NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • April 2007

Archives 2007: January• February • March • April • May
Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec • 2004 • 2003

30 April 2007

Ireland: Illegal GM maize enters EU through Ireland

Greenpeace & GM-free Ireland demand blockade of all US maize shipments
Clouds of GM powder contaminate Dublin Docklands
Fianna Fáil's GM food traceability system in tatters
Irish farmers plan to phase out GM animal feed

GM-free Ireland Network press release, 30 April 2007.

Photos are available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac

The GM-free Ireland Network and Greenpeace International called today for a blockade of US maize imports following laboratory tests on Friday which prove that a shipment of US animal feed intercepted in Dublin Port and later in Rotterdam entered the EU illegally with a cargo contaminated by unauthorised and toxic varieties of genetically modified (GM) maize.

The certified laboratory analysis showed 2.4% contamination for a GM maize variety called Herculex patented by Pioneer / Dow Agrosciences, which is approved in the USA but illegal in the EU. The tests also showed 20% positive for GM maize MON863 patented by Monsanto; the latter is still approved for animal feed and human food in the EU, even though the European Food Safety Authority has been forced to review its approval following allegations of scientific fraud, cover up, and a recent peer-reviewed study by French scientists which found it causes serious liver and kidney damage in laboratory animals.

GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace called for the blockade following their discovery of the contaminated animal feed aboard the Pakrac which arrived in Dublin from New Orleans on 2 April. The cargo unloaded here included distiller's grain probably extracted from a GM maize variety that contains its own pesticide, and hulls from GM soya beans thought to contain high level residues of Monsanto's toxic Roundup weedkiller, which has been found to cause toxicity to human placental cells within hours of exposure, at levels ten times lower than those found in agricultural use. The remainder of the cargo, consisting of GM maize pellets, was unloaded in Rotterdam. [Note: on 1 May the Dept. of Agriculture said maize gluten was also unloaded off the Pakrac in Dublin - the same kind of product that tested positive for illegal and toxic GM contamination in Rotterdam - Ed.]

The ship's captain said he was unaware of the contamination because the US authorities certified the cargo as "non-GMO". Dublin Port Company harbourmaster, Capt. David Dignam said all he knew is that the Pakrak carried 16,000 tonnes of "agricultural products". The Port Company and the receiving agent, S.J. Murphy & Co. Ltd (a subsidiary of R. A. Burke) also said they were unaware of the cargo's specific contents. The importer R & H Hall (Ireland's biggest importer and supplier of animal feed ingredients, and a subsidiary of IAWS Group Plc), claimed the only cargo unloaded in Dublin was GM soya hulls and distiller's grain from GM maize, adding that the latter did not carry a GM label to identify its provenance because the transgenic DNA "would not survive the process used to extract it from the GM maize". The tests commissioned by Greenpeace took two weeks to find the first illegal GM content because the lab did not know what type of GMO maize they had to look for, since neither the ship's captain nor any regulatory body had been informed what possible contamination might have been present. No tests have yet been carried out to find out if the cargo unloaded here is also contaminated by the Herculex and MON863 varieties. Further contamination of farmers, livestock and consumers will occur if these GM products are allowed to enter the market.

Contaminated bankers, brokers and commodity traders

Bankers, brokers, commodity traders and residents around Dublin's Docklands are routinely exposed to clouds of GM powder when contaminated animal feed shipments are unloaded here. GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace obtained photographic evidence of clouds of GM powder being repeatedly blown off a bucket crane, as the Pakrac's cargo was slowly unloaded from the ship at the Odlums silos in Alexandra Basin. The wind carried the powder towards the P&O European Ferries terminal, the Point Depot concert venue, and nearby office buildings. Witnesses said the unloading was still underway on the afternoon of the following day.

Irish meat and dairy produce from GM-fed animals refused by EU retailers

This unauthorised GM maize is the third type of illegal GM food or feed known to have entered the EU through Ireland in the last two years. Three quarters of a million tonnes of illegal and toxic varieties of GM animal feed now routinely enter the EU through Ireland each year, contaminating our food chain without the knowledge of the authorities, farmers or consumers. Most of Ireland's non-organic livestock are fed on GM ingredients. A related loophole in EU law allows the resulting meat and dairy produce to be sold without a GM label. But leading retailers in France, Italy, Russia, Switzerland, and the UK who previously made a voluntary ban on GM food, have recently extended their bans to meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients. As a result, Irish exporters of live cattle and beef, lamb and dairy produce are being excluded from prime EU markets unless accompanied by an accredited certification proving their food chain is GM-free from farm to fork.

Regulatory failure

The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan claims that, "since April 2004 all feed imports have been subjected to inspection for accuracy of GM labelling and very high levels of compliance have been detected." But Liam Hyde of the Department's Animal Feedingstuffs Section confirmed that imported animal feed is only tested for GM content on a random basis, adding that he was "unaware" of the French scientific study which found that MON863 is toxic to animals. He also said that the Irish government records of GM animal feed imports for 2006 have been irretrievably lost due to the "computer database failure", making traceability and liability impossible in the event of related animal or human health problems.

Fine Gael Agriculture and Food spokesperson Denis Naughten TD said "One third of animal feed consignments imported into Ireland in 2005 were mislabelled as containing no genetically modified material when, in fact, the opposite was the case. Green Party Leader Trevor Sargent, TD said "Under this Minister's watch, the vast majority of feed imports are genetically modified. This shows just how little she cares for the economic future of conventional and organic growers, for the Irish food industry's image on the world market, for consumers and for Ireland's ecosystems".

This total breakdown of our food safety and traceability system is a clear breach of EU regulation 1829/2003. It proves once again that the existing mechanisms of EU legislation concerning GMOs are not effective and can not protect consumers, farmers, companies and the environment from unwanted GE contamination.

Segregated system needed for GM-free imports

The unloading facilities in Dublin Port don't include a dedicated system to segregate GM from conventional and organic food and feed imports, as specified by the Department of Agriculture's proposed rules "to ensure the co-existence" of GM products with conventional and organic agriculture.

The substantial quantities blown off the dockside into the Alexandra basin and the river Liffey probably also contaminate birds, fish, and seals around Dublin Bay, threatening the biodiversity of five Natura 2000 sites in the area.

Call for blockade of US maize shipments

Greenpeace International this morning requested the European Commission to take immediate steps to halt all maize and other food and feed shipments imported from the USA, until a rigorous comprehensive testing programme and traceability system is fully implemented in compliance with EU law.

At today's European Commission daily press conference at lunchtime, an EC spokesperson said they are concerned that an illegal maize variety has entered the EU. They said the Dutch authorities need to act and put the illegal maize on the Rapid Alert System, so that other EU member states can trace it and take it off the market. The Commission spokesperson also said that although Herculex RW maize is indeed illegal in the EU, it received a positive opinion from EFSA on 4 April) and EU member states still have an opportunity to discuss this opinion on 8 June at a meeting of the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. The spokesperson said the EC had no plans to halt all US maize shipments. Greenpeace spokesperson Geert Ritsema said "This is typical for the European Commission's approach to GM contamination scandals so far. They do not go beyond crisis management. They deal with each crisis separately but do not take any meaningful measures to prevent future contamination."

Greenpeace and GM-free Ireland have also requested the Irish Government to explain why the illegal maize was not intercepted in Dublin, to clarify what was unloaded here, and to test the latter for the presence of illegal and toxic GM maize varieties. They have also called for the EU and Irish Government to ban the importation of Monsanto's toxic MON863 maize from being sold on to farmers and contaminating the food chain.

At a media briefing in Brussels today, a Greenpeace spokesperson said "We hold the authorities in all EU member states and the European Commission responsible for protecting EU citizens against the risks of illegal imports of GMOs. They have this obligation under EU law (labelling and traceability regulation 1829/2003). In the case of the Pakrac the controls have failed miserably: both the Irish and the Dutch authorities did not detect the cargo as containing illegal GM maize. It was Greenpeace who found out by doing a random sampling of one ship. The first time we tested a maize ship since many years, we immediately found illegal GMO maize. This clearly indicates that the EU's official traceability and testing system for GMOs is patently unable to detect illegal GMO varieties on time. Therefore Greenpeace demands a blockade of all US maize shipments and other US shipments that are at risk of being contaminated with illegal GMOs until an extensive testing programme is in place to protect consumers, farmers and the environment against the risks of illegal maize imports."

Farmers to phase out use of GM animal feed

GM-free Ireland is currently engaged in discussions with H & R Hall (Ireland's largest importer and supplier of animal feed ingredients), the Kepak Group (which controls over 60% of the market for Irish beef), the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) and the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association (ICSA) to explore the feasibility of supplying farmers with certified non-GMO animal feed as soon as possible.

Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "the routine use of GM fodder has already damaged the reputation of Irish meat and dairy produce, which would otherwise be considered the best in Europe. We cannot afford to further damage our food exports by continuing to allow illegal and/or toxic varieties of GM animal feed to be sold here, much less the current government's plans 'to ensure the co-existence' of GM crops with conventional and organic faming."

In the UK (Tesco, Sainsburys, Marks & Spencer), France (Carrefour), Italy (Coop Italia), and Switzerland (Migros, Coop) have recently extended their previous ban on GMO ingredients by prohibiting the sale of meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients in their own-brand food products. This follows on an early ban on GM foods by Europe's 60 largest food brands and food retailers in 2005.

Call for reform of the European Food Safety Authority

Greenpeace has urged European Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner, Marcos Kyprianou, and all European member states to apply the Precautionary Principle by prohibiting the further importation and cultivation of MON863 maize and all other GMOs, since all products on the market suffer from the same lack of proper risk assessment.

The European Environmental Bureau, which serves as an umbrella group for Europe's main Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations, has demanded a radical reform of the European Commission's GMO authorisation procedure, and a review of all risk assessments carried out so far on GM animal feed, food and crops.

Irish General Election

GM-free Ireland spokesperson Michael O'Callaghan said his organisation will soon publish a list of all candidates in the forthcoming General Election, with their response - or lack thereof - to a letter sent to them before Christmas requesting them to state if they support the call for a total ban on GMO seeds and crops in Ireland. He concluded "The General Election provides an opportunity for voters to replace a government that broke its previous pre-election pledge never to allow GM food and crops in this country. Contaminating our food chain with dangerous GM feed and food is unacceptable. We are working with farmers and food exporters to phase out the use of GM animal feed, and urge the government to act before GM crops are legalised for cultivation here. The best thing for the future of our food, faming and tourism sectors is to follow the lead of the nine other EU member states and 236 Regional Governments and declare the whole island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone."

ENDS

Contact:

Michael O'Callaghan - GM-free Ireland Network
tel + 353 (0)404 43 885 o mobile + 353 (0)87 799 4761 email: mail@gmfreeireland.org

Geert Ritsema - Greenpeace International
tel + 31 646 197 328
email: geert.ritsema@int.greenpeace.org

Photos are available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac

Europe: New GM maize find in US shipment to Europe

EU Business, 30 April 2007.

(BRUSSELS) - Environmental group Greenpeace said Monday that an illegal genetically modified maize had been found in a US shipment to Europe, the fourth such case in two years.

Greenpeace said it had analysed cargo that arrived in the port at Rotterdam, the Netherlands on April 10 and found that it contained 2.4 percent of the GMO Herculex, a maize manufactured by the firm Pioneer and not yet legal in the EU.

It said in a statement that the ship carrying the maize had offloaded some cargo in Ireland but the group could not determine whether the GMO had landed there.

The European Commission said it had not been told about the find, but that if it were the case it would be "up to the Dutch authorities to send the maize back to the United States."

Since new authorisation rules were introduced in 2004, about 10 GM strains have been cleared for the EU market, mainly for maize destined for human or animal consumption.

The EU has seen three "major incidences" of unauthorised GM products -- all originating from the United States -- reaching the EU market since the new rules went into force.

Those episodes concerned the discovery of shipments of long-grain GM rice, maize gluten last year, and Hawaiian papaya in 2004 and 2005.

Herculex has received a "positive scientific evaluation" from EU food safety experts and the bloc is expected to decide on June 8 whether it should be allowed in.

Canada: Monsanto's Soybean Monopoly Challenged in Munich
European Patent Office Will Decide Fate of Species-Wide Soybean Patent on 3 May 2007

ETC Group news release, April 30, 2007

On 3 May 2007 ETC Group (a Canadian-based international civil society organization - formerly known as RAFI) together with "No Patents on Life!" and Greenpeace will continue a 13-year legal battle against one of biotech's most notorious patents. At an appeal hearing at the European Patent Office in Munich, civil society organizations will argue that Monsanto's patent (European Patent No. 301-749) on all genetically engineered soybeans - unprecedented in its broad scope - must be revoked. "No patent symbolizes the brokenness of the patent system better than Monsanto's species-wide patent on genetically engineered soybeans," said Hope Shand of ETC Group. "Monsanto's patent is both technically flawed and morally unacceptable," said Shand.

Critics refer to EP 301-749 as a "species-wide" patent because its claims extend to all biotech soybean seeds -- irrespective of the genes used or the genetic engineering technique employed. The patent, initially awarded to US-based biotech company Agracetus in 1994, was acquired by Monsanto when it purchased Agracetus in 1996.

According to industry sources, Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits accounted for almost 90% of the worldwide area planted to genetically modified soybean seeds in 2005. What's more, genetically engineered soybeans reportedly account for almost 60% of the global soybean area - an increasingly dominant share of one of the world's most important food and commodity crops.

"The statistics speak for themselves," said Greenpeace's patent expert Dr. Christoph Then. "A single company has been awarded sweeping monopoly control over one of the world's most important food crops."

ETC Group's Shand asserts, "Monsanto's patent is undermining the economic security of farming communities and jeopardizing access to seeds - the first link in the food chain. Whoever controls the seeds controls the food supply." According to a ranking of the world's largest seed companies released today by ETC Group, Monsanto is the world's largest seed company, with over 20% of the global proprietary seed market. ETC Group's new ranking of the top 10 seed companies is available here:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=615

The livelihoods of Argentina's soybean farmers are directly affected by Monsanto's species-wide patent because the company is using its exclusive monopoly to deny Argentine soybeans from entering European markets. Monsanto alleges that Argentine farmers aren't paying royalties to Monsanto for using the company's patented soybean seeds.

Critics point out that Monsanto's defense of its patent is not surprising, but it is hugely hypocritical. Before Monsanto acquired the patent in 1996, the company vigorously opposed the patent - which was then owned by Agracetus. In 1994 Monsanto submitted an exhaustive, 292-page opposition statement to the EPO that shredded the technical merits of Agracetus's soybean patent. Monsanto's lawyers wrote that the soybean patent should be "revoked in its entirety," is "not...novel," "lacks an inventive step," and "sufficient disclosure [of scientific method] is woefully lacking." But after Monsanto acquired Agracetus in April 1996, Monsanto withdrew its challenge, reversed its position and announced that it would defend its newly acquired patent!

In 2003 - more than nine years after the patent was first awarded and legally challenged - an EPO patent tribunal heard legal arguments against the notorious patent. Opponents were shocked when EPO upheld Monsanto's monopoly in 2003. Today, nearly two-thirds of the patent's 20-year term has expired. On 3 May 2007 EPO's appeal tribunal will have one last chance to revoke Monsanto's unjust monopoly on one of the world's major food crops.

"If EPO fails to revoke the patent after 13 years of bureaucratic delays it will simply confirm that corporations can use unjust patents to monopolize markets, destroy competition and jeopardize worldwide struggles for food sovereignty," said Hope Shand of ETC Group.

"Case-by-case legal battles against immoral and unjust patents is an unworkable strategy - Europe needs new patent legislation that expressly prohibits patents on life," said Ruth Tippe of "No patents on Life!"

