesday, that trace levels of GM canola had been found in two canola varieties being grown in GM-free trials in the state.

"Fortunately, the low trace level of GM material means there is no immediate threat to access to overseas markets or the environment," Mr Chance said.

"Because the trace levels are so low, I am allowing the variety trials to be completed as they will provide valuable information. If these trials presented any danger to our reputation I would not allow them to continue," Mr Chance said.

The level of contamination was well below the standards set by health authorities and dictated by GM-free markets, but Mr Chance said current legislation needed reviewing to clarify liability for future and much bigger levels of contamination.

"The Commonwealth claim to have actually done that and said they were satisfied there was an adequate legal framework," Mr Chance told AAP.

"But they're saying you can rely, for most of the issues, on common law.

"It's currently hopeless, and the only way you can resolve those difficult questions (surrounding crop contamination) is not by resort to the common law, it's by resort to the statutory law."

Mr Chance said GM proponents and bioscience companies should support his call because the states would not lift their moratoria on commercial GM food crops without legal certainty.

"Until we have assurances that we have an adequate legal framework, no state jurisdiction is ever going to lift their moratorium," he said.

"They know bloody well that if you can't find an answer in common law it's going to come to the state to find the solution. We don't want that problem, thank you." Queensland is the only state that does not have a moratorium in place on commercial GM food crops, with the other states and territories maintaining bans until at least next year.

The NSW government announced this week it would extend its moratorium to 2008, but said it was reluctant to endorse federal liability laws.

"Does it apply to a farmer who unwittingly does something or does it apply to the companies that supply the seed or does it apply to the companies who maybe supply the seed from overseas. Where does that rest?" Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald asked on ABC radio.

"They are issues that are quite complex and really have to be discussed." Monsanto Australia, whose GM cotton varieties are used in crops in Queensland and NSW, said the existing laws and regulations were enough.

"Manufacturers, including GM crop developers, are liable for their crops under existing liability and common law rules," a Monsanto spokesman said.

"Strict liability laws are specifically for products that are regarded as dangerous or risky and that doesn't apply to technology which is carefully assessed and only released once it's been approved by a federal regulator."

Bayer CropScience declined to comment on the matter.

The peak grain growers group, the Grains Council of Australia, also rejected the call for national liability legislation, saying it would be an unreasonable burden on the technology and on farmers.

Mr Chance will urge agriculture ministers to consider the issue at the Primary Industry Ministerial Council Meeting in Launceston on October 26.

Comment was being sought from federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran.

France likely to use Spanish GM laws

AGRA Presse / Le Figaro, 16 September 2005. On July 19, the Spanish government published a royal decree that regulated the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional or organic crops. It marks the desire of the Zapatero government to strictly control GM crops in Spain, in contrast to the Aznar administration - which was less strict, with laws comparable to the United States, where GM crops do not have a special status.

There is good reason to bet that French regulations will be influenced by the Spanish laws. Actually, this is the only country in Europe that cultivates GM crops on a large scale (80.000 hectares of GM maize in 2005), and it is where French experts, in particular from Inra (http://w3.inra.fr/), have studied the risk cross-contamination by GM crops for several years. Since observing Spanish GM field trials, the French have been constructing practical models.

Spanish regulations

To start in future, the Spanish farmer - willing to cultivate GM crops - needs to warn the authorized authorities one month in advance and has to specify the variety and the introduced gene in the culture of interest. The farmer must adhere to specific rules for the preparation of the seed, the surveillance of fields, and the cultivation of the harvest. A security distance of 50 meters has to be kept between the fields of GM crops and other crops. The seeding period of the GM crops has to be declared compared to conventional varieties in order to prevent cross-pollination during blossoming. In addition, a buffer area of four rows of conventional maize, that is labeled as GMO, has to surround the GM field. In the case of maize resistant to the leaf-folder, 20 percent of the GM parcel has to be sown by conventional maize to hinder the development of resistance to the insect.

Additional regulations

The farmers must participate in education programs concerning GM cultivation. If a variety is deemed to be a source of contamination, it could be cancelled from the national register. Finally, the authorized persons from a region are charged with supervising whether the measures are well met.

11 September 2005

EU to consider GMO crop-growing laws after April

Reuters News Service. LONDON, Sept 11 2005. By Jeremy Smith. Europe's farm chief will wait until at least next April to decide whether to draft rules to tell farmers how to separate traditional, organic and genetically modified (GMO) crops, she said on Sunday.

So far, the European Commission has said the EU's 25 member states must take responsibility for how their farmers separate the three farming types and minimise cross-contamination: an issue known as coexistence in EU jargon.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has often said she will address the issue, floating the idea of a vague legal framework setting parameters around which governments will be able to enact their own national crop-growing laws.

Only a handful of governments -- around six or seven -- have GMO coexistence laws, based on a set of broad non-binding guidelines that the Commission published in July 2003.

"We are now following the member states that make legislation on coexistence. There are many different ways of doing it," Fischer Boel told reporters on the fringes of an informal meeting of EU agriculture and environment ministers.

"We will try and get all these different legislations together to see how it could be solved," she said, adding that a decision would be taken on the way forward after a two-day coexistence conference, to be held in Vienna in April.

The Commission has appeared increasingly lukewarm in recent months on whether a "framework GMO law" will be drafted at all.

Several EU countries such as Austria, Luxembourg and Denmark -- notable opponents of GMO crops -- say it is essential to have EU-wide, not national, coexistence laws. After the Vienna conference, "we will decide whether we should like some sort of 'Christmas tree' with some basic ideas for the member states," Fischer Boel said.

"Then it is up to the member states to decorate this 'Christmas tree' with the legislation that they find proper for their regions, because the climatic conditions (in Europe) are completely different," she said.

Proper coexistence laws, whether EU-wide or national, are seen as essential if the Commission wants to ask member states to allow imports of more GMO crops for growing in Europe's fields: the most controversial area in the EU's biotech debate.

Around six "live" GMOs are waiting for approval -- maize and rapeseed types, and a starch potato -- but no dates have yet been set for any meeting.

Biotechnology continues to split EU governments, even after the EU lifted its unofficial ban in 2004 on authorising new GMOs by approving a modified sweet maize type to be sold in cans.

Appeal to EC and world for caution over GMO contamination

Consumers International press release, Bologna, Italy, 11 September 2005. Consumers International (CI) made an appeal for caution over genetically modified organism (GMO) contamination. David Cuming, CI GM Campaign Manager, said: 'Stop GMO contamination - it can happen quickly and over vast areas and is irreversible. In places, like Italy, where there are a lot of small farms with traditional and organic crops, "co-existence" is probably impossible without removing the freedom of consumers and farmers to choose.'

Speaking at a conference in Italy, organised by CI and RegioneEmilia-Romagna, David Cuming advised 'All countries worldwide must introduce strict rules to prevent contamination, and allow for GM-free zones, before allowing GMOs in their countries. The EC must wait until they have completed the full review of "co-existence" in Europe before approving new GMO crops.'

Prof. Ignacio Chapela, leading expert on GMOs told the conference '"Co-existence" of GMOs and GM-free plants is biologically impossible. If we keep thinking like this it won't be a question of - if contamination will occur: It will be a question of when and how much? We do not have the political will, the technical capacity or the independence of thought to deal with "co-existence"; neither to monitor its development, nor to remedy its consequences. Proposed biosafety and bioethical frameworks will not prevent contamination.'

GMO and consumer experts from Canada, USA, Brazil, Thailand, Zambia, Austria, Italy and UK presented their position on "co-existence", contamination and GM-free zones at the conference in Bologna. Recent examples of GMO contamination cases are: canola fields in Australia and Canada, shipments of maize to Japan and New Zealand, and illegal rice in China.

Note to editors

The EC are making decisions on whether to allow several new GMO crops into Europe and the Commission is preparing a report on how EU states are dealing with 'co-existence' expected at the end of this year.

The GM-free zone movement is growing in the EU and in the USA, with increasing interest in developing countries.

Pressure from the biotech industry is mounting in Africa for countries to grow GMOs.

Summaries of speeches made at the conference will be made available on CI website at www.consumersinternational.org

9 September 2005

Ukraine Agriculture Ministry Seeks to Ban GMO Soy Imports

Reuters News Service, September 8, 2005.

KIEV - Ukraine's Farm Ministry said on Wednesday it would ask the government and the parliament to ban imports and planting of genetically modified (GMO) soybeans in the country.

"We are going to adopt a decision to ban planting and imports of GMO soybeans," Ivan Dymchak, deputy farm minister, told reporters. "At the moment we are talking only about soybeans.

"We want to have the status of a country which produces only clean agriculture products," he added.

Ukraine is a traditional importer of soy meal and imported 78,200 tonnes in the 2003/04 season and 74,300 in 2002/03. It has imported 47,700 tonnes so far this season.

Ukraine imports soy meal mostly from Brazil.

7 September 2005

Meristem sees its development hampered by anti-GMO activities

Le Monde, September 5, 2005. By Manuel Armand. Meristem, the French leader of drug development with transgenic plants, has seen its progression hampered by the anti-GMO spirit. Since the beginning of summer, Meristem has been victimized by the destruction of 20 hectares of genetically engineered maize.

On the nights of July 18 and 19 of this year, 5,000m2 were damaged close to Issoire, France. Responsibility was claimed by a group of "voluntary mowers", which was then followed by two further acts of vandalism. Two lots of 3000m2 were destroyed during the night on August 1, and a third field of 3000m2 was destroyed on August 2.