For more information contact:

Hope Shand or Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group
Email: hope@etcgroup.org / kjo@etcgroup.org
Tel: +1 919 960-5223

Jim Thomas, ETC Group
jim@etcgroup.org
Tel: +1 514 516-5759

Dr. Ruth Tippe, "No patents on Life", Germany
Tel: 0049 1728963858 http://www.keinpatent.de/

Dr. Christoph Then, Greenpeace, Germany
Tel: 0049 1718780832 http://www.greenpeace.de

ETC Group's 2006 ranking of the world's top 10 seed companies:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=615

For more information about international campaign against patents on seeds: http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Taiwan animal rights group protests 'fluorescent pigs'

DPA (German Press Agency), 30 April 2007

Taipei - An animal rights group on Monday protested Taiwanese scientists' genetically engineering two pink fluorescent pigs, calling the project "absurd" and "meaningless."

"If they are doing it for the happiness of human beings or animals, then maybe it is worthwhile. But I don't see any proper purpose for breeding fluorescent pigs," Chu Tseng-hung, director- general of the Environment and Animal Society of Taiwan.

"If the experiment is only to create sensation and attract media attention, then it is meaningless and should not be encouraged," he said.

On Monday, National Taiwan University (NTU) unveiled its second batch of fluorescent pigs at the Yilan Green Expo in Yilan County, northeast Taiwan.

NTU claimed it used fluorescent cells from coral and injected them into 69 pig embryos, which were implanted into two pigs. One pig had a miscarriage, while the other one gave birth to two fluorescent piglets on April 28.

The two piglets are pink inside and out, and glow in the dark. The Yilan County Government called it a scientific breakthrough because they are the first "pink pigs" in the world.

This is NTU's second success in breeding fluorescent pigs. In January 2006, NTU researchers produced two green fluorescent piglets by adding genetic material from jellyfish into normal pig embryos.

The researchers hoped the pigs could boost Taiwan's stem cell research, as well as helping with the study of human disease.

UK: Down on the pharm

The Guardian, April 30 2007

A new breed of genetically modified crops could provide cheap drugs and vaccines for the developing world. Only one problem: what if they get into the food chain? Environment correspondent David Adam reports on 'pharming', the new GM front line

In a windowless room on the roof of a hospital in south London, the air is being slowly sucked away. It's not enough to notice, but it keeps the sealed laboratory at a slightly lower pressure than the air outside. It's a security measure. The contents of this laboratory are highly controversial, and if anything escaped it would be a public relations disaster for the scientists who work here. The lab holds some of the most controversial plants in the UK, which nearby residents would be less than happy to find drifting on the breeze through their back gardens. Open the door, and air rushes in, not out.

The plants are tobacco, but they are not intended to be smoked. Instead, the scientists who work on them believe they could save lives. Each has been genetically engineered to carry a gene that is usually found in common algae. Inside its cells, the foreign DNA forces the tobacco plant to churn out a protein that is useless to it, but that happens to be a potent drug against HIV. The scientists say the drug, and others like it, could save millions of lives across the developing world. The technique has been dubbed pharmaceutical farming, or pharming, and it is emerging as the latest battleground in the war over genetic modification.

Britain has rejected GM plants once already - a media and consumer backlash persuaded most companies there was little market in the UK for crops that have had their genes tweaked to be resistant to pests or herbicides. But with pharming the battle lines are less clearly defined, as protesters who trashed experimental GM corn plants in France discovered. The crops were making a protein that could be used to treat cystic fibrosis, and when patient groups angrily denounced the action, mainstream green campaigners were forced to deny involvement.

To the scientists developing this new generation of GM plants, the benefits are clear. Conventional ways to make modern medicines are expensive, which means pharmaceutical companies generally target those diseases that affect lots of people who can pay. Plants can be grown, harvested, and the useful medicine purified from them at a fraction of the price, so using them as leafy drug factories saves a fortune, and opens the doors to treating people in poorer countries. Advocates say just 250 acres of GM potato crop could churn out enough hepatitis B vaccine to protect the entire population of south-east Asia from the disease for a year.

But there are concerns too. As with GM food crops, there are fears about whether pharmed plants could breed with wild relatives and disturb the natural gene pool. They could find their way into the food chain - potentially exposing people to uncontrolled doses of potent drugs. And then there is the yuk factor, because the experiments often mingle plant and human genes. The Daily Mail says there are "serious ethical concerns about such a fundamental interference with the building blocks of life".

Professor Julian Ma leads the GM tobacco project at the Centre for Infection at St George's Hospital, in south London, and is responsible for the plants on its roof. He is passionate about the benefits of pharming; he insists they could give hope to millions: "The advantages they offer simply cannot be equalled by any other system. They provide the most promising opportunity open to us to supply low-cost drugs and vaccines to the developing world." Other scientists across the world are growing plants that have been given the genetic instructions to make antibodies, vaccines against disease such as rabies and hepatitis B, and dietary supplements.

The HIV drug produced by the London tobacco plants is called cyanovirin-N, which can help stop the virus entering human cells. Experiments with rhesus macaques, which have a similar reproductive physiology to humans, have suggested that the drug could dramatically cut transmission of the virus during sex, and the St George's team wants to turn it into a cream that could be applied by women in countries where men are resistant to using condoms. "If you're a woman in sub-Saharan Africa, you're not going to pay even a dollar or two a week for this. It has to be pennies, and that means it has to be produced in plants," Ma says. He reckons five tonnes of cyanovirin-N would be needed for 10 million women to have two doses a week - a production scale way beyond the economics and capabilities of conventional drug manufacturing.

He is frustrated by the attitudes to genetic modification in the UK and has little time for the "ethical" arguments against placing human genes into plants because, he says, medicines from GM organisms are nothing new. Growth hormones and insulin, routinely taken by a million diabetes sufferers in Britain, are made by adding the relevant human genes to bacteria and growing the GM bugs in vats to produce the human proteins - a fundamental interference with the building blocks of life that has been widely accepted since the 1980s. (Although a minority of diabetes sufferers do object to GM insulin and request older-style drugs made from animals.)

"From a scientific point of view there really isn't anything special about plants with drugs in them," Ma says. "We can't divorce the science from public attitudes, but life is all about risk assessment and it just isn't feasible to make enough of these medicines in any other way."

Neither is it feasible to make enough from a few plants on a hospital roof, which is why the team is also growing the GM tobacco on a Kent farm, in ultra-secure greenhouses with twin-skin plastic walls strong enough to resist a hurled brick. Ma says these are the botanic equivalent of the containment facilities used by microbiologists to work on biological weapons - a level of security he calls "ridiculous".

Conventional drug manufacturers have shown little interest in pharming technology. With a few exceptions, the big companies do not smell big profits in the vulnerable people or regions of the world that would benefit most. Monsanto, the agrochemical giant behind many GM food crops, closed down its pharming efforts in 2003. The field is now largely the domain of university scientists and small biotechnology companies, several of which have found the financial going too tough and folded. As a result, progress has been slower than expected and no drug produced in a genetically modified plant has yet cleared clinical trials and been given a licence.

When such a medicine comes, it is likely to be in North America, where opposition to GM technology is milder and transgenic crops such as maize and cotton are already grown on a massive scale. The California-based company Ventria Bioscience is developing rice that produces anti-bacterial proteins found in human breast milk and saliva, and recently got permission to grow it across 200 acres of farmland in Kansas. Eventually, the company wants to plant closer to 3,000 acres, which would give it enough drug to conduct the large-scale human trials needed before approval for such a medicine would be granted. It says the proteins in its rice, lactoferrin and lysozyme, could treat children with diarrhoea, a major killer in the developing world.

To some, this rice-growing on open farmland is a step too far. As Helen Wallace of Genewatch, a British campaign group, points out: "If they put these genes into food crops then it is only a matter of time until there is a mix-up and they get into the food chain." And the US agricultural system does have a patchy record on keeping GM and conventional produce separate. Starlink, a variety of GM corn meant only for animal feed, turned up in taco shells sold as snacks across the US in 2000, and Prodigene, a Texas biotech company, was fined $250,000 in 2002 for contaminating a soybean crop with corn engineered to produce an experimental pig vaccine.

In a statement, the USA Rice Federation, an industry body, said: "If Ventria's pharmaceutical rice were to escape into the commercial rice supply, the financial devastation to the US rice industry would likely be absolute. There is no tolerance, either regulatory or in public perception, for a human gene-based pharmaceutical to end up in the world's food supply."

But to the companies developing drugs in plants, food crops such as rice offer a quicker and cheaper route than alternatives such as tobacco. They tend to produce more protein and it stays stable for longer - which means the sensitive medicines do not have to be harvested and processed immediately. Because of this, corn, soybean and wheat have also emerged as popular choices for commercial pharming - to the distress of even previously ardent supporters of GM technology. In an editorial in 2004, Nature Biotechnology, the traditionally pro-industry science journal, said: "It seems an industry in which the PhD is the intellectual norm is either incapable of learning a simple lesson from the past or cannot bring itself to act appropriately, despite what it has learned previously ... This position is not anti GM - we should be concerned about the presence of a potentially toxic substance in food plants. After all, is this really so different from a conventional [drugs] manufacturer packaging its pills in candy wrappers?"

New Scientist magazine has repeatedly pleaded with scientists not to grow drugs in modified food crops, a move it calls "daft". A 2005 editorial said: "Some ideas, no matter how good they look on paper, should never be tried in practice. One of these is producing drugs or vaccines in genetically engineered food crops. The risk of these potent chemicals finding their way into the human food chain is just too high."

To some campaigners, even these statements do not go far enough. They want a ban on any pharmaceutical plant grown outdoors. "It's important not to use food crops and it's important not to grow any GM plant out of containment," Wallace says. "The benefits are still unproven and with any product designed to have an effect on human health, there could also be unforeseen side effects."

Ma argues that such a hardline approach means the main benefit of pharming - scale - will never be fully realised. He says also that different standards are being applied, purely because the technology is labelled as GM. While some farmers in Britain grow rape seed for food, others produce a variety high in a natural chemical called erucic acid, an additive for the plastics industry. "That is much more toxic that anything I grow," he says. Of lysozyme, the saliva protein engineered into Ventria's rice, he says: "If you want to stop that getting into the environment, you need to stop people spitting in the street."

GM scientists now come armed with a battery of new technologies to stop cross-contamination from their plants, he adds. These include growing sterile varieties of the plants, fluorescent markers to identify stray seeds, and genetic tricks to stop the foreign genes appearing in pollen. And, unlike GM food producers, the scientists have a strong interest in keeping their plants isolated. Also, since the aim is to produce medicine, each step of the pharming process is subject to strict regulations. "You have to make sure that people don't walk into your field and have a picnic and mistakenly eat your crop," he says. "But I'm equally concerned that I don't contaminate my plants with food."

Other companies are soon expected to follow Ventria's lead and request permission to plant large amounts of pharmaceutical plants outdoors, and will probably face similar opposition. One enterprising company, Controlled Pharming Ventures, thinks it has a solution: it has converted an old limestone mine in Indiana into an underground drug farm. Experts at nearby Purdue University have already succeeded in producing corn down there, inside a giant illuminated room.

Others think they can find places sufficiently remote to manage the risk of cross-contamination to wild plants - in irrigated plots in arid regions across southern Spain or Africa, for example. The Icelandic company ORF Genetics is producing antibodies and vaccines inside the only barley cultivated anywhere on Iceland (the theory being that whatever it puts in the barley can't jump ship without any other barley to jump to). But to critics of GM technology, even those safeguards are unlikely to be enough, because contamination of food supplies could still occur after the pharma crops have been harvested and processed. (For example, seeds might get mixed up in a factory.)

So Ma and his pharming colleagues around the world are pinning their hopes on an unlikely ally: public opinion. Ma says people opposed to GM crops for food would be much more likely to accept them for medicines because the benefits to society are so much clearer. "The most important thing is to get that first product out there, then people will realise what we can do," he says. Until then, his tobacco plants will remain locked securely away, swaying only in an artificial, heavily filtered breeze.

USA: Genetically modified crops rooted in funding

The Honolulu Advertiser (Hawai'i), 30 April 2007. By Sean Hao.

The University of Hawai'i is conducting genetically modified crop research on bananas, tomatoes, petunias and lettuce in an effort to develop hardier, disease-resistant plants.

Researchers at UH's College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources also are trying to develop sugar cane that's genetically modified to produce a vaccine to protect against rotavirus ó a viral infection that can cause severe diarrhea and vomiting in young children.

The projects have been going on for several years, but have not been widely publicized. Other ongoing transgenic crop research at UH is being conducted on pineapple, orchids, anthuriums, taro, papaya and limes.

Genetically modified, or transgenic, crops are plants that have been altered by the transfer of genetic material from another species.

UH's drive to develop new transgenic crops is driven by economics, said Stephen Ferreira, an assistant specialist for plant and environmental protection sciences at UH.

"There's no question at a federal level ... more funds are being funneled or being targeted to some of these kinds of areas," Ferreira said. "Ten years ago you could hardly find money to do transgenic work." But because the technology is successful and has impact, funds are now available for transgenic research.

UH research into genetically modified papaya resulted in the development of a ringspot-virus resistant papaya, which has helped manage the impact of the virus.

However, UH's work on papaya and taro has caused a backlash among environmentalists and others. Cultural concerns about UH's work on genetically modified Hawaiian taro varieties ultimately forced the university to abandon that effort.

Despite the availability of research money, some scientists are reluctant to go into GMO work because of backlash of environmental and cultural concerns, said C.Y. Hu, associate dean and associate director for research at the UH CTAHR. However, Hu could not provide details such as the number of researchers working on genetically modified crop research or the amount of money spent.

"It's actually going down because we have a lot of faculty saying there's no point in doing this," he said.

That could ultimately hurt Hawai'i farmers, should new diseases surface locally, Hu said.

"If you don't want us to do that, we can accept that," he said. "But if we don't work on this and a disease comes in, it's going to wipe you out."

Apart from papaya, UH's remaining genetic crop research is being conducted in greenhouses or laboratories rather than in open fields, which lowers the risk of environmental exposure.

Opponents of genetic crop research and genetically modified food contend that not enough is known about the long-term impact of such products. They point out that many countries, including Japan, won't import transgenic papaya and that transgenic crops could cross-pollinate with nontransgenic plants and taint Hawai'i's image as a clean and natural environment.

So far UH's efforts have met with mixed success. For example, Hawai'i papaya growers now can grow transgenic papayas despite the presence of the damaging ringspot virus. However, genetically engineered papayas have yet to generate the market acceptance and higher sales prices that nongenetically modified papaya command in some markets. And a UH effort launched in 1995 to design a pineapple resistant to nematodes and mealybugs has yet to yield a marketable fruit.

Other ongoing research projects include transgenic virus-resistant lettuce, tomatoes and petunias and fungal resistant Chinese taro. The university also partners with Hawaii Agriculture Research Center on an effort to develop transgenic sugar cane that's resistant to the yellow leaf virus.

Now it wants to develop a better banana ó one that's engineered to resist infection from the bunchy top virus. Plants infected by the banana bunchy top virus suffer severely stunted growth and produce deformed fruit, or in advanced stages produce no fruit. The disease has been present in Hawai'i since the 1990s.

The project suffered a setback when UH researchers were unable to license genetically altered banana trees from researchers in Australia. As a result, UH researchers now have to develop their own virus-resistant banana, which "is years away," said Hu. "There's been some success, but it takes time."

Meanwhile, critics contend the $1.5 million spent so far on transgenic banana research could be better spent developing nongenetic techniques for managing the bunchy top virus.

"I think it's a big waste of money," said Sarah Sullivan, director for Hawaii Seed, an advocate for sustainable agriculture and a Hawai'i that's free of genetically modified organisms. "It's a good example of how unsuccessful GMO research has been."