"Does it still make sense to develop a biotechnology project in France?" asked Jean-Paul Rohmer, president of Meristem's Executive Board. "If we do not have the possibility of growing transgenic plants in conditions of normal security, our existence will be threatened."

Although the question is not the order of the day, Rohmer does not rule out the possibility of relocation outside of France. "If it would be banned and impossible to work here, we would be on the lookout for somewhere else", he confirmed.

The French government denounced this "act of vandalism" which took place in a similar way to the vandalism which was previously committed in Tarn, and has appealed to the courts to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Established in 1997 by the cooperative agricultural Limagrain, Meristem developed a pipeline of drugs designed to cure digestion problems associated with mucoviscidosis. Located in Clermont-Ferrand, the company hopes to start phase 3 clinical trials at the end of 2006.

Random dimension

The trials (conducted in more than one hundred patients) need a great quantity of gastric lipase, a protein derived from Meristem's transgenic maize.

"The authorisation to bring the drug to the market could occur in 2008," estimates Rohmer. "This market represents a hundred million euros per year. We would have to deliver the protein to a pharmaceutical partner, who would then produce the drug." One thousand hectares of genetically modified maize would be necessary for the production of the protein.

From this point of view, Meristem has been making preparations for the establishment of a factory for lipase extraction in the north of Clermont-Ferrand. "This investment could add new jobs," explains Rohmer. "Nevertheless, the act of the 'voluntary mowers' leaves an uncertainty. All our efforts will be put in jeopardy, if we are not able to grow the corn close to here."

Also another difficulty could emerge. During clinical development Meristem is employing 45 people ‚ ten of them with a doctorate degree ‚ but has not yet recorded any sales.

"Since we started, we had an initial capital of 45 million euros and 7 million is left," Mr Rohmer remarks. The shareholders are Banexi (BNP Paribas) and Limagrain. "To conduct this project, new funds are definitely necessary." When asked if the "mowers" are able to scare investors, Rohmer admitted, "The destructions give our activity an added dimension of risk."

The French Biotech association regrets this climate of suspicion, too. "The distance between the United States and Europe in biotechnology continues to grow," notes Philippe Pouletty, the president of the association. "In 2004, European investments in biotechnology made up only 17 percent. Although this is not the main factor for our current problems, the political context significantly contributes to it." Links: * Source: Le Monde

French Farmers Head for Gene Maize Harvest

Reuters, 7 September 2005. PARIS - French farmers are days away from starting work on a maize harvest that includes the first documented evidence of genetically modified (GMO) grain, the country's AGPM maize growers' association said on Tuesday.

The AGPM said 500 hectares of authorised GMO maize had been planted, more than half of which was destined for commercial outlets and would be sold to the animal feed industry in Spain.

While the GMO maize area is relatively small -- France has 1.7 million hectares devoted to all maize -- news that farmers have begun commercial production will surprise many in a country where test fields of gene-spliced crops are regularly destroyed by environmental campaigners.

"We know for sure that 500 hectares of GMO maize from authorised BT varieties are currently in the ground," Luc Esprit, a senior AGPM offical, told Reuters.

Esprit was responding to an article in the French daily Le Figaro, which cited unsourced reports of some 1,000 hectares of GMO maize, mainly in southwest France.

"We do not understand the 1,000 hectare figure," he added.

Strains of GMO maize, usually designed to resist specific pests, are authorised in the European Union, which ended its four-year moratorium on new gene crop varieties in 2004.

Spain is the biggest grower and had 60,000 hectares devoted to GMO production in 2004 from a total maize area of 480,000 hectares, Spanish farm union figures show.

Le Figaro said details of GMO crops were hard to pin down because farmers were not yet legally obliged to declare when they were growing the new strains and figures on this year's crop had not been published.

Esprit called on the government to put national rules in place as soon as possible to ensure more transparency.

The government said a new law on GMO crops would be presented to parliament early next year, which would force farmers to disclose if they were sowing such crops.

"We call for co-existence rules because we can't continue just to use the AGPM guidelines," Esprit said, referring to a non-binding industry code that asked farmers who grew GMO varieties to inform their neighbours.

Esprit said that of the 500 hectares sown this year, 140 were for seed production, 80 were test fields and a further 80 hectares of the grain, which would eventually be sold, were part of an environmental assessment programme.

That left some 200 hectares of fully commercial GMO maize, with a yield approaching 10 tonnes per hectare.

"This means that 2,800 tonnes of GMO maize are about to be harvested," he said. "All of this will go to the Spanish animal feed market."

More GM papaya contamination found: Thai rights panel

Agence France Presse, BANGKOK (AFP) Sep 06, 2005. Genetically modified seeds had contaminated one third of 31 papaya orchards studied in July, Thailand's Human Rights Commission said Tuesday, calling for tough public safeguards against the technology.

Commissioner Vasant Panich said 11 of 31 samples tested on July 14 and 17 were contaminated with genetically modified (GM) seeds in the eastern province of Rayong and the northeastern provinces of Mahasarakham, Chaiyaphum and Kalasin.

The first contamination was found last year in the northeastern province of Khon Kaen, after the environmentalist group Greenpeace accused the government of illegally selling genetically modified papaya seeds from a research station there.

Farmers in the four provinces surveyed in July said they had received the papaya seeds from the same research station.

Greenpeace filed a complaint with the rights commission, alleging the contamination violated the rights of farmers and consumers, damaged the environment, and breached a 2001 law that banned field trials of genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs.

Vasant urged the government to destroy the contaminated fields, to compensate farmers for their losses and to tighten laws banning GMO field trials.

"We need a biosafety or consumer protection law before we start open field trials," he said.

The Human Rights Commission was created by the constitution but only has advisory powers.

The cabinet in 2001 banned GMO field trials. Current law forbids the public sale of GMO seeds and requires products containing more than five percent of a genetically modified ingredient to be clearly labelled.

1 September 2005

EU Authorises GMO Rapeseed by Legal Rubberstamp

Reuters News Service, 1 September 2005, by Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS - The European Union has approved a genetically modified (GMO) rapeseed made by US biotech giant Monsanto, the fourth new authorisation after the EU's biotech ban ended last year, the EU executive said on Wednesday.

The rapeseed, known as GT73, is designed to resist the herbicide glyphosate and allow farmers to manage weeds better. It will be used in animal feed and industrial processing, but not for growing. The authorisation is valid for 10 years.

The EU decision is a rubberstamp procedure applied by the European Commission -- the EU's executive arm. It is permitted under a legal default process that kicks in when ministers are unable to agree among themselves after a period of three months.

This GMO rapeseed has been the subject of particular controversy, since the EU first issued an authorisation by mistake in June but then withdrew it after a bureaucratic error.

Part of the reason for the hasty withdrawal was that the Commission had not tightened up wording over liability for inadvertent seed spills during transportation, storage, general handling and processing of GT73 seeds. It has now included a set of non-binding guidelines for Monsanto to follow.

"The authorisation is complemented by a recommendation containing a set of guidelines to Monsanto on how to deal appropriately with accidental spillage if it should occur," the Commission said in a statement.

Green groups slammed the latest GMO approval, saying it would fail to hold Monsanto liable for any inadvertent spillage and calling on EU states to impose national bans on GT73 seeds.

"Although the Commission accepted that seed spills are an area of concern, it failed to specify measures to safeguard against this," environmental group Friends of the Earth said.

"Instead it has included a simple recommendation that ... Monsanto will be free to disregard," it said in a statement.

There were also two occasions during August that the Commission had been poised to approved the rapeseed but stopped at the final hurdle due to internal disagreements.

In early August, the Commission rubberstamped a similar approval for a Monsanto GMO maize, again for use in animal feed.

Even though the EU has now lifted its six-year unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO products, national governments have consistently clashed over biotech policy.

The EU's member states have ended meetings in deadlock 14 times in a row -- either as ministers or as national experts -- on whether to approve new GMO products, usually for use in industrial processing or as animal feed.

The last time they agreed on a new GMO approval was in 1998.

31 August 2005

EC approval for Monsanto oilseed rape poses threat to environment and democracy

BRUSSELS The European Commission gave its green light today to imports of a genetically engineered (GE) oilseed rape produced by US biotech company Monsanto. Only six out of 25 EU member states had supported the proposal (1). Greenpeace is calling for the decision to be revoked and for EU authorisation procedures on GE crops to be overhauled.

"Approval for this controversial rapeseed against the will of the member states says everything about the undemocratic way the Commission is trying to force GMOs on the European public, " said Greenpeace International Campaigner Geert Ritsema. "Allowing imports of this Monsanto rapeseed into Europe poses a substantial risk to the environment. "

The Monsanto GT73 oilseed rape is to be imported as whole kernels and then milled for use in animal feed and human food products, a hugely risky process, as the seeds cannot be completely contained during transportation. Pollen from rapeseed is reported to travel for several kilometres. Cross-contamination of wild rapeseed and its GE counterpart was reported in the UK in July. In Japan, authorities investigating GE imports found modified rapeseed had contaminated wide areas around the harbours and the mills. Of 10 harbours investigated, eight were contaminated. Transport routes as far as 30 kilometres from the port were affected.

There is growing concern among experts that GE rapeseed should never be cultivated in Europe because of the danger of pollination and dissemination. The European Environment Agency has classified oilseed rape as a ëhigh risk crop for contamination' (2). And biotech company Bayer withdrew its EU application to grow GE rapeseed after EU member states raised concerns.

Even the EU Commission has acknowledged the risks of uncontrolled spillage and unanticipated adverse effects of the GE rapeseed. In light of this, it is recommending extra measures against spillage and reporting systems for effects. Greenpeace believes these voluntary measures are totally insufficient.

"If the EU Commission admits that modified rapeseed is likely to escape into the environment, it should be using that evidence to reject market approval of GE seeds. The alternative ‚ seeking voluntary agreements for control and monitoring systems - is unworkable, " said Ritsema. "The decision should be revoked immediately, and the standards of EU risk assessment and the EU authorisation procedure reorganised. "

Another concern is the health effects that have been observed in animal feed trials using Monsanto's GT73. The company's studies showed potentially adverse effects on rats, notably a significant raise in liver weight. However, the company withheld the original data of these studies from the public (3).

Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions, which are essential to a green and peaceful future.

CONTACT Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GM campaigner, (m) +31-6 46 19 73 28 Katharine Mill, Greenpeace European Unit Media Officer (m) +32 496 156 229

NOTES TO EDITOR

(1) In the EU Council of Environment Ministers on December 2004, six member states voted in favour of the GE rapeseed (GT73), SK, SE, FR, PT, FI, NL (78 votes), 13 voted against IT, GR, DK, PO, MT, BE, HU, LT, LV, CY, AT, EE, LU (135 votes), and the rest abstained - IE, SI, ES, DE, CZ, UK (108 votes).

(2) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2002_28/en

(3) Greenpeace wrote several letters to national authorities to get hold of the data. After the organisation won a court case allowing it access to Monsanto's confidential data of feeding trials with GE maize in June 2005, it was expected that the data on the feeding trials with GT73 would be made public; but so far the documents have not been published. Contrary to EU law German officials explicitly refuse access to the data. Greenpeace is awaiting a reaction from the government of the Netherlands, where Monsanto originally filed the data.

This is the fourth time the EU Commission has allowed the import of GE crops after a five years moratorium that ended in 2003. The other crops are herbicide resistant maize (NK603), sweet maize containing insecticidal toxin (Bt11) and maize meant for animal feed (MON863).

European Commission opens door to genetic contamination

Friends of the Earth press release, Brussels August 31 2005 ‚ The European Commission today approved the import of Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape for human food and animal feed [1]. The decision came despite opposition from a majority of Member States and a loophole that could lead to illegal seed spills into the environment. Friends of the Earth condemned the decision and is calling on Member States to impose national bans on the GM seed.

The GM oilseed rape (GT73), is resistant to Monsanto's own herbicide. The majority of EU Member States voted against the application last year, or abstained, because of unanswered food and feed safety questions [2]. These included the effects on the liver weights of rats fed the oilseed rape [3] and the likelihood of seed spills into the environment.

In addition, recent UK government research has reported the discovery of the first genetically modified ësuperweed' ‚ the result of GM oilseed rape cross-breeding with a common weed (Charlock) in the UK farm scale trials [4].

However, the Commission ignored these concerns and pushed the approval through on the basis of an opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). And although the Commission accepted that seed spills are an area of concern, it failed to specify measures to safeguard against this [5]. Instead it has included a simple recommendation that US company Monsanto will be free to disregard.

Friends of the Earth is calling on Member States to use the provisions in EU law to impose national bans on the GM seed [6].

Helen Holder, GMO coordinator for Friends of the Earth said:

"Not only has the Commission ignored the opinion of 19 Environment Ministers and recent scientific findings, but it is also allowing Monsanto to decide whether our environment is contaminated. Member States are left with no choice but to take matters into their own hands and impose national bans on this GM seed."

For more information contact:

Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe
+ 322 542 01 82
+ 324 74 857 638 (mobile)

Notes:

[1] GT73 was previously authorised for processing in oils under the 1997 Novel Foods regulation (Regulation 258/97) which has since been replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Today's decision covers industrial processing and animal feed.

[2] In December 2004, EU Environment Ministers voted with a simple majority against the approval of GT73. Since a qualified majority was required to prevent the approval, the decision reverted to the European Commission.

http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2004/GR_20_Dec_Monsanto.htm

For: SK, SE, FR, PT, FI, NL (78 votes)

Against: IT, GR, DK, PO, MT, BE, HU, LT, LV, CY, AT, EE, LU (135 votes)

Abstention: IE (Ireland), SI, ES, DE, CZ, UK (108 votes)

[3] The official UK government advisors on GM foods and feeds - ACRE and ACAF - have said that they are not satisfied with the explanation that Monsanto has provided for the observed increased liver weight in rats fed GT73. They are are not convinced by EFSA's assurance that GT73 ''is as safe as conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals, and in the context of the proposed uses, for the environment.'' ACAF says it can only draw such conclusion "on receipt of satisfactory data from a further rat-feeding study using 15 per cent. oilseed rape meal." Source: Statement by Mr. Elliot Morely, UK Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment. In: minutes of the UK's European Standing Committee A, Tuesday 2 November 2004

[4] http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/government_study_finds_uks_25072005.html

[5] Official Journal of the European Union, June 2005 (L-164 page 57)

[6] The safeguard clause - Article 23, Directive 2001/18/EC

European Commission press release:

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1077&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/104&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

29 August 2005

Argentinean ancient forests trashed for GE [genetically engineered] Soya Plantations

Pozo del Tumé, Salta, Argentina. 29 August 2005 - Greenpeace today stopped two bulldozers from clearing the forest to expand the GE Soya frontier further into what is left of the Great American Chaco Forest. Four activists on motorbikes have blocked these machines, and another four on two helicopters (painted as jaguars) has filmed the devastation of the forests from the air.

Bulldozers are currently clearing the forests of South America at an alarming rate. In Argentina areas of forest the size of a soccer pitch disappear every three minutes. The rate of disappearance rises to every ten seconds in countries like Paraguay and Brazil, as latest Government figures for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon show.

"Companies are failing to act responsibly, and the Argentinean Government stands by while rampant deforestation continues," said Emiliano Ezcurra, Greenpeace Argentina forests campaigner. "We're here to place ourselves between bulldozers and trees to stop the destruction of these last remaining ancient forests".

The social consequences are just as devastating; small farmers and indigenous communities are forcibly evicted from their land by government-supported GE Soya landlords. All the trees knocked down by bulldozers are discarded onto huge piles, often kilometres long, and set alight. The cleared land can only support the GE soya monoculture for a few years before the soil nutrients disappear. The options then are to use more chemicals or just leave the land to become a desert and move on to clear more forest. This process contributes to climate change, biodiversity loss and human rights violations at the same time.

The Greenpeace helicopter was surveying the area when the bulldozers were seen in the province of Salta, 1800 kilometres, north of Buenos Aires. On the ground the Greenpeace 'Jaguars' managed to get to the area in time to confront the bulldozers and stop them.

"It is outrageous that such devastation continues to take place at such a fast rate only because companies want to feed pigs in Europe or chickens in China. Unless something gets done immediately the world will see the large forest areas in South America disappear in a very short period of time. The international community should call on the Argentinean Government now to stop this disaster," said Rex Weyler, early Greenpeace activist, from Vancouver, Canada, who took part in the action.

Solutions do exist already for these large forest areas to be managed sustainably through good forest practices like Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, meaning that jobs and wealth are not incompatible with keeping forest diversity, clean air and water.

The Greenpeace 'Jaguars' will continue to stop the bulldozers with their motorbikes and helicopters over the days to come.

Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force solutions essential to a green and peaceful future.

For more information please contact:

Emiliano Ezcurra, Greenpeace Argentina forest campaigner, + 54 91151094104
Gavin Edwards, Greenpeace International forest campaigner, + 31 6 523 91 429
Photos available upon request: John Novis, photo desk, + 31 6 538 19 121


-- Cecilia Goin
Media Officer
Greenpeace International
Ottho Heldringstraat 5
1066 AZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: + 31 (0) 20 718 2159
Mobile: + 31 6 212 96 908
Fax: + 31 (0) 20 5148151

26 August 2005

British Retailers Call for Tough Stand on GM Soya

Friends of the Earth press release, 26 August 2005. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) is calling on the Brazilian soya industry to "resist further growth of GM planting" because "it will be enormously difficult to maintain trust in the food chain should Brazil's supply of non-GM soybean dry up." The call has been welcomed by an alliance of leading UK organisations [1] which are urging supermarkets and other food companies to take immediate action to safeguard GM-free food.

The BRC statement [2], released to the alliance this week, comes as crucial decisions are being made by Brazilian farmers about whether to plant GM or non-GM soya for next season's crop. It represents a strong re-affirmation that the UK retail industry wants to continue to provide GM-free products to UK consumers. The statement also underlines the importance of Brazilian soya production in ensuring a future for GM-free food in the UK. The BRC says it is "essential that Brazil remains a continued source of non-GM soybean and halts the progression at the current level of 35% GM".

The BRC position is backed by reference to public attitudes in the UK [3]: 79% would not knowingly buy food containing GM ingredients."

Although all the major UK food companies continue to shun GM ingredients in their food, vast quantifies of GM soya for animal feed are still being imported. Animal products, like milk, meat and eggs, are not subject to GM labelling regulations. The alliance has written to food companies demanding urgent action to ensure that all soya used in animal feed should be GM-free [4]. The call follows a series of meetings in 2004/05 between the alliance and food industry representatives.

If companies fail to place firm orders for non-GM soya for animal feed, this could lead to other GM-free ingredients, such as soya oil and lecithin, becoming scarce. These ingredients are a by-product of the soya beans crushed for animal feed and are found in a host of processed foods from chocolate and biscuits to processed ready meals.