Others complain that the university is focusing too much effort on genetic crop research rather than supporting alternative means of addressing pesky bugs. Hector Valenzuela, a UH vegetable extension specialist, said the state could have eliminated the ringspot virus by razing all papaya trees for a year or two.

"It would have been very difficult for farmers but it's a sacrifice for the next 50 years" of papaya growth, he said. "My position is there are many other approaches (that) could have been looked at."

Instead of razing trees, papaya growers opted to plant GMO papayas, which have not been a panacea.

"It's difficult because farmers are in a survival mode," Valenzuela said. "Of course they're going to take" a transgenic solution for ringspot.

Transgenic papaya proponents, which include some UH researchers and farmers, contend that there is no way to control the ringspot or bunchy top viruses without genetic engineering technology.

Cutting down all papaya trees "was the first recommendation that was made, but the decision made by growers was the economic hit was too costly to bear," said Ferreira, the UH assistant specialist. "These sustainable or alternative approaches have not been ignored. They've been studied. There's nothing new they have to offer."

Reach Sean Hao at shao@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Ireland: Teagasc Highlight the Economic Implications of GM Crop Technology in Irish Agriculture

www.teagasc.ie, [Teagasc is the Irish Government's Agriculture & Food Development Authority], 30 April 2007.

A seminar on issues associated with genetically modified (GM) crop technology in Irish agriculture was recently held in Dublin. The event was organised by Teagasc, Rural Economy Research Centre, in association with the Agricultural Economics Society of Ireland and the Agricultural Science Association.

Presently, no GM crops are cultivated in Ireland. However, it is anticipated that the introduction of co-existence guidelines could encourage the uptake of certain GM varieties. Hence, this timely seminar focused on regulatory, management and economic issues that will become increasingly important in the debate on the implications of GM technology for Irish agriculture.

Mr Gerry Lohan, Department of Agriculture and Food, discussed the regulatory issues in relation to GM crop technology and the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops in Irish agriculture, while Dr Ewen Mullins of Teagasc Crops Research Centre, outlined findings from recent research on GM crop technology in Ireland.

Dr Fiona Thorne, Teagasc Rural Economy Centre, presented research findings from an inter-disciplinary project which examined the potential economic implications for Ireland of a voluntary adoption of a GM-free island.

This analysis provides an assessment of the likely impact on profitability of a ban on the use and production of GM crops in Ireland. Dr Thorne said:î From this research it is clear that the likely costs to the livestock industry in particular are significant, when a total ban on the import and cultivation of GM crops is considered. While the net benefit, for crop, livestock and dairy farms, resulting from the growing of GM cereal crops is not as significant as the benefits arising from the use of imported sources of GM soyabean and maize, it is important not to consider these two scenarios in isolation from each other.î

The net economic cost, if Ireland adopted a voluntary ban on the import and cultivation of GM crops is estimated to be approximately §7 million per annum, rising to nearly §40 million per annum when different scenarios were analysed. The cost, for cereal farms and specialist dairy and beef farms was considered in aggregate.

It is important to note that this report does not attempt to forecast changes in market prices or demand, if there were increased levels of GM crop technology adopted by agriculture in Ireland and overseas. Hence, the results of the study cannot be used to forecast either future market prices or the demand for GM and non-GM crops.

29 April 2007

Venezuela: Chavez dumps Monsanto

Eco-farm.org, Sunday, April 29, 2007

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias has announced that the cultivation of genetically modified crops will be prohibited on Venezuelan soil, possibly establishing the most sweeping restrictions on transgenic crops in the western hemisphere.

Though full details of the administration's policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are still forthcoming, the statement by President Hugo Chavez will lead most immediately to the cancellation of a contract that Venezuela had negotiated with the US-based Monsanto Corporation.

Before a recent international gathering of supporters in Caracas, Chavez admonished genetically engineered crops as contrary to interests and needs of the nation's farmers and farmworkers. He then zeroed in on Monsanto's plans to plant up to 500,000 acres of transgenic soybeans in Venezuela.

"I ordered an end to the project", said Chavez, upon learning that transgenic crops were involved. "This project is terminated."

Chavez emphasised the importance of food sovereignty and security - required by the Venezuelan Constitution - as the basis of his decision. Instead of allowing Monsanto to grow its transgenic crops, these fields will be used to plant yuca, an indigenous crop, Chavez explained. He also announced the creation of a large seed bank facility to maintain indigenous seeds for peasants' movements around the world.

The international peasants' organisation Via Campesina, representing more than 60 million farmers and farmworkers, had brought the issue to the attention of the Chavez administration when it learned of the contract with Monsanto. According to Rafael Alegria, secretary for international operations of Via Campesina, both Monsanto and Cargill are seeking authorisation to produce transgenic soy products in Venezuela.

"The agreement was against the principles of food sovereignty that guide the agricultural policy of Venezuela", said Alegria when informed of the president's decision. "This is a very important thing for the peasants and indigenous people of Latin America and the world."

Alegria has good reason to be concerned. With a long history of social and environmental problems, Monsanto won early international fame with its production of the chemical Agent Orange - the Vietnam War defoliant linked to miscarriages, tremors, and memory loss that more than 1 million people were exposed to. More recently, the company has been criticised for side-effects that its transgenic crops and bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are believed to have on human health and the environment.

Closer to home in Venezuela, Monsanto manufactures the pesticide "glyphosate", which is used by the neighbouring Colombian government as part of its Plan Colombia offensive against coca production and rebel groups. The Colombian government aerially sprays hundreds of thousands of acres, destroying legitimate farms and natural areas like the Putomayo rainforest, and posing a direct threat to human health, including that of indigenous communities.

"If we want to achieve food sovereignty, we cannot rely on transnationals like Monsanto", said Maximilien Arvelaiz, an adviser to Chavez. "We need to strengthen local production, respecting our heritage and diversity."

Alegria hopes that Venezuela's move will serve as encouragement to other nations contemplating how to address the issue of GMOs.

"The people of the United States, of Latin America, and of the world need to follow the example of a Venezuela free of transgenics", he said.

28 April 2007

USA: Colony collapse disorder FAQs

Missourian News, 28 April 2007. By Adeline Ong.

Q The beekeeping industry has experienced heavy losses of colonies in the past. Is this something new?

A Symptoms similar to colony collapse disorder have been described in the past, and heavy losses have been documented. The condition has received many different names over the years including autumn collapse, May disease, spring dwindle, disappearing disease and fall dwindle disease. Whether the current die-off is being caused by the same factors that caused heavy losses in the past or if new factors are involved is not yet clear.

Q What can I do to reduce the likelihood of being affected by colony collapse disorder?

A Keep colonies strong by practicing best management practices. Donít stack dead or weak colonies on strong colonies. Feed colonies fumigillin in the spring.

Q How do I know if a colony has colony collapse disorder?

A Colonies affected by colony collapse disorder have the following characteristics: The complete absence of adult bees in the hive with no or little build-up of dead bees in the hive or at the hive entrances and the presence of food stores, both honey and bee bread, which is not immediately robbed by other bees. Invasion of common hive pests such as wax moth and small hive beetle is noticeably delayed in dead-out equipment left in the field. (In some cases, the 1ueen and a small number of survivor bees are present in the brood nest.)

Q What are the early signs of colony collapse disorder?

A In cases where the colony appears to be actively collapsing: There is an insufficient workforce to maintain the brood that is present; the workforce seems to be made up of young adult bees; the queen is present, appears healthy and is usually still laying eggs; the cluster is reluctant to consume feed provided by the beekeeper, such as sugar syrup and protein supplement; and foraging populations are greatly reduced/nonexistent.

Q What potential causes of colony collapse disorder is the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group investigating?

A The current research priorities under investigation by members of the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group, as well as other cooperators, include, but are not limited to: chemical residue/contamination in the wax, food stores and bees; known and unknown pathogens in the bees and brood; parasite load in the bees and brood; nutritional fitness of the adult bees; level of stress in adult bees as indicated by stress-induced proteins; and lack of genetic diversity and lineage of bees.

Q Is honey from colony collapse disorder colonies safe to eat?

A To date there is no evidence that colony collapse disorder affects honey. The impact of colony collapse disorder appears to be limited to adult bees

Q What are examples of topics that the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group is not currently investigating?

A Genetically modified organism crops: Some GMO crops, specifically Bt Corn, have been suggested as a potential cause of colony collapse disorder. While this possibility has not been ruled out, colony collapse disorder symptoms do not fit what would be expected in Bt-affected organisms. For this reason GMO crops are not a "top" priority at the moment.

Radiation transmitted by cell towers: The distribution of both affected and nonaffected colony collapse disorder apiaries does not make this a likely cause. Also, cell phone service is not available in some areas where affected commercial apiaries are located in the West. For this reason, it is not a top priority.

Source: The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium at: . http://maarec.cas.psu.edu

UK: Mystery of Disappearing Honeybees

This article compliments of The Institute of Science in Society ISIS website at: http://www.i-sis.org.uk

For some time now, honeybees have been disappearing from farmers' hives without a trace

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins on the trail of possible culprits and explode some myths reported in the mainstream media.

Honeybees vanishing worldwide

The first alarm was sounded in autumn 2006. Honeybees are disappearing across the United States, with half of the States affected, and up to 80 percent of colonies are lost in some areas [1-5]. The problem began two years ago and has intensified in recent months. The bees simply vanish from the hives, leaving behind the queen and a few young. This "colony collapse disorder" (CCD) is particularly devastating for growers of fruits and vegetables, as they depend on insect pollinators.

Since then, CCD has been reported from Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and the UK [4], where one of the biggest bee keepers reported that 23 of his 40 hives have gone. (But the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said that "there is absolutely no evidence" of CCD in the UK.).

CCD has baffled scientists, because no one knows what causes it. Viruses, fungal diseases, parasitic mites, pesticides, or chemical designed to control mites have considered by the authorities, as have GM crops [6-7], and mobile phones [4] by others. So how good is the evidence?

Extent and causes of decline both unknown

The United States National Research Council Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America published its report [5] in October 2006, pointing out that the decline in honeybee pollinators was devastating North America, as three quarters of the earth's flowering plants depend on pollinators for propagation. But it was rather thin on data and information on the precise extent of the present decline in honeybees or its causes.

The report discussed introduced parasitic mites, and the bacterial pathogen that causes foul brood disease in detail, as there is extensive scientific literature. But it barely touched on pesticides or GM crops, and did not mention mobile phones at all.

Mites infestations

The introduced parasitic mites, Varroa destructor and Acarapis woodi, began to cause infestation since the late 1980s, and mite infestation became established in the US within a decade. Varroa destructor, an external parasite of the honeybee, has caused dramatic declines in honeybee abundance in North America and throughout the world. During the winter of 1995-1996, northern US beekeepers experienced their larges losses in history, in some states 30 to 80 percent of colonies were lost. These losses have occurred despite heavy used of pesticides to control mite populations. Pesticide resistance has become widespread and many beekeepers are no longer able to use the few registered pesticides for controlling Varroa.

The tracheal mite Acarapis woodi is an internal parasite of the honeybee. It was first detected in the US in 1984, and initially caused serious damage to colonies, but there appear to be heritable resistance to the mite.

Parasitic mites cannot explain colony collapse disorder as there is no evidence that mite infestation is directly involved, although it may contribute indirectly by reducing the immunity of the bees to infections by viruses, bacteria and fungi (see below).

Foul brood disease

Paenibacillus larvae is the most serious pathogen of honeybees. It causes American Foul Brood disease (AFB), a disease of honeybee larvae. It is highly virulent and easily spread among colonies, and generally fatal if untreated. During the first half of the last century AFB was the most serious threat to beekeeping, and caused tremendous loss of colonies. The incidence of AFB was reduced dramatically by the introduction of antibiotics, and by state inspection programme that required the burning of infected hives. However AFB spores are refractory to antibiotics and can persist on contaminated equipment for more than 80 years. Treatment of colonies with active cases of AFB eliminates disease symptoms, but withdrawal of antibiotics is generally followed by disease recurrence. Resistance to antibiotics has also become widespread since 1994. As in the case of parasitic mites, foul brood disease is not associated with colony collapse disorder.

Pesticides

The use of pesticides, especially insecticides on crops is known to kill or weaken thousands of honeybee colonies in the US each year, and local bee kills have occurred sporadically for decades. The NAS report considered it unlikely that this has "contributed significantly" to the recent decline. The report stated [5, p. 79]: "Most pesticide-caused honey bee kills are the result of accidents, careless application, or failure to adhere to label recommendations and warnings." It has obviously ignored sublethal effects that may turn out to be the most significant single factor contributiing to the recent honeybee decline (see later).

Parasites reduce bee immunity

Varroa mites infestation reduces the immune response of the bees, causing them to be prone to infection with virus, bacteria or fungi [8, 9]. A number of viral diseases are enhanced in the parasite infected bee colony, particularly the deformed wing virus disease that causes crippling deformity in the bees [10]. Multiple viruses frequently infect the bees attacked by Varroa parasite. These viruses are spread not only by the parasitem but also vertically from queen to brood [11, 12]. The parasite-infested colonies are frequently treated with a pyrethroid insecticide, fluvalinate, but the parasite has grown resistant to the insecticide [13], and the insecticide may influence the behaviour of the honeybee (see below). Honeybees have 17 gene families involved in immunity [14], only roughly one-third the number of immunity genes in Drosophila and Anopheles mosquitoes. Honeybees seem to have limited immune flexibility, which may make them more sensitive to devastating pathogens.

Pesticides disrupts bee behaviour at sublethal levels

Numerous pesticides have been found to disrupt bee behaviour following sublethal exposures [15]. A wide array of pesticides including fluvalinate (the chemical used to treat hives to eliminate parasites) disrupted the behaviour of honeybees leading to feeding and navigation problems [16]. Bees suffering from sublethal pesticide intoxication resembled the behaviour of bees described by observers of the honeybee disappearance phenomenon. Sublethal doses of fipronil (a veterinary insecticide) impaired the olfactory memory process of honeybees [17]. Spinosad, a prominent and much used natural insecticide fed to bumble bees in pollen slowed down their foraging behaviour while a higher dose of the insecticide caused colony death within two to four weeks [18]. See Requiem for the Honeybee [19] for more evidence that sublethal effects of pesticides may be the single most important factor contributing to disappearing honeybees.

Genetically Modified (GM) crops may have sublethal effects on bees

The possibility that the great distribution of GM crops in North America is contributing to the decline in honeybees was given little consideration by the NRC Committee [5] even though the timing of the honeybee decline appears to coincide with the wide deployment of GM crops. GM crops are modified to tolerate herbicides especially gyphosate or to contain biopesticides (the Bt Cry toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis), or both. The insect resistance toxins produced in GM crops are not highly toxic to bees, but are toxic to butterflies, moths and beetles. Nevertheless, in some instances, the toxins cause bee lethality or behavioural modification.

The Bt toxin Cry1Ab caused reduced foraging activity after bees were fed with syrup containing the toxin. However, the Bt toxin produced less pronounced impacts on bee behaviour than did the chemical pesticides deltamethrin or imidacloprid [20]. Bt bacteria caused mortality in bees when fed in broth cultures or sugar solutions [21].

A number of purified Bt Cry toxins have been studied in the laboratory to determine their toxicity to honey bees and bumble bees. For the most part, those studies showed little threat from the Cry toxins. But, sublethal effects on the bees were not recorded in the experiments [22].

In a series of experiments in Jena, Germany, bees were found not to be affected when fed on a diet of pollen doped with 100 times the concentration of toxin found in the Bt maize pollen; and feeding trials with larvae also showed no effects. In the fields, bee colonies in flight tents were fed with Bt maize pollen to which a 10-fold concentration of Bt toxin had been added. Again, no negative effects were detected until chance infestation by the parasite microsporidia resulted in more significant damage to the Bt-fed colonies. [23]. Transgenic glyphosate-tolerant canola pollen was reported to pose no threat to honeybees [24]. However, when organic, conventional, and herbicide-tolerant canola were compared with regard to pollination by wild bees in Alberta, Canada, the herbicide tolerant canola plots had the greatest pollination deficit, while conventional and organic plots were equally well served by the wild bees [25].

Clearly, the existing evidence calls for fuller investigations on the sublethal impacts of GM crops such as learning and feeding behaviour, and immunity to disease. The potential consequences of pollinator decline on food crops can be staggering and the impact on biodiversity may be irreversible [26].

Mobile phones and bee decline

There has been widespread report in the mainstream media that mobile phones may be responsible for the decline of honeybees [for example, 4, 27]. Scientists at Landau University in Germany were supposed to have shown that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. This turned out to be total fabrication.

In fact, the scientists involved placed the base station of a DECT-mobile phone (which sends out electromagnetic radiation ~ 1 900 MHz) under the beehives. But that had no effect on the bees; the bees did not avoid it, and did not change their behaviour [28, 29]. This is not to say that mobile phones and mobile phone base stations have no effect on bees, as the base station was on standby only, the mobile phone being not in use, so the radiation from the base station was very low; and it was a very limited preliminary experiment. There is evidence that bees are indeed sensitive to weak static magnetic fields, as they use the earth's magnetic field to navigate [30]. The bees' waggle dance on the honeycomb, which tells hive mates where to find food, can also be misdirected by extremely weak pulsed magnetic fields at about 250 Mhz [31], and bees can even learn to detect very low levels of extremely low frequency alternating electromagnetic fields [32]. So the impact of mobile phones and base stations on bees remains an open question.

The mystery remains

The mystery of disappearing honeybees is far from solved. The most likely culprits so far are the pesticides, which are not only sprayed on crops, but used universally to dress seeds in conventional agriculture, including GM agriculture [19]. However, it is likely that sublethal effects due to GM crops, mobile phones, mites infestations and other factors which alter the bees' behaviour, affect their memory and learning process or compromise their immune system will also have a role to play.

Honeybees may be our most sensitive indicator species for all the environmental pollution and dangerous technologies we perpetrate. When honeybees disappear, we too, shall follow.

References

1. "Mystery illness devastates honeybee colonies" Roxanne Khamsi NewScientist.com news service, 14 February 2007, http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11183

2. "Honeybees, gone with the wind, leave crops and keepers in peril" Alexei Barrionuevo, New York Times 27 February 2007. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B1FF8355A0C748EDDAB0894DF404482)

3. "Bee vanishing act baffles keepers", BBC News, 27 February 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6400179.stm)

4. "Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?" Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross, the Independent on Sunday, 15 April 2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece

5. Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America American National Research Council,Status of Pollinators in North America 2006 ISBN:978-0-309-10289-6

6. "Are GM crops killing bees?" Gunther Latsch, Der Spiegel, 22 March 2007,http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html

7. "European bees also taking a nosedive ’§" perhaps GM crops?" Craig Mackintosh, Celsias, 29 March 2007 http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/29/european-bees-taking-a-nosedive/

8. Yang X and Cox-Foster DL. Impact of an ectoparasite on the immunity and pathology of an invertebrate: evidence for host immunosuppression and viral amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24;102(21):7470-5

9. Yang X and Cox-Foster D. Effects of parasitization by Varroa destructor on survivorship and physiological traits of Apis mellifera in correlation with viral incidence and microbial challenge. Parasitology. 2007, 134(3), 405-12.

10. Yue C and Genersch E. RT-PCR analysis of Deformed wing virus in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and mites (Varroa destructor). J Gen Virol. 2005, 86(12), 3419-24.

11. Chen YP, Pettis JS, Collins A and Feldlaufer MF. Prevalence and transmission of honeybee viruses. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006, 72(1), 606-11.

12. Chen Y, Evans J and Feldlaufer M. Horizontal and vertical transmission of viruses in the honeybee, Apis mellifera,. J Invertebr Pathol. 2006, 92(3), 152-9.

13. Liu Z, Tan J, Huang ZY and Dong K. Effect of a fluvalinate’§Íresistance’§Í associated sodium channel mutation from varroa mites on cockroach sodium channel sensitivity to fluvalinate, a pyrethroid insecticide. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2006, 36(11),:885-9.

14. Evans JD, Aronstein K, Chen YP, Hetru C, Imler JL, Jiang H, Kanost M, Thompson GJ, Zou Z and Hultmark D. Immune pathways and defence mechanisms in honey bees Apis mellifera. Insect Mol Biol. 2006, 15(5), 645-56.

15. Desneux N, Decourtye A and Delpuech JM. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007, 52, 81-106.

16. Thompson H. Behavior effects of pesticides in bees - their potential for use in risk assessmernt. Ecotoxicology 2003,12, 317-30.

17. El Hassani AK, Dacher M, Gauthier M and Armengaud C. Effects of sublethal doses of fipronil on the behavior of the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2005, 82, 30-9.

18. Morandin L, Winston M, Franklin M and Abbott VA. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of spinosad on bumble bees (Bombus impatiens Cresson). Pest Management Science, 2005, 61,619-26,

19. Cummins J. Requiem for the honeybee. Science in Society 34 (in press).

20. Ramirez-Romero R, Chaufaux J and Pham-Delègue M. Effects of Cry1Ab protoxin, deltamethrin and imidacloprid on the foraging activity and the learning performances of the honeybee Apis mellifera, a comparative approach Apidologie 2005, 36, 601-11.

21. Hilbeck A and Schmid J. Another view of Bt proteins= How specific are they and what else might they do Biopestic. Int. 2006, 2,1-50.

22. Malone L and Pham-Delègue M. Effects of transgene products on honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus sp.) Apidologie 2001, 32, 287-304.

23. The effects of Bt maize pollen on the honeybee, 2001-2004 Jena University, GMO Safety, Federal Minstry of Education and Research, http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/oilseed_rape/honey_bees/339.docu.html

24. Huang ZY, Hanley AV, Pett WL, Langenberger M. and Duan JJ. Field and semifield evaluation of impacts of transgenic canola pollen on survival and development of worker honey bees. J. Econ Entomol. 2004, 97(5), 1517-23.

25. Morandin L and Winston M. Wild bee abundance and seed production in conventional, organic and genetically modified canola. Ecological Applications 2004,15, 871-81.

26. Allen-Wardell G, Bernhardt P, Bitner R, et al, The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology 1998, 12, 8-17.

27. "Are mobile phones killing our bees?" Michael Leapman, Daily Mail 16 April 2007, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=448761&in_page_id=1766

28. Stever H and Khun J. How electromagnetic exposure can influence learning processes - modelling effects of electromagnetic exposure on learning processes. Unpublished ms.

29. Stever H and Kuhn J. Electromagentic exposition as an influencing factor of learning processes - a model of effect in educational informatics. IIAS-Transactions on Systems Research and Cybernetics. International Journal of the International Institute for Advanced Studies in systems Research and Cybernetics 2003, 3, 27-31.

30. Frier HJ, Edwards Em, Smith C, Neale s and Collett TS. Magnetic compass cues and visual pateern learning in honeybees. J Expt Biol 1996, 199, 1353-61.

31. Korall H, leucht T and Martin H. Bursts of magnetic fields induce jumps of misdirection in bees by a mechanism of magnetic resonance. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 1988, 162, 279-84.

32. Kirschvink JL, Padmanabha S, Boyce CK and Oglesy J. Measurement of the threshold sensitivity of honeybees to weak, extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. J Exptl Biol 1997, 200, 1363-8.

The Netherlands: Illegal GM maize found in Rotterdam port

DutchNews, 28 April 2007.

A type of genetically-manipulated maize which is illegal in Europe has been found by Greenpeace scientists in a consignment of maize pellets in Rotterdam port, the environmental organisation confirmed on Saturday.

The crop, Herculex, has been manipulated to produce a poison against a type of insect. Other types of GM maize were also in the pellets, which was described as GM-free on the ship's documents.

The pellets were on board the Croatian-owned bulk carrier Pakrac, which picked up its load in New Orleans, the Volkskrant reported.

Greenpeace also found a consignment of maize flour which contained 1.9% GM crops on board the same ship. The legal limit for contamination is 0.9%.

The organisation criticised the food safety authority VWA for not carrying out enough checks for GM crops. In 2005 the VWA carried out 1,582 tests and inspections on ships for GM contamination; last year it carried out just 175, Greenpeace claimed.

27 April 2007

Greece: Greece continues to ban GM corn for planting

USDA/FAS (GAIN report GR7005), April 27 2007

The Government of Greece (GOG) does not allow GMO seed to be sold or planted. Conventional corn seed can be imported as long as the adventitious presence of transgenic material does not exceed 0.5% (for cotton seed this level is "zero").

Just last week, Deputy Minister of Agriculture Mr. A. Kontos signed a new revision of a January 2006 ministerial decree that prohibits commercialization and usage of GMO hybrid corn seed varieties of the MON 810 series in Greece. This revision raised the number of banned varieties from 31 to 47. The continuing GOG justification for the ban is that these hybrids pose a risk to the environment and to domestic conventional varieties. The research to support these contentions is unknown. Greece has yet to implement any coexistence legislation.

In a separate, but GMO related action last week, the same Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mr A. Kontos, ordered the confiscation of 88 tons of Chinese rice protein meal at the Greek Customs Port of Pireaus for containing an unapproved GM event (Bt 63). The product was to be used as animal feed. The total tonnage originated with three 3 different shipments of 48, 20 and 20 tons of bagged product. Ministry of Agriculture border authorities will have the product destroyed or re-exported. Reportedly, the EU Alert System has been informed of these GOG actions. The GMO tests were conducted in Germany. Another 90 tons of similar Chinese origin product is being held in Pireaus customs awaiting laboratory test results.

The discovery of the Chinese GM rice has led to the promulgation of a public order to Greek Customs and local agricultural authorities, requiring that all shipments of imported rice be subjected to laboratory testing before clearing through customs, and that entry controls are not to rely only on accompanying documents and certificates.

Mr. Kontos declared to the media that, "We keep our positions fixed against the commercialization and cultivation of GMOs and we are intensifying the implementation of our preventive measures"....

USA: Judge mulls making alfalfa ban permanent

Reuters, April 27 2007. By Michael Kahn.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. judge questioned whether he should lift a ban on the sale and planting of Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified alfalfa without a government study of the crop's potential impact.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer on Friday told lawyers defending the use of Monsanto's alfalfa that it was up to the government -- not him -- to determine whether use of the seed posed a potential threat to the environment.

He also said that lifting his preliminary injunction before such a study was complete could lead to greater harm to the environment. He challenged defense lawyers to show him case law establishing a precedent for him to do so.

Breyer, who has already ruled that the government acted illegally in approving the biotech alfalfa, issued the preliminary injunction in March and set April 27 as a date to consider whether to make it permanent. He did not indicate when he might make a final decision on the ban.

"It is not the court's function to do an environmental impact study," Breyer said during the hearing. "That hasn't been done, and I don't know if the court ought to do it. The government ought to do it, and that is what I held.."

In March, Breyer issued a preliminary injunction banning the sale and planting of the alfalfa, which has been genetically altered to tolerate treatments of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Contamination fears

Many farmers, environmentalists and consumer activists fear the biotech alfalfa will contaminate organic and conventional varieties, create "superweeds" that don't respond to herbicide and damage export business. Alfalfa is a perennial livestock fodder crop and among the most widely grown crops in the United States.

The judge's order in March said the USDA had not done a thorough job in evaluating the potential impact of the crop, and he vacated the USDA's 2005 approval of Monsanto's alfalfa.

His decision marked the first time a federal court overturned USDA approval of a biotech seed and halted planting, according to The Center for Food Safety, among the groups seeking the injunction.

Lawyers defending use of the crop, however, urged the judge to lift his injunction, saying at the hearing on Friday that the important factor was that any likelihood of injury was low and that farmers relying on the seed would be harmed.

"There are some significant environmental and beneficial effects in Roundup Ready Alfalfa," Janice Schneider, a lawyer representing Monsanto, told the judge.

Monsanto has presented testimony from scientists who say there is an "extremely low" risk that Roundup Ready Alfalfa would pollinate conventional crops if "appropriate stewardship measures" were taken.

Monsanto has also argued that a continued ban on Roundup Ready seed would force farmers "to plant lower-yield alfalfa breeds that pose more complicated and costly weed control problems and require the use of more toxic or environmentally problematic herbicides."

The Roundup Ready alfalfa genetic trait was developed by Monsanto and licensed to Forage Genetics International, which produces and markets the seeds.

Canada: Genes For Sale

Living on Earth, April 27 2007: extract from the transcript of a radio programme that includes an interview with Pat Mooney of the ETC. group.

INTERVIEWER: ...of all these things that we've talked about here is there one that you put at the top of your list of concerns?

MOONEY: Can I give two? There are two very specific claims in this field that we find quite scary. One of them is one that Monsanto has where it's claimed the species of soybeans. Any biotech work on the crop of soybeans anywhere in the world is a violation of Monsanto's patent. The idea that you can actually own an entire species of a major crop is simply outrageous.

The second example I give is one by Syngenta, one of the other big company's based in Switzerland, Syngenta has actually got a claim on how a plant flowers. So it's actually the strip of DNA that allows a plant to flower. Ant it's said that this claim applies to 40 different species in the food system including rice and wheat, bananas and so on. So if Syngenta's patent claim is ever accepted, Syngenta would own the world's food supply basically all by itself. We think that if the company got the patent they'd be forced to back off. I think there'd be something of a revolution before that patent would be allowed to be implemented. But it shows the failures of the patent system and the inability of governments to address the questions who owns life and who owns nature.

INTERVIEWER: Is that still the right question? That was the question posed in 1994 in that story, Who Owns Life, are we still asking that question?

MOONEY: We're asking it, but we're, again, it's become more fundamental than that. It's not just life, it is the nature that builds life. In this field of synthetic biology or nano-biotechnology we're now seeing patent claims again that are on the building blocks of life. And that's the scariest thing of all because they're below the radar screen of politicians and policy makers of any kind because they don't seem to be consequential and then the patent is granted and suddenly you realize that you've given away the Garden of Eden.

ETC Group

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/

Full transcript:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00017&segmentID=3

RealAudio for this story (requires RealPlayer):
http://loe.org/audio/stream.m3u?file=http://stream.loe.org/audio/070427/070427ownslife.mp3 Download this Story (mp3 format):
http://stream.loe.org/audio/070427/070427ownslife.mp3

Poland: Genes are not for sale

Note: This is a report on the ICPPC conference "Genes Are Not For Sale" held last week in Wawel Castle, Krakow in Poland, under the patronage of the City of Krakow, which was amongst the very first authorities in Poland to declare their area a GMO Free Zone. It was a counter-conference to the "First International Biotechnology Conference" held in Krakow at the same time.

The counter-conference was held to strengthen Polish rersistance at a time that Poland's future as Europe's leading "GMO Free Zone" is under increasing threat due to corporate pressures on the Polish government to open the Polish market to the commercial planting of GM crops despite the near universal rejection of GMOs by the Polish people.

From: Fundacja ICPPC
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007
Subject: [icppc] "Genes Are Not For Sale" Krakow anti-GMO counter-conference April 25th

Dear Friends,

Just to keep you up-to-date: Our Krakow Conference 'Genes Are Not for Sale' which was set up to counteract an international Bio-Tech event in Krakow, drew approx 120 people to Wawel Castle and filled the room to capacity. Dr Arpad Pusztai, Percy Smeicher and Michel Dupont were the main international speakers, Prof. Magdalena Jaworska, Dr Zbigniew Ha©ñat main Polish ones. They all hammered home the same message: There can be NO coexistence between GMO and traditional and organic crops; cross-contamination is inevitable - whatever the distance.