The letter from the alliance sets out the need for urgent action:

"Food retailers and manufacturers need to inform their suppliers that they are specifying non-GM animal feed as soon as possible, and before the beginning of the soya planting season in October 2005. In our view, failure to do so will have a rapid and direct negative impact on the availability of non-GM derivatives in future".

In addition, the letter calls upon the UK food industry to proactively seek alternatives to soya for feeding animals because it "is not environmentally or socially sustainable".

Commenting on behalf of the alliance, Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

We warmly welcome this re-affirmation of GM free policy from British retailers. It comes at a crucial time when Brazilian farmers are considering whether to grow GM or non-GM soya beans next year. It is important that the BRC ensures that its message is heard loud and clear in Brazil - by farmers and other players along the soya supply chain.

"But some UK food companies have clearly been resting on their laurels and have failed to phase out GM animal feed with any great urgency. It is high time that they backed the BRC statement with firm orders for GM-free soya for animal feed across their whole range. This would provide customers with milk, meat and eggs from animals that are not fed on GM feed. If food companies act now, the costs of such action can be kept to a minimum and they will help guarantee GM-free food for the future.

ENDS

1. The alliance comprises of FARM, Friends of the Earth, GeneWatch UK, GM Freeze, National Federation of Women's Institutes, The Soil Association, Sustain and Unison.

2. A copy of the BRC statement "British Retail Consortium Position on Brazilian non-GM soybean" can be obtained from Friends of the Earth

3. "Research data from across the UK indicates that customer demand for non-GM remains as strong now as it was in the late nineties when widespread opposition first emerged. A 2003 survey by NOP World revealed the following:

78% of people remain unconvinced that GM is safe to eat

79% would not knowingly buy food containing GM ingredients

Even if GM food could be proven safe to eat, 61% of customers would still not consume these products

55% were against GM food and crops with 38% yet to be convinced of its benefits"

4. A copy of the letter is available from GM Freeze or Friends of the Earth.

Companies that attended the meetings and received letters are: J Sainsbury Plc, CWS Retail, Asda Walmart UK, Marks Spencer Plc, Iceland Foods Plc, Unilever UK Foods, McDonald's Restaurants Ltd, Kentucky Fried Chicken Ltd, Grampian Foods, Tesco Plc and Compass Group Plc.

Companies who were unavailable to attend the meetings and also received the letter are: Associated British Foods, Nestle Holdings plc, Centura Foods, RHM plc, Northern Foods plc, Dairy Crest Group plc, United Biscuits (UK) Ltd, Burger King Ltd, Arla Foods plc, Robert Wiseman Dairies plc, Somerfield Stores Ltd, Wm Morrisons Supermarket, Budgens Stores Ltd and Uniq plc.

25 August 2005

Farmers, environmentalists urge ban on GMOs

Minda News (Philippines), 25 August 2005 By Allen V. Estabillo. GENERAL SANTOS CITY ‚ Local farmers and environmental groups renewed their calls to immediately ban entry and planting of genetically-engineered (GE) crops in the country in the wake of the recent government approval to commercialize a new transgenic corn variety.

Eliezer Billanes, secretary general of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Timug Kutabato, warned that the looming entry into the market of Monstanto's "stacked-trait corn" would further expose the area's farms and residents to various toxins reportedly embedded in the GE corn variety.

"It's high time for Congress to intervene on this matter by passing a law that would ban these products," he told MindaNews in a phone interview.

Billanes said that House Bill 2124, or the proposed GMO (Genetically-Modified Organism)-free Food and Agriculture Act of 2004, was gathering dust at a committee in the House of Representatives.

Billanes said they have been gathering signatures to support the passage of HB 2124 "which will ultimately make our country as GMO-free." The proposed measure, filed by Anakpawis partylist Rep. Rafael Mariano, prohibits the entry, sale, field testing, and release of crops and food containing GMOs.

The bill cited that "there have been many cases discovered which should tell us that genetically modified products could seriously harm human beings and the environment."

"The threat from genetically-engineered crops and food products is rising in the Philippines. A number of food products sold in our supermarkets and groceries have been found to contain GMOs," the bill said.

The Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Plant Industry approved earlier this month the commercial distribution and planting of the "dekalb-stacked hybrid" corn, a GE product which could resist both herbicides and the Asiatic corn borer.

According to a report from the University of the Philippines Los BaÒos-based Biotechnology Information Center (BIC), the new hybrid corn seed is practically a combination of the controversial Bacillus thuringiesis (Bt) corn and the Roundup-Ready corn, which underwent several field tests here and the neighboring areas.

Bt corn was approved for planting in the country in late 2002 while Roundup Ready corn was introduced in the markets earlier this year. Environmental group Greenpeace the government's approval of the new GE corn variety saying "the government has failed to protect Filipinos from the onslaught of genetically modified organisms and agro-chemical companies which promote it.

"The Arroyo government is intent on punishing Filipino farmers and our environment at the behest of multinational agro-chemical companies which only care for profits," said Greenpeace's GE campaigner Danny Ocampo said in a statement e-mailed to MindaNews.

Ocampo said the new GE corn would threaten the food chain with contamination and lead to further degradation of soil quality. He said it also meant "twice the profits" for Monsanto, which owns the patent to "stacked-trait corn" and the glyphosate Roundup Ready herbicide.

In June, Greenpeace launched the report "The Economics of Bt Corn: Whose Interest Does It Really Serve?" which showed evidence that Bt corn, contrary to claims by Monsanto, was a financial burden to Filipino farmers because they have to pay more for seeds and fertilizers.

"GMOs are costly experiments on our people and our environment and bury our farmers in debts while providing more profits to companies like Monsanto," Ocampo added.

23 August 2005

Cargo no. 9 GMO tainted in Japan

TOKYO, Aug 23, 2005 (Reuters) - Japan's Agriculture Ministry said it discovered a ninth U.S. feed grain cargo tainted with Bt-10 biotech corn, and has told the importer to destroy it or ship it back to the United States.

The tainted cargo arrived on Aug. 1 at the port of Shibushi on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu, the ministry said in a statement issued late Monday. Samples containing Bt-10 were taken from 5,963 tonnes of corn in the vessel.

The ministry did not name the importer.

Samples from the U.S. feed corn cargo tested positive for traces of Bt-10, a genetically modified (GMO) corn strain made by Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta AG that has not been approved for distribution.

Syngenta said in March that some of its corn seeds in the United States had been mistakenly contaminated with Bt-10 from 2001 to 2004.

It was the ninth discovery since the ministry started random tests on arriving U.S. feed corn cargoes on May 23.

Japan has a zero-tolerance policy on imports of unapproved GMO crops. The ministry has proposed accepting feed grain cargoes with up to 1 percent of Bt-10 corn, to smooth the flow of U.S. corn supplies to Japan's livestock industry. But the plan is subject to approval by Japan's Food Safety Commission, an independent agency.

More contaminated cargoes will likely be found, as the ministry has stepped up its tests to cover all U.S. corn cargoes.

The chances of finding contaminated cargoes are expected to become slimmer when newly harvested U.S. corn starts to reach Japan around November, a ministry official said.

To ensure tainted supplies are not shipped to Japan, the ministry has told importers of U.S. corn they must obtain certificates stating the cargoes do not contain Bt-10.

Some U.S. grain shippers have started testing their corn shipments to Japan, in response to requests from Japanese importers. But others are reluctant to do so because of high costs and extra work to arrange tests, traders said.

Dairy industry must listen to concerns about GMOs in the food chain

Greenpeace Press Release, 23 August 2005. Seelow, Germany - Greenpeace today demanded that two of the largest European dairy companies must stop buying their milk from dairy farmers who grow GE maize, to avoid the potential contamination of the food chain. To illustrate the risk, a life-size sculpture of a cow with a see-through stomach filled with animal feed was placed by activists in a field growing the GE crop in Seelow, Brandenburg near the Polish border. Several farmers in Brandenburg growing GE maize, deliver milk to Campina and Mueller, who sell it directly to consumers.

European consumers have consistently rejected food that is genetically engineered (GE). As a result there are hardly any GE labelled food products on the European market. However, EU labelling law contains a loophole; milk, eggs, meat and other animal-derived foodstuffs do not need to be labelled if the animals were fed genetically modified organisms (GMOs). As most of the GE maize grown in Europe is used as animal feed, European consumers could unknowingly consume GE derived products, such as milk.

"Despite huge opposition to GMOs in the food chain from European consumers, Mueller and Campina refuse to guarantee that their dairy cattle are not fed on GE maize," said Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE Campaigner. "Through advertising their products as pure and natural, they are misleading their consumers as their products risk being contaminated from the GE crops grown by their dairy farmers."

Other European countries have taken steps to ensure their products are completely GE free. Food manufacturers have ensured that GE animal feed is not used in Switzerland and Sweden. In Austria, the large dairy company, NOEM AG, ensured its entire range of fresh milk products are "GE free".

The U.S. biotech company, Monsanto, produces the GE maize (MON 810) sown in the fields of Seelow. The European Commission gave approval for the GE maize to be grown in the EU in 2004. However, a debate about its safety for the environment is still ongoing. As a result the Governments of Austria, Greece, Hungary and Poland have banned the maize. Currently this particular crop of GE maize is the only GE plant permitted to be grown throughout the EU. Other GE maize and GE Soya varieties, cultivated outside the EU, are authorised for import as animal feed.