Percy Schmeiser informed a rivetted audience that in the whole of Canada there is NO maize or oilseed rape left which is not contaminated by GMO. So it is impossible to grow conventional or organic maize and oilseed rape in Canada now. What is more, he confirmed that Monsanto is now informing him that he no longer even owns his crops. Presumably because the Monsanto corporation owns the patent therefore owns the crops once they are contaminated!! And still some people in Europe are diligently discussing what distance constitutes a 'safety zone' 10 metres? 50 metres? 100 metres?

Dr Pusztai gave a characteristicly thorough review of the 'nonscience' which is applied in the creation of genetically modified organisms. He particularly emphasised the fact that it is the very imprecise methods used to insert foreign genes that lies at the heart of the subsequent loss of control of the final organism.

Michel Dupont reminded everyone that when 'the process of democracy' fails to protect our food, environment and health, it is neccessary to intervene and take control of our future. The French 'reapers' have done just this and have thereby protected France from widespread GMO contamination over the past decade. They fight on ....Vive La France!

The unexpected participation of the vice chairman of the Ministry of the Environment Andrzej Szweda-Lewandowski led to a lively discussion. Participants were not impressed by his intervention on behalf of the recently proposed 'GMO Act'. He unconvincingly attempted to portray the government as 'an honest broker' seeking compromise between European Commission directives calling for enforcement of 'coexistence' measures and the Polish government's wish to remain GMO Free. Vice chairman Andrzej Szweda-Lewandowski was noticeably missing from the main conference proceedings and his message was out of tune with the reality.

Senator Henryk Gorski was presented with an ICPPC petition to the Polish government calling for the proposed new 'GMO Act' not to be ratified. So far there are1,500 signatures of organisations and individuals supporting this call and more are coming in every day. For signing please see http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/open_letter.php

Proceedings ended with strong suppport from participants to fight-on to keep Poland GMO Free and to support ICPPC's call for a European wide Moratoriun of all GMO. Widespread determination to resist any watering down of the current national GMO ban was also expressed.

A Brother from Benedictine Abbey Tyniec attended the conference. Brother Jan was to be seen long after the conference's conclusion, seated in front of an old oak table, carefully writing a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Lepper.

!!!We want to thank Jean-Louis Gueydon of Fondation pour une Terre Humaine for helping to support the mounting of this conference. Also several traditional and organic farmers/processors who, without charge, provided and prepared a superb spread of delicious eco friendly food for everyones consumption. See photo. http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/eng_index.php?id=manifestation Smacznego!

best wishes to all, Julian and Jadwiga

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside
MiÍdzynarodowa Koalicja dla Ochrony Polskiej Wsi
34-146 StryszÛw 156, Poland tel./fax +48 33 8797114
biuro@icppc.pl www.icppc.pl www.gmo.icppc.pl www.eko-cel.pl

USA / Thailand / Philippines: Farmers' Internationale?
Extract from Free Trade vs. Small Farmers. By Walden Bello.

Foreign Policy in Focus, April 27 2007.

The suicide of the Korean farmer Lee Kyung Hae at the barricades in Cancun in September 2003 was a milestone in the development of farmers' resistance globally. Committed under a banner that read "WTO Kills Farmers," Lee's suicide was designed to draw international attention to the number of suicides by farmers in countries subjected to liberalization. He succeeded only too well. The event shocked the WTO delegates, who observed a minute of silence in Lee's memory. By adding to what was already a charged atmosphere, Lee's act was certainly a key factor in the unraveling of the talks.

In December 2005, invoking Lee's sacrifice, hundreds of Korean farmers tried to break through police lines in an effort to storm the Hong Kong Convention Center. Some 900 protesters, the bulk of them Korean farmers, were arrested.

Both Lee and the Korean farmers protesting in Hong Kong were members of Via Campesina, an international federation of farmers established in the mid-1990s. Since its founding, Via Campesina -- literally translated as the Peasants' Path -- has become known as one of the most militant opponents of the WTO and bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements. While there are other international farmers' networks, Via is distinguished by its position that small farmers must not only fight to survive in the current global system of corporate-dominated industrial farming, they should lead the process to transform or replace the current system. Commenting on the vision of Jose Bove the famous French activist who dismantled a MacDonald's restaurant in his hometown of Millau, France and other Via leaders, one progressive journal has described the aim of the organization as the creation of a Farmers' Internationale in much the same way that Communist and Social Democratic groups sought to establish the Communist International and Socialist International to unite workers in the 20th century.

The main battle cry of Via Campesina, whose coordinating center is located in Indonesia, is "WTO Out of Agriculture" and its alternative program is food sovereignty. Food sovereignty means first and foremost the immediate adoption of policies that favor small producers. This would include, according to Indonesian farmer Henry Saragih, Via's coordinator, and Ahmad Ya'kub, Deputy for Policy Studies of the Indonesian Peasant Union Federation (FSPI), "the protection of the domestic market from low-priced imports, remunerative prices for all farmers and fishers, abolition of all direct and indirect export subsidies, and the phasing out of domestic subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture."

Via's program, however, goes beyond the adoption of pro-smallholder trade policies. It also calls for an end to the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights regime, which allows corporations to patent plant seeds, thus appropriating for private profit what has evolved through the creative interaction of the natural world with human communities over eons. Seeds and all other plant genetic resources should be considered part of the common heritage of humanity, the group believes, and not be subject to privatization.

Agrarian reform, long avoided by landed elites in countries like the Philippines, is a central element in Via's platform, as is sustainable, ecologically sensitive organic or biodynamic farming by small peasant producers. The organization has set itself apart from both the First Green Revolution based on chemical-intensive agriculture and the Second Green Revolution driven by genetic engineering (GE). The disastrous environmental side effects of the first are well known, says Via, which means all the more that the precautionary principle must be rigorously applied to the second, to avoid negative health and environmental outcomes.

The opposition to GE-based agriculture has created a powerful link between farmers and consumers who are angry at corporations for marketing genetically modified commodities without proper labeling, thus denying consumers a choice. In the European Union, a solid alliance of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists prevented the import of GE-modified products from the United States for several years. Although the EU has cautiously allowed in a few GE imports since 2004, 54% of European consumers continue to think GE food is "dangerous." Opposition to other harmful processes such as food irradiation has also contributed to the tightening of ties between farmers and consumers, large numbers of whom now think that public health and environmental impact should be more important determinants of consumer behavior than price.

More and more people are beginning to realize that local production and culinary traditions are intimately related, and that this relationship is threatened by corporate control of food production, processing, marketing, and consumption. This is why Jose Bove's justification for dismantling a MacDonald's resonated widely in Asia: "When we said we would protest by dismantling the half-built McDonald's in our town, everybody understood why -- the symbolism was so strong. It was for proper food against malbouffe [awful standardized food], agricultural workers against multinationals. The extreme right and other nationalists tried to make out it was anti-Americanism, but the vast majority knew it was no such thing. It was a protest against a form of production that wants to dominate the world."

Many economists, technocrats, policymakers, and urban intellectuals have long viewed small farmers as a doomed class. Once regarded as passive objects to be manipulated by elites, they are now resisting the capitalist, socialist, and developmentalist paradigms that would consign them to ruin. They have become what Karl Marx described as a politically conscious "class-for-itself." And even as peasants refuse to "go gently into that good night," to borrow a line from Dylan Thomas, developments in the 21st century are revealing traditional pro-development visions to be deeply flawed. The escalating protests of peasant groups such as Via Campesina, are not a return to the past. As environmental crises multiply and the social dysfunctions of urban-industrial life pile up, the farmers' movement has relevance not only to peasants but to everyone who is threatened by the catastrophic consequences of obsolete modernist paradigms for organizing production, community, and life.

Walden Bello is Executive Director of Focus on the Global South, a Bangkok-based research and advocacy institute, and a Professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines at Diliman. A longer version of this piece comes out in the April 2007 issue of Global Asia. It is republished with permission.

USA: Time to Re-Name the University

Berkeley Daily Planet 27 April 2007. By Dale Becknell.

In the spirit of cities rolling out the welcome mat for private stadiums, a la Pac Bell Park and McAfee Coliseum, sometimes at the expense of funding such secondary needs as schools, letís have a contest for renaming the UC Berkeley. British Petroleum has made a strong bid for renaming the school the University of British Petroleum. But that's a little over the top-maybe we should just put department names up for sale, and at least keep the UCB acronym for the present.

But in deference to the university PR department (funded by little ol' you and me and the students) working feverishly to get the half-billion-dollar BP contract, perhaps something like "University for Corporate Bidding" would entice more special interests to fund academic freedom, as defined by shill man Randy Scheckman. He's the guy who, in the upstanding tradition of Joseph McCarthy, would misconstrue something a colleague critical of the oil company deal said, and have him fired. Having proclaimed this (according to the Daily Planet's 4-20-07 article) at the Academic Senate meeting rubber stamping the contract with BP, whatever it says, Scheckman reportedly got a round of applause from those faculty heroically defending academic freedom (for those toeing the line anyhow, or "bottom line" from the boardrooms, as it were). It seems Mr. Scheckman took offense at Professor Ignacio Chapela referring to the oil company research deal as prostitution. As a scientist disciplined in reporting data accurately, Scheckman found it more convenient to interpret Mr. Chapela's comment as calling the chancellor a prostitute. I know its been a while since all you rational professors took the SAT, so I looked it up..."prostitution" means "base or unworthy use, as of talent or ability." Let's brush up on our analogies here, too: a person is to selling her/his body as a university is to selling its...? You're right. Not applicable-a "working" person makes no pretense as to what she/he is doing.

Another candidate for renaming would be "University of Corrupt Boneheads." Reportedly it takes about as much energy to convert plants to liquid fuel as it yields, slightly less or even more depending on how comprehensive you choose to be in your analysis. I don't have a PhD, but I was awake during arithmetic class. If we burn one energy unit of oil to make one energy unit of ethanol, we get one minus one, or zero energy gain. Then we can take our unit of ethanol and burn it to make another unit of ethanol, which weíll need to burn to produce another unit, ad infinitum. Is there a quicker way to burn more energy to heat the atmosphere than this? Of course it will require a gargantuan expenditure of capital to get there, but who needs more windmills or solar tech? Then there is the matter of converting food crops to ethanol crops, which will necessitate getting any remaining rain forests out of the way and using any unfarmed waterways for new corporate monocultures of artificially mutated plants. More petrochemical fertilizers will be needed to replenish newly depleted soils, and new roads and fleets of trucks to transport it all. Presumably what microbiologist Scheckman and his new bosses think will make all of this work will be to create genetically engineered bugs that release enzymes that will break down plants far more aggressively than any that nature saw fit to evolve. Thank you, God and independent researchers, but you've done your part, and you're fired! BP and associates will take it from here.

Dale Becknell is a Berkeley resident.

Europe: Environmental groups criticize EU's green policies

EITB Basque News and Information Channel, 27 April 2007.

Ten groups - including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe, WWF and Bird Life International - said their review of the European Commission found that more needed to be done.

Leading European environmental groups criticized the EU's head office on Friday, saying it had failed in its green policies and was not doing enough to promote ecological issues.

Ten groups - including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe, WWF and Bird Life International - said their review of the European Commission found that more needed to be done despite its recent moves to champion Europe's fight against climate change.

While welcoming the Commission's shift on the environment, they said that since Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso took office in November 2004 policies have "clung to the dated notion that what's good for the environment cannot be good for the economy."

The review said the Commission had flunked, giving it a grade of 43 out of 100. The EU got lowest marks for marine and forest policies, each receiving only a 2/10 score.

The groups said the low scores were for the EU's "weak proposals on marine protection and for not addressing the destructive impacts of fisheries,'' and for its "foot-dragging" on policies to ban illegal timber from reaching markets.

The report also chided the EU for allowing new genetically altered crops on the market of the 27-nation bloc. It demanded the Commission suspend the authorization of new GMO crops in wake of claims there are "diverging scientific opinions and scientific uncertainties" over their safety.

It gave highest marks, 7/10, for ambitious plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. By then, at least 20 percent of Europe's energy should come from renewable sources such as wind, solar panels, hydroelectricity and energy crops, the EU has said.

The Philippines: Landmark law bans GMOs in Negros Occidental

Daily Star (Philippines), April 27 2007. By Carla Gomez.

The Negros Occidental Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Wednesday a landmark legislation that bans the entry of genetically modified plants and animals in the province and imposes penalties for its violation.

Provincial Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2007, or "The Safeguard Against Living Genetically-Modified Organisms", was sponsored by Board Member Adolfo Mangao Sr., chairman of the SP Committee on Agriculture.

The ordinance helps bring Negros Island a step closer to its goal of becoming the organic food bowl of Asia, Patrick Belisario, executive director of the Negros Island Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Foundation Inc., said yesterday. In Aug. 24, 2005, Negros Occidental Gov. Joseph MaraÒon and Oriental Negros Gov. George Arnaiz signed a memorandum of agreement committing to 10 percent organic production islandwide by the year 2010 and to the banning of GMOs.

The MOA also committed to both provinces creation of the Negros Island Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development Foundation (NISARD) to carry out both governors commitment to the islandwide development of organic agriculture.

The ordinance passed by the Negros Occidental SP Wednesday states that it is aimed at "instituting stringent measures towards the protection of biodiversity and attainment of the status of Negros as an Organic Food Island in Asia by banning the entry, importation and introduction of genetically-modified plants and animals within the territorial jurisdiction of the province of Negros Occidental". The legislation partly fulfills the commitment of the two Negros governors to legislate the ban on GMOs in the entire Negros Island, Belisario said.

In due time, the Oriental Negros provincial government is expected to pass a parallel ordinance to complement the efforts achieved in Negros Occidental, he said.

The ordinance states that persons violating the ban on GMOs in Negros Occidental will be fined not more than P5,000 or face imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court for each and every defined violation.

Where the violator is a corporation organization, the heads of such groups will be held directly liable, the ordinance adds.

All Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) brought into Negros Occidental will be seized and destroyed at the expense of the violator, the ordinance also states.

The ordinance defines LMO as any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology.

The ordinance also prohibits the planting, growing, selling and trading of living GMOs within the territorial jurisdiction of Negros Occidental.

All persons who have already planted LMOs in Negros Occidental at the time of the effectivity of the ordinance have 120 days to terminate growing them provided that when they are harvested they be disposed of outside the jurisdiction of the province, the ordinance adds.

All those selling and trading LMOs also have 30 days from the effectivity of the ordinance to dispose of their products outside the jurisdiction of Negros Occidental, it states.

Organic farming, as the most sustainable method of agricultural production, addresses multi-dimensional issues on food security, income diversification, food safety, ecological protection and balance, renewable energy and others, Belisario said.

Organic farming regulations around the globe prohibit the use of products derived from genetic modification, Belisario said, adding that some importing countries of organic products are now requiring certification that products are GMO free, aside from the mandatory organic certification.

The ban on GMO creates favorable business environment for groups like NGO's, cooperatives, people's organizations and even agribusiness companies to make available in commercial quantities the supply of organic seeds, fertilizers and botanical pest control, feeds for livestock and poultry and fisheries, he said.

These inputs are needed to support the commitment to devote approximately 80,000 hectares of the agricultural lands to organic production in the entire Negros Island, Belisario said.

Negros is famous for its lone organic export of muscovado sugar product mostly to Europe, which is coping with the growing demand as ingredient for organic chocolate and other confectionery products, he said.

Around the globe, it was estimated in 2005 that the market for organic products have reached the US $30 Billion mark and the area devoted to organic agriculture is approximately over 25 million hectares, he said.

In the Philippines, the organic market is enjoying a higher average growth rate between 30-50 percent annually than the global annual growth between 10-30 percent, he said.

Clearly, the demand for organic products outstrips the existing production supply and Negros Island has much to offer in terms of organic production, Belisario said.

26 April 2007

USA: GE Bill Held Over in Assembly Agriculture Committee (AB541)

Sacramento- Assemblymember Jared Huffman's bill, AB 541, The Food and Farm Protection Act, was tabled in a hearing of the Assembly Agriculture Committee yesterday, after passing out of the Judiciary Committee two weeks ago.

AB 541 addresses the problems arising when genetically engineered plants cross-pollinate or otherwise contaminate non-GE crops. It establishes that the GE crop manufacturer - and not the farmer who planted the GE crop - is the responsible party if contamination occurs and causes economic damages to others. The bill also establishes a notification system for GE crops, and prohibits the open-air production of food crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs, a practice that puts consumers at an unacceptably high risk of inadvertently eating pharmaceutical drugs.

"In proposing this bil l, we are attempting to find a middle ground with this controversial issue," stated Assemblymember Huffman. "There are those who wish the bill went further, and there are those who want no regulation of GE crops at all. I believe that AB 541 puts forward a reasonable and responsible policy that addresses the risk of GE contamination, without banning any crops or restricting access to drugs."

Also testifying at the hearing in support of AB 541 was Greg Massa, Co-Chair of the Rice Producers of California. Referring to a series of GE contamination events that have devastated the Southern U.S. rice industry, Massa said, " Should a similar event occur in California, the rice industry here stands to lose entire markets in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, an estimated value of $200 million annually. The California rice industry as we know it will collapse if GMO contamination occurs. AB 541 provides necessary safeguards for our industry."

This is the third time in three y ears that a bill dealing with GE has stalled in a legislative committee. In 2005, Assemblymember Laird introduced a bill (AB 984) dealing with the liability problem; it failed to get a motion and was later withdrawn. Then in 2006, a Monsanto-backed bill (SB 1056) that would have stripped county rights to pass GE restrictions died in committee in the face of considerable opposition. These bills and other events in California - the narrowly averted planting of pharmaceutical GE rice in 2004, the wave of county bans in 2004 through 2006, and most recently the rice contamination scare - point to the need for statewide policies.

Assemblymember Huffman and the bill's sponsors remain committed to finding a solution to the risks associated with genetic engineering, and will continue to work with members of the Agriculture Committee and the bill's opponents to advance the dialogue. The bill will be taken up again in January of 2008.

AB 541 has the support of all of California's sustainable, organic and family farming organizations, as well as many other groups (including: California Farmers Union, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, California Certified Organic Farmers, Center for Food Safety, Earthbound Farm, Lundberg Family Farms, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Rice Producers of California, California Church IMPACT, Consumers Union, Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, and dozens of others). AB 541 is opposed by lobbying groups representing the interests of the chemical biotech industry and conventional industrial agribusiness.

Genetic Engineering Policy Project

California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), California Church IMPACT, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Earthbound Farm, Environment California, Good Earth Natural Foods, Oakland Institute, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Ocean Beach People's Organic Food Co-op, Pesticide Action Network North America, United Natural Foods Inc.

Contact:

Renata Brillinger (707) 874-0316 or info@gepolicyproject.org http://www.gepolicyproject.org _______________________

UK: Unauthorised GM in rice protein for animal feed

Food Standards Agency (UK), 26 April 2007

Animal feed containing unauthorised GM in rice protein has been imported into the UK via the Netherlands.

This came to the Agency's attention via an alert (RASSF) issued by the European Commission on 22 March 2007, following investigations in Cyprus that showed that the GM line Bt63 had been found in rice protein concentrate imported from China via the Netherlands. This GM line has not been authorised in the EU.

Details of the distribution of the feed was provided by the Dutch authorities and a further alert was issued the following day, 23 March. This showed that four businesses in the UK had received consignments of the potentially affected product from January to March 2007.

By 23 April, all four UK businesses had confirmed to the Agency that they had been contacted by the Dutch importer and their quarantined stocks of the feed had been returned for disposal. However, much of the feed had already been used or sold earlier this year before the alert was received.

Businesses in Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain were also named as receiving consignments of the rice protein concentrate. The Commission has contacted the Chinese authorities and expressed its concern over this incident.

Sudan: Row as Sudan blocks 'GM' food aid

Angola Press, April 26 2007. DARFUR, Sudan, 26/04 - The United Nations food agency has criticised Sudan for holding up to 100,000 tonnes of aid meant for Darfur, saying it is genetically modified.

WFP spokeswoman Caroline Hurford said the US sorghum had been tested to show it was not genetically modified, adding GM sorghum did not even exist.

"It's a huge amount of food to be held up and our sub-offices in Darfur must be getting quite worried," she said.

Aid agencies are feeding 2.4m people who have fled the Darfur conflict.

Some aid workers believe that Sudan wants more food aid to be purchased in the country, reports Reuters news agency.

"We do intend to buy some amount of food from Sudan as they had a bumper harvest but there are limits to how much we can purchase because of funding. Most food aid is given to us in kind, as is the case with the US sorghum," Ms Hurford said.

Meanwhile, African Union peacekeepers say that pro-government militias continue to kill and pillage with impunity in Darfur.

The Sudanese government says security is improving in Darfur and has repeatedly pledged to the Arab Janjaweed militias.

Last week, Sudan agreed to let 3,000 UN peacekeepers with helicopter gunships into Darfur to help African Union troops.

But the US wants more than 10,000 UN soldiers to be sent and has threatened to increase sanctions.

At least 200,000 people are estimated to have died in Darfur since rebels took up arms four years.

The US says a genocide is being committed against the region's black African population.

Sudan says the problems are being exaggerated for political reasons.

Canada: Crackdown urged on modified foods
Group wants labelling to become mandatory

The Montreal Gazette, April 26, 2007. By Andy Riga.

Quebec must act quickly to get a handle on genetically modified organisms or risk paying a high price for its inaction in the future, a coalition of anti-GMO consumer, environmental and farmers' groups told a commission studying the future of farming in Quebec yesterday.

The groups urged Quebec to implement mandatory labelling, encourage alternatives to GMOs and make it easier to hold GMO makers legally accountable when their products contaminate non-GMO crops.

"We know from our experiences with chemicals and tobacco that if we don't take early precautionary measures, we might collectively pay the cost later on," Eric Darier, of Greenpeace and part of the coalition, said after the presentation. "Before we go ahead with new products, there should be a fairly solid consensus that those products are safe."

He said the jury is still out on the impact of GMOs - organisms with genetic material that is altered using gene technology - on health and the environment.

An estimated 70 per cent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain or might contain genetically modified ingredients.

During the 2003 provincial election, Jean Charest's Liberals pledged to bring in a labelling system, a plan that was later abandoned.

About 40 countries, including the European Union countries, already require mandatory labelling of modified foods, said Charles Tanguay, a spokesperson for the Union des consommateurs, which is part of the coalition.

It should not be up to the food industry or governments to decide whether consumers should be told whether GMOs are included in products, Tanguay said, noting surveys show most Canadians in favour of mandatory labelling.

"One of the most fundamental rights of consumers is the right to be informed," Tanguay said.

The provincial Commission sur l'avenir de l'agriculture et de l'agroalimentaire quebecois held hearings in Montreal yesterday. It is to present recommendations to the government in January.

Europe: Dupont submits new GMO soybean seed for EU approval

MarketWatch, 26 April 2007. BRUSSELS -- E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. Thursday submitted its Optimum genetically modified soybean for European Union approval, risking to aggravate the deep divisions on agriculture biotechnology in the E.U.

Dupont made the application through its Pioneer Hi-bred International, Inc. subsidiary.

U.S. regulators approved the soy product last November and Dupont wants E.U. regulators to improve it for import starting in early 2009.

"This is a significant step for Pioneer," said Alejandro MuNoz, vice president, European Operations, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. "Pioneer is pursuing EU approvals of all our biotech products."

Optimum is a proprietary herbicide-tolerance trait that DuPont plans to commercialize in corn, cotton and other crops. It is the first-ever agricultural trait developed through proprietary DuPont gene shuffling technology.

But GMOs are controversial in Europe, raising deep environmental fears. Just last week, E.U. biotech experts Thursday failed to reach a decision on three applications by U.S. companies to sell genetically modified products in the union, underlining its continuing deep divisions on the issue.

Corrected April 26, 2007 12:58 ET (16:58 GMT)

U.S. regulators received Dupont's submission for approval of the soy product last November and Dupont wants E.U. regulators to approve it for import starting in early 2009.

("Dupont Submits New GMO Soybean Seed For EU Approval," published at 1226 GMT, misstated that the U.S. had already approved the product.)

USA: GMO Corn Trait Gets Approval for Sale

The Farmer (Minnesota), 26 April 2007.

Syngenta says the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has informed the company that it can resume sale of the Agrisure RW corn trait.

Syngenta has received approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, but the seed had not been approved for sale by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture had advised farmers not to plant the rootworm-resistant "Agrisure RW MIR 604."

Syngenta's branded seed businesses will proceed immediately to fill grower orders for corn hybrids with Agrisure RW.

Syngenta is requiring all growers throughout the U.S. who purchase seed with Agrisure RW to sign a Stewardship and Grain Use Marketing Commitment Agreement. This stipulates that grain produced from Agrisure RW hybrids must be directed to domestic uses, such as livestock feed and ethanol plants that do not export DDGs.

25 April 2007

UK: Beacon events for GM Global Awareness Month

GM Free Cymru / GM Freeze / FOE announcement, 25 April 2007.

The 8th April to 8th May will be a month of global GM awareness. Countries all over the world will be using their own unique methods to remind their governments, food producers and retailers of the deep universal concerns regarding the release of GM into the general environment and food chain, as well as highlighting the catalogue of irreversible contamination incidents to date.

In the UK, the Government has given BASF the go-ahead to plant GM potato trials this year, plans that are being strongly opposed by local communities and farmers.

Around the country, beacons, which are at once symbolic of national danger and universal human hope, will be lit simultaneously at sundown on bank holiday weekend Sat 5th May.

Campaigners will be using the event to celebrate the passage of another year free of commercially grown GM crops, a luxury sadly not afforded to many countries where GM contamination is now widespread.

If eating food free of Genetically Modified Organisms, and protecting our environment from irreversible genetic pollution is something that concerns you, please join us.

Groups and individuals are invited to light Beacons on the highest points or other prominent hills of their county. We would all aim to light up at sunset on 5 May and photograph our GM-Free Beacon plus suitably worded banner for the local media and issue a press release.

Supported by - GM Free Cymru / GM Freeze / FOE.

For more info contact: Gerald Miles: gm@stdavids.co.uk tel + 44 7879 664703

Website: http://www.gmfreebeacon.org

UK: GM protesters pick wrong field in bid to disrupt potato trial

The Guardian, April 25 2007. By Hugh Muir.

The operation to sabotage the government's GM potato trial was planned with care and under conditions of great secrecy. Two hundred and fifty protesters swooped on the 16-hectare site outside Hull, armed with shovels and filled with indignation.

In less than an hour they had moved to invalidate the trial, planting thousands of organic potatoes. Mission accomplished. If only they had got the right field.

Activists from Mutatoes.org yesterday apologised to farmer David Buckton after it emerged that they wrongly identified his land as the site of the GM trial. The field they planted was sown with beans.

By the time Mr Buckton was alerted to the protesters on his land, it was too late to stop the direct action. The protesters were determined to move quickly on the basis that the land would be rendered unsuitable for the GM trials once other root crops were in the ground.

In a statement Mutatoes.org said: "With the information that we had and the short timescale available to us ... we sincerely believed this to be the correct field. The public were not given sufficient information by the government, who supplied only a four-figure grid reference for the location of the trial."

The group said they conducted extensive investigations within the area specified by the environment department and outside. "While it is regrettable that the wrong site and farmer were targeted, we would also like to make it clear ... that people will continue to disrupt the planting of GM crops despite the difficulties faced by this lack of full disclosure," the group added.

Yesterday Mr Buckton, 54, said the mix-up was the strangest event to have befallen his family in four generations of farming. He said the protesters were accompanied by two police officers on horseback.

"I told the police officers that it was a bean field but they said the protest seemed peaceful so we'd better let them get on with it. The beans are just about peeping through. The protesters should have been able to see that," he said.

Mr Buckton said he had no great enthusiasm for GM crops. "I certainly wouldn't have been giving up my land to test them," he said. The company BASF plans trials of GM potatoes at two sites: Cambridge, which already has government approval, and in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

24 April 2007

UK: Plea to local farmer to pull out of GM trial as local opposition builds
Put your neighbours and your community first and not BASF

Hedon against GM, Press Release, 24 April 2007

Campaigners are today making a final plea to the Hedon farmer due to host BASF's GM potato trial to put the interests of the local community first and pull out of the trial. The call comes as the Government is expected to announce its consent for the GM trial any day, following the deadline for public comments on Friday (20 April).

The Government is expected to approve BASF's plans to trial blight resistant GM potatoes in Hedon. Planting could start within the next two weeks. However, it is understood that the farmer has still not signed the contract to allow the trial to go ahead and is concerned about the impact the trial could have on neighbouring borage farmers.

Hedon Against GM Campaigner Lee-Ann Williams said: "We have been overwhelmed by the opposition to these trials. Neighbouring farmers, Graham Stuart MP, two local councils and the public don't want GM potatoes planted here. BASF have not considered the impacts on our community but we fear that the Government has already made up its mind and will give the GM potatoes the green light. Our main hope now is that the farmer due to host the trial pulls out. We urge him to change his mind and refuse to help BASF trial this product that no-one wants."

Some protesters at the rally on Saturday planted potatoes in a field near the proposed trial site. Hedon Against GM and Friends of the Earth were not involved in this action and were not aware that it was planned.

There is significant opposition to the trial:

* Both East Riding and Hedon Town Councils have voted to object to the trial taking place [1]

* Neighbouring borage farmers fear losing tens of thousands of pounds if beekeepers do not bring their hives into their fields to pollinate the crop because of concerns around GM contamination of honey from the trial.

* Local MP Graham Stuart is backing the farmers and does not believe the trial should go ahead this year.

* Over 800 people have signed a petition objecting to the trial of which 600 are local people.

* Around 150 people joined a rally and GM-free picnic on Saturday to celebrate GM-free food

* The British Potato Council and McCain do not want the trials to go ahead because of concerns over public perception of their products

Notes:

[1] East Riding Council voted to oppose the trial on 4 April. Hedon Town Council responded to the public consultation as follows:

PROPOSAL TO TRIAL GM POTATOES IN A FIELD ON THE BOUNDARY OF HEDON EAST YORKSHIRE - CONSULTATION RESPONSE

This Council, having received information from, and discussed with experts from both sides of the argument, is strongly opposed to agreement being given to a trial of genetically modified potatoes being held in a field in Preston, bordering Hedon, East Yorkshire.

The reasons are that:

1. We cannot accept that there is any need for the development of a genetically modified potato intended to produce a blight free strain. As has rightly been pointed out here are several varieties of blight resistant potatoes existing at present. The growth of a large number of different potatoes throughout the country all minimises the risk of blight to a substantial degree.

2. The safeguards needed to protect a GM crop are inadequate.

3. This field is bordered to the north and west by a public highway; it is bordered to the south by a footpath(the old railway line from Hull to Withernsea) which is extensively used for recreational purposes; it has a designated footpath running through the middle of it. This must increase the risk of cross contamination, public exposure to an unknown pollen and vandalism of the crop.

4. The area is widely used for a wide range of arable farming. The danger of cross-contamination by inter-and transpollination cannot possibly be contained with the buffer zones required by DEFRA.