Greenpeace is demanding that the European dairy industry take steps to stop the cultivation of GE maize in the EU, and to stop importing GE maize, GE Soya and other GE plants grown outside the EU to use in animal feed. Companies such as Campina and Mueller can make a significant contribution to stopping the use of GE animal feed by insisting that their milk only comes from non-GE suppliers.

Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force solutions essential to a green and peaceful future.

For further information please contact:

Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE Campaigner, + 31 646 197 328

Mhairi Dunlop, Greenpeace International Communications, + 31 646 162 026

Images available from the Photo Desk on +31 653 819 255

21 August 2005

Scientists hope to ease GM fears

BBC News, 21 August 2005, by By Richard Black, environment correspondent. Most GM plants contain a gene for antibiotic resistance, but there are fears this could transfer to bacteria, making them immune to common drugs.

Researchers from Tennessee say their new method carries no such risk.

Environmental groups say the work does not make the approval of new GM crops any more likely.

Genetically modifying plants usually has a rather low success rate - and researchers need to be able to select plants which have successfully taken up the introduced gene from those that have not.

Traditionally, this has been done by giving, alongside the desired gene, a gene which makes the plants resistant to an antibiotic.

Growing the plants in soil containing the antibiotic provides an easy way to sort them; those which have not "absorbed" the introduced genetic material will be poisoned by the antibiotic. The antibiotic gene is called a "marker" because, in effect, it is marking out the successes from the failures.

But the genes used have traditionally come from bacteria - and this has led to concerns that they could find their way back into bacteria, making them resistant to antibiotics used by doctors to treat human disease.

"If you go back to the years 2000 to 2002, around 60-70% of all GM plants reported in the scientific literature were made using markers which make them resistant to the antibiotic kanamycin," Professor Neal Stewart told the BBC News website.

Professor Stewart heads the team from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, which reports its alternative approach in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

They use instead a gene which comes from a plant, Arabidopsis thaliana, perhaps the most widely investigated plant in science; and they have inserted it into tobacco.

The gene increases production of a protein called an ATP binding cassette (ABC), and - by a mechanism which is not fully understood - makes the plants kanamycin-resistant.

"I would like to see a science-based approach to the regulation of GM crops," said Professor Stewart, "and this could do something to mitigate the regulation and public perception hurdles.

"We have been trying to simulate what would happen if this gene was transferred to microbes; and we can show that if this ABC gene is inserted into E. coli, for example, it does not make them kanamycin-resistant."

Industry enthusiasm

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council, the lobby group for GM crop companies in Britain, described the work as "an interesting development".

"But," argued the council's deputy chairman Tony Combes, "it should be noted that existing marker systems that have helped scientists in their research have a proven safety record.

"The so-called 'horizontal transfer' of these genes presents a very small risk."

Dr Huw Jones, research group leader at Rothamsted Research, one of the leading UK institutions in the field of GM crops, agreed.

"This discovery represents a significant advance because it avoids the need for cross-kingdom gene transfer," he said, noting that many other scientists are working towards the total removal of selection markers.

The reaction from environmental groups was less enthusiastic.

"Products on the market now may well have antibiotic-resistant marker genes in them," Clare Oxborrow, GM campaigner with Friends of the Earth, told the BBC News website, "so this won't have any importance when it comes to the approval process.

"Also, the researchers point out that they aren't clear on the function of the inserted gene; so although it does carry this potential benefit, they don't know what else it might do to the plant, and there doesn't seem to have been any serious investigation of the type which would be required by food safety assessment authorities."

The Tennessee team is now working with food crops as well as tobacco, and to extend its studies on gene transfer.

18 August 2005

EU Faces Busy GMO Timetable but No End to Deadlock

Reuters News Service, 18 August 2005, by Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS - EU governments face a slew of decisions in the next few months on whether to allow more imports of genetically modified (GMO) foods but nothing is expected that might break Europe's deadlock over biotechnology.

With EU institutions mostly closed in August, ministers and national experts will be asked to process a backlog of applications for new GMO approvals in four crammed months.

That doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to agree.

In fact, although the EU ended its six-year unofficial biotech ban in May 2004, the last time national governments could agree on authorising a new GMO product was back in 1998.

Since then, many meetings end in deadlock as "pro" and "anti" camps balance each other out and more and more countries sit on the fence, undecided on the benefits of biotech foods.

Three new GMO approvals have been issued since the ban ended, all by a European Commission rubberstamp -- a default process that kicks in when EU states repeatedly fail to agree.

Agriculture ministers will resume their monthly meetings from September, when they should discuss whether Greece should lift its ban on 17 types of a Monsanto GMO maize seed.

The pace may quicken in October as the Commission is keen to present several more GMOs for approval by the end of the year.

"October looks like it's going to be busier than September," one EU diplomat said. The month will probably start with a meeting of EU food safety experts, who will debate a similar GMO seed ban imposed by Poland and possibly another by Hungary.

October's ministerial meeting may also see voting on two Monsanto maize types: GA21, for use as a food processing ingredient, and MON 863, for use in food. Environment ministers may also debate another GMO maize approval that month.

And that's not all. The whole atmosphere on biotechnology could change in Brussels in early October due to the World Trade Organisation's expected ruling on a case brought against EU biotech policy by the United States, Canada and Argentina.

NO END TO DEADLOCK

EU countries have ended meetings in deadlock 14 times in a row, either as ministers or national experts, on approving new GMOs usually for use in industrial processing or as animal feed. Consumer opinion has been overwhelmingly opposed to GMO foods.

Under the EU's complex weighted voting system, the EU-25 must achieve a majority to approve a new product or reject it.

If there is deadlock at national experts level, the dossier escalates to ministers -- and if they fail to agree after three months, the Commission may issue a default approval.

"It looks like it's going to be busy but the result will be the same. There will be no opinion," a Commission official said.

But the most controversial area is yet to come. So far, the Commission has shied away from asking member states to allow imports of more GMO crops for growing in Europe's fields.

Around six "live" GMOs are waiting for approval -- maize and rapeseed types, and a starch potato -- but no dates have been set for any meeting.

Diplomats say the Commission will probably not want to submit any of these to a vote before its agriculture department finishes a report on how EU states are dealing with coexistence -- or how farmers separate conventional, organic and GMO crops.

Fewer than half of EU states have proper coexistence laws despite reminders from the Commission to use its guidelines on separation distances and natural crop buffers like hedgerows.

The Commission's report is not expected until at the end of the year or, more likely, in early 2006.

In theory, it would provide the basis for a framework EU law on coexistence for govermnents to enact national laws on crop separation. But the Commission has been increasingly lukewarm in recent months on whether such a law will be drafted at all.

Strong Support for Zero GM Contamination Tolerance

Sustainability Council of New Zealand press release, Wednesday, 17 August 2005. 79% of New Zealanders would support the current policy of zero tolerance to GM contamination of seed imports. Polling conducted for the Sustainability Council by DigiPoll also found 77% support for zero tolerance to GM contamination of crops in the field, once informed that this too is the current policy.

Public opinion is thus squarely in line with the needs of New Zealand exporters whose markets demand food free of GM content - however that contamination may arise. Though the current incident involved contamination of soy that was not grown in New Zealand, two points stand out from this experience.

The first is that this is a type of "supply chain" incident that is well documented overseas. While there are ways of minimising the chances of GM contamination occurring during transport and storage, the risk of such incidents was a key reason the Australian Wheat Board successfully opposed commercial production there of an entirely separate crop - GM canola.

This current incident shows how any decision to permit GM food production in New Zealand would open up new sources of risks extending far beyond the company growing a GMO. It would raise costs and marketing risks for a much wider set of food producers.

The second point is that New Zealand still has quite inadequate systems for border detection of GM contamination and the source of this incident could have been very different. MAF is admirably thorough in chasing down contamination once it is shown to be present. However, there has been very limited reform of border detection systems since the breach last year and the review this triggered.

MAF's current test for imported seed uses such a small sample size that around 5% of the time, the single test required will not show up GMOs at concentrations of 0.1% or less. New Zealand food producers that are serious about detecting GM content use between two and fifteen times the sample size MAF requires. Trebling the number of seeds used would reduce from 5% to 1% the chances of the border test missing GM contamination at a level of 0.1%.

Other low cost priorities for reform include:

a. Designing model quality assurance procedures - that importers can use to track all stages of seed breeding and transport.

b. Improving incentives - by ensuring the costs arising from contaminated seeds rest with the importing party in the first instance.

MAF can best protect vulnerable food producers and align with public opinion by making far better use of low cost border protection options.

ENDS

DigiPoll Survey Questions

Question 1: "New Zealand currently does not allow any GM contamination to be present in imported seeds. Should New Zealand continue this zero tolerance policy?"

Response: Yes: 78.8%; No: 15.3%; Don't know: 5.9%.

Question 2: "New Zealand currently does not allow any GM contamination to be present in crops grown in the field. Should New Zealand also continue this zero tolerance policy?"

Response: Yes: 77.2%; No: 16.1%; Don't know: 6.7%.

Both polls were conducted in early August 2005, have a sample size of 500 and a margin of error of +/- 4.4%.

GM Free Food Producer Poll

Earlier this week, the Sustainability Council released a further poll registering that three quarters of New Zealanders (74.5%) would support the nation's food production remaining GM Free.

Sample Size: The larger the sample, the better the detection

Number of Seeds Tested: 3,200
Confidence that test will detect a 0.1% level of GM contamination: 95%
Chance of failing to detect 0.1% contamination: 1 in 20 tests

Number of Seeds Tested: 10,000
Confidence that test will detect a 0.1% level of GM contamination: 99%
Chance of failing to detect 0.1% contamination: 1 in 100 tests

Monsanto dismisses GM maize "loophole" claims

Society of Chemical Industry, Wednesday, August 17, 2005, By Marina Murphy. Reports that UK farmers can exploit a GM loophole to grow their own GM maize are wildly exaggerated, according to Monsanto.

The Guardian newspaper reported on 8 August that it had discovered 'a loophole which allows enthusiasts to grow their own GM maize'.

But Tony Combes, director of corporate affairs, Monsanto UK, said:' It was nothing more than a failed sting operation. We smelled a rat from the very beginning.'

According to Combes, Monsanto will provide seeds free of charge for research purposes but only to bona fide scientists who can prove who they are and fill out the necessary forms outlining why they want to do the research and the research protocols they will use.

'Obviously, The Guardian did not do this and they did not get any seed,' said Combes.

The Guardian called Monsanto and offered to buy seeds. Combes said the company does not sell MON810 seeds in the UK and does not give them to farmers.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, however, says that Monsanto's MON810 is on the EU common catalogue of seeds and there are no regulations to prevent f

armers from growing it. But Combes said: 'No farmer is going to grow a crop resistant to a pest that is not a problem in the UK.'

MON820 is banned in Hungary and Austria.

Licensing fee may double cost of new alfalfa seed

Capital Press Agriculture Weekly, Wednesday, August 17, 2005. By Tam Moore. TULELAKE, Calif. - Monsanto, which got U.S. government approval for commercial Roundup Ready alfalfa a few weeks ago, has set a technology licensing fee that will nearly double the seed cost for most western farmers wanting to try the system.

That's the assessment of Steve Orloff, a University of California extension agronomist and farm advisor in Siskiyou County.

"Financially, I think there will be a payback, but you are going to have to sharpen your pencils," Orloff told growers at last week's field day at the UC Intermountain Research and Extension Center.

His comments came to farmers who usually get six years out of an alfalfa stand in the mountain valleys of Northern California and Southern Oregon. Where stand life is less, the math is different, and may not favor trying RR alfalfa.

Orloff is in his third year of testing RR alfalfa varieties. He's also carried out extensive research on best management techniques for the commercial RR varieties.

The bottom line is a Monsanto technology fee of $3 a pound. Typical seedings are at a rate of 18 to 20 pounds per acre. Getting a stand established with RR alfalfa could cost $60 an acre, Orloff said, while the savings on herbicides over a six-year stand life would be about $75.

The alfalfa carries a gene resistant to glyphosphate herbicide, allowing growers to spray the crop and kill competing weeds.

Official notice of the government de-listing of RR alfalfa came in the June 27 Federal Register. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture signed off on a finding of "no significant impact" after years of testing.

"We have full regulatory approval for domestic use in the United States," said Mark McCaslin, the president of Forage Genetics International. He spoke by phone from company headquarters in Nampa, Idaho.

Forage Genetics did the variety work for Monsanto, transferring the RR gene to dozens of commercial alfalfa varieties distributed by several seed companies.

What's available for fall planting, McCaslin said, is a limited supply of RR alfalfa seed. Last winter he told an alfalfa conference about 1.5 million pounds should be on hand. Orloff said the best estimate this summer is nearer 1 million pounds "enough to plant perhaps 50,000 acres". McCaslin said because so many seed companies are involved, he can't be specific on seed supply.

Because the GMO alfalfa isn't cleared for overseas planting, Monsanto will also ask those who buy seed to promise they won't sell the hay in export markets. Monsanto had said, as recently as last winter's grower meetings, that it wouldn't release seed on the West Coast until it knows RR hay is acceptable to Asian importers.

Wayne Edwards, a California-based field man for Monsanto, said technically the company position is intact; Japanese approval is expected in November. That means it would come months before a fall-planted alfalfa crop yielded its first cutting in late spring, 2006.

Jennifer Garrett, Monsanto's director of information, said in a telephone interview that the decision to release seed for fall planting came after meetings with hay growers in Washington state, and reports on progress toward Japanese acceptance of Roundup Ready alfalfa.

She said Monsanto surveys indicate 99 percent of U.S. alfalfa production is for domestic use, and West Coast export markets take just 1 percent. The Monsanto license agreement that comes with fall-planted seed includes a grower's pledge that hay will be sold in domestic markets.

As part of the deal with Washington hay exporters, Monsanto also promised to make genetic hay testing kits available so exporters can test and assure buyers there's no GMO hay present.

Garrett also confirmed that Monsanto has different technology license fees, apparently based on the quantity of herbicide used. Irrigated hay producers will pay a higher fee, $3 per pound, than will dryland producers in the Midwest. Monsanto set the license fee there at $2.50 per pound of seed.

"It's related to the type of production system," she said.

Tam Moore is based in Medford, Ore. His email address is tmoore@capitalpress.com.

17 August 2005

Democracy fails as genetically engineered seeds allowed to enter Europe

Greenpeace Press Release, Brussels, Belgium, 16 August 2005. Genetically engineered seeds, such as the GE rapeseed developed by the U.S. biotech company Monsanto, are likely to be given the green light to be imported into Europe. The European Commission is planning to publish its decision on the controversial seeds into the European Union for use in food and animal feed today, despite 13 of the 25 EU member states voting against the proposal (1).

"The Commission will be blatantly disregarding the wishes of the majority of its member states and pushing this controversial decision through at a time when representatives are on holiday," said Greenpeace International Campaigner Christoph Then. "Allowing the import of Monsanto's GE rapeseed into Europe poses substantial risks to the environment and maybe even to human health."

GE seeds pose several risks to the environment, specifically the uncontrolled dispersal of the seeds contaminating non-GE crops. The GE rapeseed is to be imported as whole kernels and then milled, a hugely risky process, as the seed cannot be completely contained during the process and transportation.

Once dispersed, the GE rapeseed can grow, pollinate and then spread rapidly across Europe. Pollen from rapeseed is reported to travel for several kilometres. The first cross-contamination of wild rapeseed and its GE counterpart was reported in the UK recently. In addition to this, documentation from authorities investigating GE imports into Japan showed importing rapeseed for processing can cause massive dissemination of GE rapeseed around the harbours and the mills. Of the ten harbours investigated, eight were contaminated. A number of transport routes as far as 30 kilometres from the port were also affected.

There is growing concern amongst experts that GE rapeseed should never be cultivated in Europe precisely because its pollination and dissemination cannot be controlled. Even Bayer, another biotech company, withdrew its EU application to grow GE rapeseed after EU member states raised their concerns.

Another concern is the significant health effects that have been observed in animal feed trials. Recent studies by Monsanto on rats showed potentially adverse effects, especially significant differences in liver weight. However, the company has withheld the original data of these studies from the public (2).

The risks of uncontrolled spillage and unanticipated adverse effects of the GE rapeseed were even acknowledged by the EU Commission in its decision to allow the imports. The Commission demands that additional measurements must be made against spillage and reporting systems for any observed effects. However, Greenpeace believes these measurements are clearly insufficient.

"While it is encouraging that the EU Commission acknowledges the fact that this crop can hardly be prevented from escaping into the environment it should be using that very evidence to reject market approval of GE seeds completely. The alternative of putting effective controls and monitoring systems in place on voluntary agreements is simply unworkable," said Then. "The decision should be revoked immediately, and the standards of EU risk assessment and procedure of EU authorisation be reorganised completely."

For more information

Christoph Then, Greenpeace International GM campaigner, (m) + 49 171 878 0832

Mhairi Dunlop, Greenpeace International Media Officer (m) + 31 646 162 026

Notes to editors

(1) In the EU Council of Environment Ministers on December 2004, only six member states voted in favour of the GE rapeseed (GT73), but 13 voted against and the rest of 25 abstained.

(2) Greenpeace wrote several letters to national authorities to get hold of the data. After the organisation won a court case allowing it access to MonsantoÇs confidential data of feeding trials with GE maize in June 2005, it was also expected that the data on the feeding trials with GT73 would be made public; but so far the documents have not been published. Contrary to EU law German officials explicitly refuse access to the data, and Greenpeace is awaiting a reaction from the Government in The Netherlands, where Monsanto originally filed the data.

This is the fourth time the EU Commission has allowed the import of GE crops after a five years moratorium that ended in 2003. The other crops are herbicide resistant maize (NK603) and sweet maize containing insecticidal toxin (Bt11) and maize meant for animal feed (MON863).

12 August 2005

Unapproved GMO Rice Found in China

August 12, 2005. HONG KONG - GeneScan, a global tester of genetically modified organisms in food, said on Thursday gene-altered rice is being sold in parts of China, even though Beijing has not approved its commercialisation.

But a spokesman in China's agriculture ministry said the government was not aware of any such cases.

Chuk Ng, general manger of GeneScan's operation in China, said it had found gene-altered BT rice in samples collected from the Chinese city of Wuhan as well as the southern province of Guangdong, threatening to contaminate the Chinese rice market.

"I believe this GMO rice is widely spread at least in the middle or southern parts of China," Ng told Reuters by telephone from the northern Chinese city of Dalian. "Once contamination has spread out, it's there. You cannot put it back."

GeneScan's comments echoed views of Greenpeace officials who said earlier this year that their employees were able to buy rice and rice seeds modified to contain the bacterial gene, Bacillus thuringiensis, which kills pests.