5. The area for miles around is extensively used by beekeepers to gather nectar for honey making. This has the benefit of pollinating many different crops in Holderness. The bees are often exposed to different fields at different times and are moved around the area for this purpose. The danger therefore of much wider contamination and effect on other closely related species cannot be ruled out.

6. BASF insisted that following the trials there would be no genetically modified potatoes left in the field. We are unconvinced by their reassurances on this point. Anyone who has grown potatoes knows that any scrap of plant material left on the bed can generate a new potato plant in the following season. There is general disbelief that the field an ever be completely cleaned and even if it were it would take a number of years for this to be effected. Commercial and economic pressures on the farmer to reuse the field would be intense. The two year condition imposed by DEFRA seems to us inadequate in this respect.

Yours sincerely
On behalf of Hedon Town Council

UK: Extract from statement from mutatoes.org over the planting of organic potatoes

Indymedia.org.uk, 24 April 2007.

Despite a mistake being made [as to which field they were planted in] we believe it was far better that we went ahead and challenged the GM trials than stood by doing nothing. We clearly demonstrated the British public are willing to take on the multinationals / government on this issue. Though it was, and remains, our avowed intention to prevent the trials from going ahead, we are fully aware that these trials are as much a test of public opinion as a genuine scientific experiment. Consequently, although the wrong field was targetted we still achieved one of our primary objectives of demonstrating that the British public are resolutely opposed to GM crops and will take action to resist their reintroduction into the UK. The multinationals behind GM crops have bided their time since Bayer pulled out from the last trials three years ago. But they have been pressing ahead in the rest of the world. It is vital that we, as a movement, rise to the occasion, and demonstrate that resistance is as vigourous as ever. We are unapologetic for what we have attempted to do and we will not cease our efforts to keep the UK GM free. And as useful byproduct - we now know where the actual field is, thanks to the police.

Full statement at http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368698.html

USA: Bees Vanish, and Scientists Race for Reasons

New York Times, April 24 2007. By Alexei Barrionuevo.

BELTSVILLE, Md., April 23 - What is happening to the bees?

More than a quarter of the country's 2.4 million bee colonies have been lost - tens of billions of bees, according to an estimate from the Apiary Inspectors of America, a national group that tracks beekeeping. So far, no one can say what is causing the bees to become disoriented and fail to return to their hives.

As with any great mystery, a number of theories have been posed, and many seem to researchers to be more science fiction than science. People have blamed genetically modified crops, cellular phone towers and high-voltage transmission lines for the disappearances. Or was it a secret plot by Russia or Osama bin Laden to bring down American agriculture? Or, as some blogs have asserted, the rapture of the bees, in which God recalled them to heaven? Researchers have heard it all.

The volume of theories "is totally mind-boggling," said Diana Cox-Foster, an entomologist at Pennsylvania State University. With Jeffrey S. Pettis, an entomologist from the United States Department of Agriculture, Dr. Cox-Foster is leading a team of researchers who are trying to find answers to explain "colony collapse disorder," the name given for the disappearing bee syndrome.

"Clearly there is an urgency to solve this," Dr. Cox-Foster said. "We are trying to move as quickly as we can."

Dr. Cox-Foster and fellow scientists who are here at a two-day meeting to discuss early findings and future plans with government officials have been focusing on the most likely suspects: a virus, a fungus or a pesticide.

About 60 researchers from North America sifted the possibilities at the meeting today. Some expressed concern about the speed at which adult bees are disappearing from their hives; some colonies have collapsed in as little as two days. Others noted that countries in Europe, as well as Guatemala and parts of Brazil, are also struggling for answers.

"There are losses around the world that may or not be linked," Dr. Pettis said.

The investigation is now entering a critical phase. The researchers have collected samples in several states and have begun doing bee autopsies and genetic analysis.

So far, known enemies of the bee world, like the varroa mite, on their own at least, do not appear to be responsible for the unusually high losses.

Genetic testing at Columbia University has revealed the presence of multiple micro-organisms in bees from hives or colonies that are in decline, suggesting that something is weakening their immune system. The researchers have found some fungi in the affected bees that are found in humans whose immune systems have been suppressed by the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or cancer.

"That is extremely unusual," Dr. Cox-Foster said.

Meanwhile, samples were sent to an Agriculture Department laboratory in North Carolina this month to screen for 117 chemicals. Particular suspicion falls on a pesticide that France banned out of concern that it may have been decimating bee colonies. Concern has also mounted among public officials.

"There are so many of our crops that require pollinators," said Representative Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat whose district includes that state's central agricultural valley, and who presided last month at a Congressional hearing on the bee issue. "We need an urgent call to arms to try to ascertain what is really going on here with the bees, and bring as much science as we possibly can to bear on the problem."

So far, colony collapse disorder has been found in 27 states, according to Bee Alert Technology Inc., a company monitoring the problem. A recent survey of 13 states by the Apiary Inspectors of America showed that 26 percent of beekeepers had lost half of their bee colonies between September and March.

Honeybees are arguably the insects that are most important to the human food chain. They are the principal pollinators of hundreds of fruits, vegetables, flowers and nuts. The number of bee colonies has been declining since the 1940s, even as the crops that rely on them, such as California almonds, have grown. In October, at about the time that beekeepers were experiencing huge bee losses, a study by the National Academy of Sciences questioned whether American agriculture was relying too heavily on one type of pollinator, the honeybee.

Bee colonies have been under stress in recent years as more beekeepers have resorted to crisscrossing the country with 18-wheel trucks full of bees in search of pollination work. These bees may suffer from a diet that includes artificial supplements, concoctions akin to energy drinks and power bars. In several states, suburban sprawl has limited the bees' natural forage areas.

So far, the researchers have discounted the possibility that poor diet alone could be responsible for the widespread losses. They have also set aside for now the possibility that the cause could be bees feeding from a commonly used genetically modified crop, Bt corn, because the symptoms typically associated with toxins, such as blood poisoning, are not showing up in the affected bees. But researchers emphasized today that feeding supplements produced from genetically modified crops, such as high-fructose corn syrup, need to be studied.

The scientists say that definitive answers for the colony collapses could be months away. But recent advances in biology and genetic sequencing are speeding the search.

Computers can decipher information from DNA and match pieces of genetic code with particular organisms. Luckily, a project to sequence some 11,000 genes of the honeybee was completed late last year at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, giving scientists a huge head start on identifying any unknown pathogens in the bee tissue.

"Otherwise, we would be looking for the needle in the haystack," Dr. Cox-Foster says.

Large bee losses are not unheard of. They have been reported at several points in the past century. But researchers think they are dealing with something new - or at least with something previously unidentified.

"There could be a number of factors that are weakening the bees or speeding up things that shorten their lives," said Dr. W. Steve Sheppard, a professor of entomology at Washington State University. "The answer may already be with us."

Scientists first learned of the bee disappearances in November, when David Hackenberg, a Pennsylvania beekeeper, told Dr. Cox-Foster that more than 50 percent of his bee colonies had collapsed in Florida, where he had taken them for the winter.

Dr. Cox-Foster, a 20-year veteran of studying bees, soon teamed with Dennis vanEngelsdorp, the Pennsylvania apiary inspector, to look into the losses.

In December, she approached W. Ian Lipkin, director of the Greene Infectious Disease Laboratory at Columbia University, about doing genetic sequencing of tissue from bees in the colonies that experienced losses. The laboratory uses a recently developed technique for reading and amplifying short sequences of DNA that has revolutionized the science. Dr. Lipkin, who typically works on human diseases, agreed to do the analysis, despite not knowing who would ultimately pay for it. His laboratory is known for its work in finding the West Nile disease in the United States.

Dr. Cox-Foster ultimately sent samples of bee tissue to researchers at Columbia, to the Agriculture Department laboratory in Maryland, and to Gene Robinson, an entomologist at the University of Illinois. Fortuitously, she had frozen bee samples from healthy colonies dating to 2004 to use for comparison.

After receiving the first bee samples from Dr. Cox-Foster on March 6, Dr. Lipkin's team amplified the genetic material and started sequencing to separate virus, fungus and parasite DNA from bee DNA.

"This is like C.S.I. for agriculture," Dr. Lipkin said. "It is painstaking, gumshoe detective work."

Dr. Lipkin sent his first set of results to Dr. Cox-Foster, showing that several unknown micro-organisms were present in the bees from collapsing colonies. Meanwhile, Mr. vanEngelsdorp and researchers at the Agriculture Department lab here began an autopsy of bees from collapsing colonies in California, Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania to search for any known bee pathogens.

At the University of Illinois, using knowledge gained from the sequencing of the bee genome, Dr. Robinson's team will try to find which genes in the collapsing colonies are particularly active, perhaps indicating stress from exposure to a toxin or pathogen.

The national research team also quietly began a parallel study in January, financed in part by the National Honey Board, to further determine if something pathogenic could be causing colonies to collapse.

Mr. Hackenberg, the beekeeper, agreed to take his empty bee boxes and other equipment to Food Technology Service, a company in Mulberry, Fla., that uses gamma rays to kill bacteria on medical equipment and some fruits. In early results, the irradiated bee boxes seem to have shown a return to health for colonies repopulated with Australian bees.

"This supports the idea that there is a pathogen there," Dr. Cox-Foster said. "It would be hard to explain the irradiation getting rid of a chemical."

Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious.

Chris Mullin, a Pennsylvania State University professor and insect toxicologist, recently sent a set of samples to a federal laboratory in Raleigh, N.C., that will screen for 117 chemicals. Of greatest interest are the "systemic" chemicals that are able to pass through a plant's circulatory system and move to the new leaves or the flowers, where they would come in contact with bees.

One such group of compounds is called neonicotinoids, commonly used pesticides that are used to treat corn and other seeds against pests. One of the neonicotinoids, imidacloprid, is commonly used in Europe and the United States to treat seeds, to protect residential foundations against termites and to help keep golf courses and home lawns green.

In the late 1990s, French beekeepers reported large losses of their bees and complained about the use of imidacloprid, sold under the brand name Gaucho. The chemical, while not killing the bees outright, was causing them to be disoriented and stay away from their hives, leading them to die of exposure to the cold, French researchers later found. The beekeepers labeled the syndrome "mad bee disease."

The French government banned the pesticide in 1999 for use on sunflowers, and later for corn, despite protests by the German chemical giant Bayer, which has said its internal research showed the pesticide was not toxic to bees. Subsequent studies by independent French researchers have disagreed with Bayer. Alison Chalmers, an eco-toxicologist for Bayer CropScience, said at the meeting today that bee colonies had not recovered in France as beekeepers had expected. "These chemicals are not being used anymore," she said of imidacloprid, "so they certainly were not the only cause."

Among the pesticides being tested in the American bee investigation, the neonicotinoids group "is the number-one suspect," Dr. Mullin said. He hoped results of the toxicology screening will be ready within a month.

USA: Weeds developing resistance to herbicide

Peoria Journal Star, 24 April 2007. By Steve Tarter

PEORIA - Mike Schachtrup isn't taking any prisoners. "A dead weed can't be resistant," said the farmer who grows corn and soybeans - much of it the Roundup Ready variety - on about 5,000 acres with his brothers in Peoria, Tazewell, Knox and Warren counties.

Scientists at universities around the country have noted that weed resistance has been on the increase for the herbicide glyphosate, the chief ingredient in Roundup Ready products developed by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.

Glyphosate surged to popularity in the mid-1990s after the development of genetically-engineered soybeans and other crops that are immune to the herbicide. That meant farmers could use Roundup weed killer and Roundup seed bean without fear of other weeds turning up.

Monsanto harvested a winner with that one. The firm said 87 percent of U.S. soybean fields and 60 percent of international soybean fields were planted with Roundup Ready soybeans in 2005.

But a growing number of weeds are now reportedly showing resistance. "It was just a matter of time," said Aaron Hager, a weed scientist with University of Illinois Extension. "We now have instances of weed species that aren't controlled by glyphosate," he said.

Hager said weed resistance stems from the plant kingdom's diversity and ability to adapt. "If only one waterhemp plant survives in a field (treated with glyphosate), that will be the only survivor to make seed. That seed will then generate hundreds of glyphosate-resistant plants," he said.

Schachtrup thinks weed resistance may result if farmers apply the herbicide when conditions aren't right. "You have to apply it when the plant can accept it. It should be 70 degrees and sunny," he said.

But it takes more than herbicides to keep a good weed down, said Bob Hartzler, an agronomy professor at Iowa State University. "Glyphosate is a remarkable chemical. There's nothing else like it. It's a once-in-a-lifetime herbicide," he said.

Yet every lifetime must come to an end, noted Hartzler. "There's good evidence that the more you use it, the more likely the resistance," he said. The threat of weed resistance isn't sending Monsanto into a tailspin. "We don't have a lot of concern about it. All herbicides experience resistance," said spokeswoman Geri Berdak.

Monsanto offers a Web-based program to help farmers deal with weed resistance issues, she said.

With a huge corn crop expected this year, Monsanto looks for Roundup Ready corn to be planted on 40 million acres in the 2007 season, compared with 32 million acres in 2006.

Steve Tarter can be reached at 686-3260 or starter@pjstar.com

USA: Genetically Engineered Pharmaceutical Rice Is Not the Solution to Diarrhea
Drugs in Rice Not Approved by FDA, Will Likely Contaminate Foods
Groups Urge Ban on All Drug-Producing Genetically Engineered Food Crops

Center for Food Safety / Kansas Rural Centerpress release, 24 April 2007.

WASHINGTON - Genetically engineered, pharmaceutical rice is not a safe or cost-effective solution for infants suffering from diarrhea, concludes an exhaustive report released today by the Center for Food Safety, as the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) considers whether to allow planting of the rice in Kansas this spring. The report discusses potential adverse health impacts of the rice-grown drugs, which have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Developed by California-based Ventria Bioscience, the rice is engineered with modified human genes to serve as a "biofactory" for production of synthetic human milk proteins that have antimicrobial and other drug-like properties. Ventria has proposed using the rice-extracted protein drugs to treat infants with diarrhea, and as additives in infant formulas, yogurt, granola bars and sports drinks, among other uses.

The report details Ventria's failed attempts to gain FDA approval of its rice-grown drugs dating back to November 2003. Ventria is seeking USDA approval to grow up to 3,200 acres of its rice in the Junction City, Kansas area.

"USDA must not allow Ventria to grow genetically-engineered rice containing drugs that our nation's food and drug authority have refused to approve," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director at Center for Food Safety (CFS). "We call on USDA to unconditionally deny Ventria's permits."

"Policy makers in Kansas do not seem to have a sense of either the marginal benefits to be gained or the high risks entailed in this enterprise," said Dan Nagengast, Executive Director of the Kansas Rural Center. "Clearly the food industry, and rice farmers elsewhere in the country, understand the risk to their businesses when contamination occurs." He noted that rice supplies roughly 20% of the world's calories.

Nagengast also pointed out that the USA Rice Federation, representing the rice industry, had asked USDA 'in the strongest possible terms' to deny Ventria's requested permits. The Grocery Manufacturers of America and other groups representing the $500 billion food industry have also opposed drug-producing food crops.

"These genetically engineered drugs could exacerbate certain infections, or cause dangerous allergic or immune system reactions," added Bill Freese, CFS Science Policy Analyst and author of the report, which references peer-reviewed scientific articles, the National Academy of Sciences, and FDA regulatory documents.

Freese notes that mothers of two infants who participated in a Ventria-sponsored clinical trial of its rice-grown drugs in Peru reported that their children had developed allergic reactions to numerous foods, leading to a Peruvian government investigation of the trial.