Greenpeace has also warned that the discovery showed the unapproved variety of grain was spreading across China and that it could find a way to markets overseas.

China is testing several strains of GMO rice, including BT rice, and is expected to grant approval for the commercialisation possibly as early as this year.

Ng said the biological testing specialist, headquartered in Germany and majority-owned by Eurofins Group in France, had examined many rice and seed samples for almost one year in China.

Asked if the BT rice posed any food safety risk, the biologist said: "They may prove it is safe for human consumption. But the problem is it is not yet approved in China."

(Additional reporting by Lucy Hornby in Shanghai)

8 August 2005

Mary Lou McDonald slams GM food decision as 'first step down a dangerous road'

Sinn Féin press release, 8 August 2005. Sinn Féin National Chairperson Mary Lou McDonald MEP has today slammed today's decision to allow the sale of genetically modified maize on the Irish market as 'the first step down a very dangerous road, which will undoubtedly culminate in the sale of GM food to humans in the future'. Ms McDonald made her comments after the European Commission gave the go ahead for the American company Monsanto to sell GM maize in the 26 counties for use in animal feed. Today's decision does not allow the crop to be used for human consumption.

Speaking today Ms McDonald said:

"I am devastated by today's decision to allow the sale of GM maize in Ireland. This is a dangerous first step towards an unfettered free market for GM foods which will undoubtedly culminate in the sale of GM food to humans in the future. The European Commission are riding roughshod over the concerns of the people. Irish citizens have consistently said that they oppose the introduction of GM products.

"Today's announcement comes after recent scientific evidence has shown that cross fertilisation between genetically modified oilseed rape and another plant had created a highly resistant 'superweed'. The discovery was made by British scientists and it was believed that cross fertilisation between GM and charlock had been discounted as virtually impossible.

"To suggest that this GM maize is only for animal feed is disingenuous, because once it enters the animal food chain; humans will automatically be exposed to it.

"Sinn Féin has long warned of the dangers of cross fertilization between GM and non GM crops. The best chance for Irish produce on the world stage is to build upon our clean green image. Anything that takes away from this could damage consumer confidence and have serious consequences for Irish agriculture. The European Commission should heed the warning that GM products are unwanted in Ireland."

Australian crops face 'serious genetic contamination'

AAP, 8 August 2005, By Tim Clarke PERTH - Environmentalists say Australia is facing "the most serious genetic contamination event" in its history, after the West Australian government confirmed low levels of genetically modified canola had been found in non-GM canola [oiseed rape].

A spokeswoman for the WA Department of the Environment said today that tests had shown positive results of GM material but samples had been sent overseas for further testing and until more detailed results were confirmed no further details could be released.

The latest test results come after GM material was found during routine testing by the Australian Barley Board in June of an export consignment of Victorian canola seeds bound for Japan. About 0.01 percent of the consignment contained the GM material.

It is believed the modification found in Victoria, known as Topas 19/2 and developed by Bayer CropScience, was also found in the WA sample tested.

Following today's announcement, Greenpeace Australia campaigner Jeremy Tager said state governments must now take immediate action to protect Australia's GM free status.

"This is the most serious genetic contamination event that Australia has ever faced and the response from state governments in the coming days will determine their commitment to upholding Australia's (GM) free status," Mr Tager said.

"The WA and Victorian governments have instituted rigorous testing.

"They are taking this issue extremely seriously but the lack of any response from the NSW and South Australian governments is disturbing.

"States that have not conducted testing, or taken steps to determine if Topas is a problem in their agricultural areas, are putting Australian farmers and our (GM) free status at risk."

WA's Agriculture Minister Kim Chance said he would like to see legislation put in place at a national level to govern liability for GM contamination.

Although he believed WA's GM-free status was not under threat, he was keeping a close watch on the situation.

Hew said while tests had given a positive result, there could be a number of reasons for that.

"It's certainly a matter for concern, but it is an interim test, and the nature of those interim tests is that false positives are possible," Mr Chance told ABC radio.

"So really until we get the final information from that trial, which won't be until early-September, it's really speculative to say that we actually have that problem.

"I know that the Network of Concerned Farmers have argued very strongly for strict liability laws of that kind, and I think it's something that we need to be thinking about very seriously."

Julie Newman, from the Network of Concerned Farmers, said if the contamination was confirmed, the problem must be isolated and removed because GM-free status was too valuable to lose.

Growers can exploit GM loophole

The Guardian, 8 August 2005, by Paul Brown, environment correspondent. GM crops can be grown in the UK without farmers having to notify the authorities or their neighbours, the Guardian has discovered after testing a loophole which allows enthusiasts to grow their own GM maize.

Supporters of GM crops can legally grow them in Britain by applying to the biotech company Monsanto for a sample pack of GM maize to test on a British farm.

When the Guardian put this to the test, Monsanto offered to send a small quantity free provided the farmer sent the test results and undertook to protect the company's interest by not breaching patents, for example, by selling the seed to a third party.


The government admits there is nothing to stop some GM crops being grown in the UK. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says no regulations exist to prevent farmers growing GM crops approved for cultivation elsewhere in the EU because "it seems unlikely that anyone would want to do so".

The gap in the regulations which would allow Monsanto maize to be grown in the UK without notifying Defra arises because a number of varieties were approved for cultivation in the EU in 1998, before public concern forced governments to rethink their policies.

In the UK, later applications to grow GM sugar beet, oilseed rape and maize were blocked by the government after protests in which trial plots were destroyed. Campaigners believed the herbicide sprayed on GM crops would damage biodiversity and that GM genes would spread to crops, rendering them unsaleable.

In response, Michael Meacher, then environment minister, devised crop trials to discover whether the fears of environmentalists were justified. Two GM crops, oilseed rape and sugar beet, were found to damage the environment more than their conventional alternative, but GM maize did not do so. The companies who had applied for a licence to allow these crops to be sold commercially in this country decided not to proceed.

However, none of this affected the approvals given in 1998 to a large number of varieties of maize called MON 810, which was developed by Monsanto to be poisonous to a borer insect which so damaged the plant that it could render the crop worthless.

There is no regulation which prevents this and other GM seeds approved for growing elsewhere in the EU from being imported into Britain for cultivation. A farmer could theoretically feed it to his cattle and no one would know he had grown it.

Neighbouring farmers, who could face contamination of their crops from cross-pollination by bees, would have no way of knowing what had happened unless checks by food companies or the Soil Association revealed GM content.

A Defra spokeswoman said: "At present neither Monsanto nor any farmer growing the crop is required to inform Defra or anyone else of their plans to grow one of the varieties of maize MON 810 on the EU common catalogue of seeds. If the farmer subsequently sells the MON 810 plants or produce he will have to comply with EU GM traceability and labelling regulations. There is no requirement to put information on MON 810 on the public register."

Emily Diamond, of Friends of the Earth, said: "We believed that following the farm-scale trials that no GM crops were being grown in Britain. Now we cannot be sure whether they are or not. There are a number of other GM crops coming up for approval in other EU countries which could be subsequently imported into the UK without anyone being aware it was happening."

Environmental groups and farmers are concerned because the government does not yet have in place legally enforceable regulations on separation distances between GM and other crops. In addition, the government has to develop a compensation scheme for farmers whose crops are rendered unsaleable by contamination from a GM crop.

Tony Combes, a spokesman for Monsanto, said: "Monsanto's long-standing commitment to openness and transparency means we will always cooperate with bona fide scientists and often donate seed for research purposes.

"However, this endeavour to obtain MON 810 seeds from Spain (where they have been successfully planted commercially since 1998) was neither genuine or even by a research scientist. Also, no research agreement was completed (this agreement details the research protocols governing a proposed study and represents a safeguards to ensure GM seeds are not obtained fraudulently by deception, entrapment and for non-scientific purposes). These are both sufficient reason why no seeds would have been sent."

UK history

Late 1980s Laboratories grew first GM seeds in UK

1994 Bio-tech firms planned to put herbicide-tolerant GM oil seed rape on market

1995 Applications made to sell Herbicide GM maize

1996 Government committee concerned about risks 1999 Bio-tech industry agreed not to market GM seeds until trials complete

2000 First GM trials

2003 Results showed spring-sown GM oil seed rape and sugar beet damaged biodiversity more than conventional crops. GM maize did less damage

2005 Results confirmed winter GM oil seed rape was worse for environment than conventional crops

Summer 2005 Government announces plans to consult on separation and legal framework for growing GM crops

Commission opens door to import of controversial GM maize

Friends of the Earth Press Release, Brussels August 8 2005 - The European Commission today approved the import of a controversial genetically modified (GM) maize, MON863 for use as animal feed [1]. Friends of the Earth has condemned the decision, which once again ignores Member States' concerns over safety. Monsanto's animal feed application failed to get support at the June 24th EU Environment Council when the majority of Member States abstained or voted against it [2]. As a qualified majority was not reached, the final decision reverted to the European Commission. MON863 maize has been genetically modified to resist certain insects by producing a toxin in the plant. It has caused controversy due to food and feed safety concerns, the fact that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) disregarded these concerns, and Monsanto's refusal to publish documents that are crucial to assessing the application. These include:

* Food safety studies: the results of a feeding study of the GM maize on rats showed significantly different levels of white blood cells, kidney weights and kidney structure, as well as lower albumin/globulin rate in the rats fed the GM maize.

* Scientists' criticism of the maize: a number of scientists from different Member States, including the French Commission for Genetic Engineering (CGB), were therefore concerned and severely criticized to maize.

* EFSA's disregard of member state scientists: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected all concerns raised by Member States when reviewing the application, and delivered a positive opinion

* Monsanto's refusal to publish key documents: Monsanto refused to publish the initial rat study, having requested when it filed the application, that crucial documents including the rat study be classified as confidential.

* German court rules against Monsanto: in June 2005, the German government won a court ruling against Monsanto and the documents where made public

* The documents released in June seem to confirm that there is cause for serious safety concern Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth said: "Once again, the Commission has ignored serious concerns raised by Member States over the safety of GMOs. The Commission has authorized this maize despite attempts by Monsanto to hush up the food safety results. Member States have another chance to block this maize at the September Agriculture Council: they must use the opportunity to protect their citizens, stand up to the Commission, and reject it once and for all."

Contact:

Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator, mobile: +32 4 74 857 638

Notes:

[1] This is a decision on animal feed: EU Ministers will vote on the food application for the same maize this coming September. Under EU legislation, no import, including that of animal feed, is allowed until the food application has been authorized. In this case, no imports will be able to start unless the MON863 food application is authorized. EU Ministers are scheduled to vote on this in September 2005.

[2] RESULTS OF THE VOTE ON MONSANTO'S MON863 MAIZE

Environment Council 24 June 2005

In favour: DE, EE, FR, NL, FI, SE, UK

Against: DK, EL, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK

Abstention: BE, CZ, ES, IE,

[3] European Commission press release:

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/showInformation.do?pageName=middayExpress&guiLanguage=en _______________________

Monsanto on the Defensive

Adbusters, 8 August 2005. Since 1998, Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser has been entangled in a legal battle with Monsanto that's been watched as closely by biotechnology corporations as it has been by opponents of genetically modified food. Schmeiser initially charged that his canola (rapeseed) crops had become contaminated with the GM canola created by Monsanto to be resistant to their Roundup brand of weed killer.

Although Schmeiser did not financially profit from the contamination of his farm (which may have resulted from GM seeds being blown onto his property from one of the five neighboring farms that license Monsanto's product), he was sued by Monsanto for allegedly violating their patent. Monsanto demanded Schmeiser pay a $15/acre technology fee along with their staggeringly high legal fees.

In May 2004, the Canadian Supreme court ruled that Monsanto's patent was valid but that Schmeiser was not required to pay the corporation. Both Monsanto and Schmeiser claimed partial victory.

Now Mr. Schmeiser's wife, Louise Schmeiser, has opened a new front in the fight against Monsanto. Mrs. Schemeiser discovered in 2002 that Monsanto's seed had also contaminated her small organic farm. She wrote to Monsanto asking them to remove the plants, but only received vague, threatening letters in response. After being repeatedly rebuffed, Mrs. Schmeiser paid a local student $140 to remove the plants; subsequently, she filed a small claim against Monsanto demanding that she be reimbursed the $140.

Although $140 may not sound like a lot of money, there is plenty at stake in the court's decision. If Monsanto is compelled to reimburse Mrs. Schmeiser for the removal of their GM canola, then they may also be held responsible for removing unwanted patented crops wherever they happen to appear. Whether or not the contamination at the Schmeiser's farm was in fact accidental, given the nature of Monsanto's product, the inevitability of accidental contamination is a reality with which the corporation (and everyone else, for that matter) will have to grapple. In the end, it may turn out that - patent or no patent -even companies like Monsanto won't have pockets deep enough to stay in the GM food game

2 August 2005

Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig
Greenpeace researcher uncovers chilling patent plans

Greenpeace, 2 August 2005.

Geneva, Switzerland - It's official. Monsanto Corporation is out to own the world's food supply, the dangers of genetic engineering and reduced biodiversity notwithstanding, as they pig-headedly set about hog-tying farmers with their monopoly plans. We've discovered chilling new evidence of this in recent patents that seek to establish ownership rights over pigs and their offspring.

In the crop department, Monsanto is well on their way to dictating what consumers will eat, what farmers will grow, and how much Monsanto will get paid for seeds. In some cases those seeds are designed not to reproduce sowable offspring [for details visit www.greenpeace.org/international/news/suicide-seeds]. In others, a flock of lawyers stand ready to swoop down on farmers who illegally, or even unknowingly, end up with Monsanto's private property growing in their fields [for details visit www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-wins-right-to-pollute].

One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. Monsanto has aggressively set out to bulldoze environmental concerns about its genetically engineered (GE) seeds at every regulatory level.

So why stop in the field? Not content to own the pesticide and the herbicide and the crop, they've made a move on the barnyard by filing two patents which would make the corporate giant the sole owner of that famous Monsanto invention: the pig.

The Monsanto Pig (Patent pending)

The patent applications were published in February 2005 at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Geneva. A Greenpeace researcher who monitors patent applications, Christoph Then, uncovered the fact that Monsanto is seeking patents not only on methods of breeding, but on actual breeding herds of pigs as well as the offspring that result.

"If these patents are granted, Monsanto can legally prevent breeders and farmers from breeding pigs whose characteristics are described in the patent claims, or force them to pay royalties," says Then. "It's a first step toward the same kind of corporate control of an animal line that Monsanto is aggressively pursuing with various grain and vegetable lines."

There are more than 160 countries and territories mentioned where the patent is sought including Europe, the Russian Federation, Asia (India, China, Philippines) America (USA, Brazil, Mexico), Australia and New Zealand. WIPO itself can only receive applications, not grant patents. The applications are forwarded to regional patent offices.

The patents are based on simple procedures, but are incredibly broad in their claims.

In one application (WO 2005/015989 to be precise) Monsanto is describing very general methods of crossbreeding and selection, using artificial insemination and other breeding methods which are already in use. The main "invention" is nothing more than a particular combination of these elements designed to speed up the breeding cycle for selected traits, in order to make the animals more commercially profitable. (Monsanto chirps gleefully about lower fat content and higher nutritional value. But we've looked and we couldn't find any "Philanthropic altruism" line item in their annual reports, despite the fact that it's an omnipresent factor in their advertising.)

According to Then, "I couldn't belive this. I've been reviewing patents for 10 years and I had to read this three times. Monsanto isn't just seeking a patent for the method, they are seeking a patent on the actual pigs which are bred from this method. It's an astoundingly broad and dangerous claim."

Good breeding always shows

Take patent application WO 2005/017204. This refers to pigs in which a certain gene sequence related to faster growth is detected. This is a variation on a natural occurring sequence -- Monsanto didn't invent it.

It was first identified in mice and humans. Monsanto wants to use the detection of this gene sequence to screen pig populations, in order to find which animals are likely to produce more pork per pound of feed. (And that will be Monsanto Brand genetically engineered feed grown from Monsanto Brand genetically engineered seed raised in fields sprayed with Monsanto Brand Roundup Ready herbicide and doused with Monsanto Brand pesticides, of course).

But again, Monsanto wants to own not just the selection and breeding method, not just the information about the genetic indicators, but, if you pardon the expression, the whole hog.

* Claim 16 asks for a patent on: "A pig offspring produced by a method ..."

* Claim 17 asks for a patent on: "A pig herd having an increased frequency of a specific ...gene..."

* Claim 23 asks for a patent on: "A pig population produced by the method..."

* Claim 30 asks for a patent on: "A swine herd produced by a method..."

This means the pigs, their offspring, and the use of the genetic information for breeding will be entirely owned by Monsanto, Inc. and any replication or infringement of their patent by man or beast will mean royalties or jail for the offending swine.

Not pig fodder

When it comes to profits, pigs are big. Monsanto notes that "The economic impact of the industry in rural America is immense. Annual farm sales typically exceed US$ 11 billion, while the retail value of pork sold to consumers reaches US$ 38 billion each year."

At almost every level of food production, Monsanto is seeking a monopoly position.

The company once earned its money almost exclusively through agrochemicals. But in the last ten years they've spent about US$ 10 billion buying up seed producers and companies in other sectors of the agricultural business. Their last big acquisition was Seminis, the biggest producer of vegetable seeds in the world.

Monsanto holds extremely broad patents on seeds, most, but not all of them, related to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Monsanto has also claimed patent rights on such non-Monsanto inventions as traditionally bred wheat from India and soy plants from China. Many of these patents apply not only to the use of seeds but all uses of the plants and harvest that result.

Orwellian: "The Earth is flat, pigs were invented by Monsanto, and GMOs are safe."

The big picture is chilling to anyone who mistrusts Monsanto's record disinterest for environmental safety.

And if you're not worried, you should be: central control of food supply has been a standard ingredient for social and political control throughout history. By creating a monopoly position, Monsanto can force dangerous experiments like the release of GMOs into the environment on an unwilling public. They can ensure that GMOs will be sold and consumed wherever they say they will.

By claiming global monopoly patent rights throughout the entire food chain, Monsanto seeks to make farmers and food producers, and ultimately consumers, entirely dependent and reliant on one single corporate entity for a basic human need. It's the same dependence that Russian peasants had on the Soviet Government following the Russian revolution. The same dependence that French peasants had on Feudal kings during the middle ages. But control of a significant proportion of the global food supply by a single corporation would be unprecedented in human history.

It's time to ensure that doesn't happen. It's time for a global ban of patents on seeds and farm animals. It's time to tell Monsanto we've had enough of this hogwash.

- Brian Thomas Fitzgerald

Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec

Archives 2004 • 2003

Sponsored by Global Vision Corporation

© 2003 - 2005 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 27 October 2005
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2005/index3.php