"USDA simply cannot be trusted to keep this pharmaceutical rice out of our foods," said Nagengast. "Just a few years ago, corn containing an experimental swine vaccine got mixed into soybeans and regular corn, which then had to be destroyed. Rice has twice been contaminated with unapproved genetically engineered rice in just the past year," he added.

The report also disputes the need for Ventria's pharmaceutical rice, and discusses cheap and effective solutions for prevention and treatment of diarrhea recommended by the World Health Organization and other public health experts. The report notes that these existing solutions have cut deaths due to diarrhea from 4.6 million a year in 1980 to 2 million today, but are not adequately funded.

"What developing countries need most is clean water and basic sanitation facilities to prevent diarrhea, and improved access to existing oral rehydration solutions to treat it," said Freese. "Even if Ventria's rice-grown drugs eventually prove to be safe, they would be expensive, and divert funding from existing, cost-effective solutions that aren't adequately funded," he added.

View the Report http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Pharmaceutical%20Rice-FINAL.pdf

Contacts:

Bill Freese or Joseph Mendelson, Center for Food Safety, 202-547-9359; Dan Nagengast, Kansas Rural Center, 785-748-0959

Center for Food Safety is a national non-profit membership organization working to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable agriculture. In 2000/2001, CFS was part of a coalition that discovered widespread contamination of the food supply with genetically engineered StarLink corn, which had not been approved for human consumption due to concerns it could cause food allergies. In the past year, CFS has won three cases against USDA for the Agriculture Departments reckless and illegal approval of genetically engineered crops. www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

The Kansas Rural Center is a non-profit research, education and advocacy organization that promotes environmentally sound farming practices and a safe and healthy food system, benefiting both farmers and consumers. www.kansasruralcenter.org

USA: Crying over Labeled Milk

LiveScience, 24 April 2007. By Christopher Wanjek.

Monsanto, the multinational biotechnology corporation and leading producer of genetically engineered seed with a near monopoly on many crops and annual revenue exceeding $7 billion, is worried that you are being misled.

For this reason, the company wants to ban shady dairy farmers like those rascally Amish and weirdo hippies from labeling their products free of artificial hormones.

Earlier this month, Monsanto complained to the Food and Drug Administration and Federal Trade Committee about the proliferation of labels with language such as "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones," as found on milk sold by Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine.

Monsanto says this scares consumers into thinking there's something unhealthy about its human-made recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) or by the Monsanto brand name, Posilac, now in about one-third of American dairy cows.

Probably safe for humans

Monsanto's rBGH, approved by the FDA in 1993, increases milk production by more than 10 percent. Monsanto takes somatotropin, a natural protein hormone, and mass-produces this using DNA-recombinant technology similar to how insulin medication is made.

Although the FDA deemed rBGH safe, nearly every government in the world as well as the Coded Alimentarius Commission, which sets international food standards, disagreed and placed a ban on rBGH-a ban that is only now slowly being lifted. There were economic concerns about rBGH's affect on milk production and price as well as health concerns.

Numerous studies have since shown that rBGH is likely safe for human consumption. Early on, however, studies published in prominent journals found that milk from rBGH-treated cows had elevated levels of another bovine hormone called IGF-I. And unrelated research, such as a highly regarded study from Harvard published in 1998 involving 15,000 men, found a connection between IGF-I and prostate cancer.

What about the cow?

The cows don't seem to be faring as well as humans, though. A study published in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research in 2003, analyzing numerous other studies, found that rBGH-treated cows were 25 percent more likely to have an udder infection called mastitis, 40 percent more likely to fail to conceive, and 55 percent more likely to develop clinical signs of lameness.

Dairy cows are already bred for high milking output, and the artificial boost from rBGH takes a toll on their bodies. Monsanto Posilac's label in fact warns, "Cows injected with Posilac are at increased risk for clinical mastitis." Infections often are treated with antibiotics, raising concern about their overuse.

For animal welfare reasons alone, consumers have the right to know how their milk is produced.

Freedom of speech

Monsanto was aggressive about rBGH from the get-go and infamously stopped a Fox news affiliate in Florida in the early 1990s from broadcasting a report on it, which most consumers knew nothing about because of the lack of labeling. When the reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, refused to yield, Fox fired them.

Ultimately the plan backfired after the reporters successfully sued Fox under the Florida whistle-blower law and eventually won the 2001 International Goldman Environmental Prize.

In 1994 the FDA placed limits on wording rBGH foes could use, and some states prohibited labeling outright. Ben & Jerry's and three other companies needed to sue Illinois and Chicago for the right to say their products did not come from cows treated with rBGH.

Ben & Jerry's adds the FDA-preferred wording: "The FDA has said no significant difference has been shown and no test can now distinguish between milk from rBGH treated and untreated cows." Oakhurst Dairy and many other producers do not have this voluntary disclaimer, which Monsanto says violates the FDA's rules on misleading labels.

No such disclaimer is needed for organic labeling, stating the conventional foods are just as safe.

Truth in labeling

It is difficult to ascertain the truth about rBGH's safety because Monsanto itself doesn't do well with accurate labeling. On its website Monsanto posts a fact sheet reportedly from the FDA but actually written by a scientist from Cornell University. The dead giveaway is that FDA fact sheets don't use underlining and exclamation points-as in "YES!"-to answer such softball questions as "Are milk and meat from bST-supplemented cows safe?" The so-called fact sheet is comically slanted in industry's favor. Also note the lack of "r" in "bST," Monsanto's way of minimizing the artificialness of rBST.

Similarly, Monsanto's posting called "Questions And Answers About bST From The United States Food And Drug Administration," with language not typical of an FDA factsheet, doesn't seem to appear on any FDA website.

Proposed FDA rulings include not telling consumers when food is irradiated or derived from clones . Monsanto goes the extra step to limit what the other guy can say as well.

USA: Consumers Call for Ban on Growth Hormone in Milk

Voice of America, 24 April 2007. By Melinda Smith

One of the largest groups of milk producers in the United States has set an August first deadline for its members to stop treating their cows with a growth hormone, or pay more to get their milk to market. The move is a reaction to pressure by consumer groups opposed to the use of the hormone rBST, which increases milk production. VOA's Melinda Smith reports on the health and economic concerns of the hormone's use.

Millions of advertising dollars are spent every year by American dairy farmers and processors to promote the message that milk is good for us. It is a big business, made up of dairy farmers' cooperatives and companies that bottle and distribute the milk.

In 1993, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a genetically engineered growth hormone called rBST. It is sold under the brand Posilac, and stimulates as much as 10 percent more milk in cows.

Dennis Areias is a dairy farmer in California who uses rBST. "What it does, it enhances her appetite to get her to eat more. The more she eats, the more she will milk."

But not everyone is happy with that idea. In February 2007, three health advocacy groups asked the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval of rBST. They say the hormone increases the risk of breast, colon and prostate cancers, and may be linked to early puberty.

Representatives of the dairy industry and Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, say there is no scientific proof that links rBST to cancer.

So who is behind the effort to stop production of rBST? Some say it is driven by consumers who will not buy hormone-laced food.

"...I just thought it better to be safe than sorry," expressed one shopper. "Well, it just makes sense to me to try and make sure that our food is as clean as possible," said another.

Or, is it simply pressure from advocacy groups opposed to any food additives? Patty Lovera is with the organization, Food and Water Watch. "We are headed in the right direction, which is more and more companies are saying they are not going to buy milk that's produced that way."

One of the largest dairy associations is California Dairies Incorporated. It distributes at least 10 percent of the milk in the United States. It has told its members they must stop using rBST by August 2007 or pay more to ship their hormone treated milk to stores that will take it.

Richard Cotta of California Dairies says the company is responding to consumer preference for milk free of hormones. "Our attitude is if the consumer wants it and is willing to pay for it, we are going to try and make it available to them," he said.

There are about 60,000 herds in the U.S. and some estimates say that one-third have been treated with rBST. But a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation, which represents most of the dairy cooperatives in the United States, believes that figure may be lower now because of the negative publicity surrounding the hormone.

23 April 2007

Europe: EU may take two years to develop biotech crop rules

Reuters, 23 April 2006. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Europe's farmers will not see any more clarity on EU rules for separating traditional, organic and biotech crops until at least 2009 as experts sift through scientific data on specific plant varieties, officials say.

The European Commission, the EU executive, issued guidelines in July 2003 on how farmers should separate the three types.

The idea was for national governments to make their own laws to facilitate growing of genetically modified (GMO) crops if farmers wanted to do so. At the moment, maize is the only GMO crop that is grown on the territory of the EU-27.

The guidelines are not legally binding and most countries have been very slow to draft and adopt laws on an area known in EU jargon as coexistence. Some have not bothered at all.

Commission officials say only seven EU countries have coexistence laws in place: Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and several regions in Austria.

A further eight countries have notified their plans.

Many of these countries have still to develop crop-specific "good farming" practices, such as field isolation distances and crop-cleaning procedures. Very few have specific rules on economic liability in cases of cross-contamination, they say.

For some years, the Commission has come under pressure from several countries to draft an EU-wide coexistence law. Early last year, it disappointed many by saying this was unnecessary.

But it did pledge to compile far more specific growing guidelines for farmers. It doesn't look as if that will happen soon -- work is not due to start in earnest until the second half of 2007 and then, maybe, take up to two years.

"Now we need some practical and technical elements for the only crop that is allowed for cultivation in the Community," said Daniele Bianchi, responsible for GMO policy in the cabinet of EU Agriculture Commission Mariann Fischer Boel.

"It will take more than 1.5 or two years to come to some kind of guidelines or conclusions on this issue," he told a conference last week.

While there is no plan to revise the general non-binding 2003 guidelines, the latest project envisages more technical detail on crop segregation, a senior Commission official said.

If EU countries did not intend to develop national crop laws, the Commission guidelines could be a basis for "voluntary standards" for good farming practice, he said: a tacit admission that no country would be forced to adopt a coexistence law.

Last jigsaw pieces

Another longstanding problem in EU biotech policy is the lack of common labelling thresholds for seeds, or how much biotech material can be tolerated in seed batches.

The debate over the EU's last major GMO law has been simmering for at least four years and has been so controversial that the Commission, usually united on GMO policy, cannot agree.

Thresholds would be set so that the labelling threshold for final food and feed products at the end of the production chain, which the EU has set at 0.9 percent, can be respected.

What is at stake are the percentages of GMO content that can reasonably be allowed in crops like maize and rapeseed before the seeds must be labelled as biotech. Any seed batches with GMO material below those thresholds would not have to be labelled.

None of this means that the EU is about to approve more GMO types for cultivation since "live" GMOs remain a highly divisive and controversial area for both the Commission and the EU-27.

Still, coexistence laws and seed thresholds are widely seen as the last pieces of the jigsaw in the EU's plethora of GMO laws. Some EU states say it is essential to have at least seed thresholds in place before new "live" GMOs can be contemplated.

Europe: Food and biofuel industry clash over use of farmland

EU Observer, 23 April 2007.

BRUSSELS ‚ The rising trend towards using biofuel, including in the European Union, is putting the food industry on a collision course with the renewable energy industry over the future use of the world's limited farmland.

"Land availability for both food and fuel is very questionable", managing director Guenther Buck of food-giant Unilever warned at a conference organised by the European Parliament's green group in Brussels last week.

His comments came just a month after the EU agreed that biofuels should constitute at least 10 percent of fuels used in new vehicles by 2020.

The multinational company estimates that in 20 years time, an extra 50% food production will be needed to feed the world's growing population.

"Without agricultural intensification this will require an additional 2.5 billion hectares of land ‚ as much as two thirds of the current forest area. And this is before biofuel production sets in," Mr Buck said.

Prices on rapeseed, which is used for both food and fuel, have doubled since 2000 and the world's wheat stocks are at a very low level, according to the Unilever director.

Meanwhile, green MEPs say that the boom in biofuel production around the globe is creating dangerous competition between the world's 800 million car owners and the two billion people living below the poverty line.

The likely outcome of the clash will be a rise in the cost of food while the intensification of agriculture is also expected to lead to severe environmental problems, excess use of fertilizers, water scarcity, erosion and loss of flora and fauna.

On top of this, there is likely to be further global pressure to move towards more GMO crops, Unilever argues.

Both food and fuel is possible

But the biofuel industry hit back during the 3rd International Conference on GMO-Free Regions, Biodiversity and Rural Development, arguing that both "food and fuel is possible".

"If we need to produce more food at some point in the future, it is easy to turn back the production", Raffaello Garofalo of the European Biodiesel Board said.

"Revolutions are always met by conservatism - in this case from those who are used to having the raw materials", Mr Garofalo said.

Biofuels have emerged as one of the greener solutions to growing demands for energy while at the same time making the industrialised world less dependent on imports from the Middle East and Russia.

In addition, it can be a new source of revenue for farmers in the EU and the US.

But the impact of biofuels on climate change remains questionable.

Many scientific studies say the energy equation for plant fuels is negative with palm oil plantations quickly expanding into tropical rainforests. In Brazil, for example, tropical forests have been cut to produce soybeans and sugar - both used in biofuels, but also as food. The c

onference in Brussels last week is likely to be just the beginning of a long and serious debate on these issues as the 27-nation bloc works out how it will fulfil both the biofuel commitment as well as its promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

UK: 'Our land isn't a laboratory'

Hull Daily Mail, 23 April 2007

They came from all corners of the country to appeal to an East Yorkshire farmer to ditch a controversial genetically modified (GM) crops trial.

More than 150 protesters joined a rally and march to urge Michael Wilkin to abandon plans for the tests in Preston, near Hedon.

Some of the demonstrators hammered home their message by symbolically planting organic potatoes near the GM potato trial site.

Campaigners listened to anti-GM speakers at the rally in Preston Road Community Centre, east Hull.

Then marchers carried placards and banners amid a strong police presence to ensure the nationally publicised demonstration passed off peacefully.

Organic grower Dr Gwen Egginton, one of the speakers, said: "We are appealing to the farmer to ditch the trial because it is something nobody wants except the big biotech firms.

"It is not too late. He could still say "no" and really he is the only person who can stop this nonsense.

"If we don't keep up the pressure against genetically modified crops, Britain will go the same way as the US and Canada and we will be eating GM food without even knowing it."

Dr Egginton, of Nafferton, near Driffield, vowed the East Yorkshire campaign would go on even if the potato trial went ahead.

"We have done really well so far in this country in keeping it GM-free, but we must keep up the pressure to stop trials of this technology, which is plainly not wanted," she said.

Mr Wilkin, of Humber Lane, Welwick, has agreed to lease a hectare of land to test potatoes genetically modified with a gene to resist devastating fungal disease late blight.

Pressure is mounting on him to abandon the trial because of the impact it might have on neighbouring crops, such as borage, where honey bees are used for pollination.

Beekeepers do not want to take their hives to the fields because of the risk their honey will be contaminated.

German firm BASF Plant Science approached Mr Wilkin after a Derbyshire farmer pulled out of the same trial.

Protester Carl McCoy, 32, of Cottingham Road, west Hull, said: "There is a huge demand for organic food. The Government should be supporting organic farmers and growers."

The rally and march was organised by the recently formed Hedon Against GM. Hull and East Riding Green Party secretary Martin Deane, 44, of Princes Avenue, west Hull, said people from all over the country turned up.

He said: "I think the big turnout shows the strength of public feeling against GM crops and food. It is neither needed nor wanted."

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on the trial ended on Friday.

UK: Freeze Calls for Honesty from BASF and Defra on the GM Spud Trials

GM Freeze press release 24th April 2007

GM Freeze has called for Defra and BASF to be open with local people in East Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire about both the facts of and the purpose for the GM potato trials planned in each place. Defra must delay any decision on trials until the safety of the potatoes has been established.

At a recent meeting BASF officials confirmed to GM Freeze that the genes used in the GM potatoes came from añMexican wild relative of the potato and not, as previously stated by BASF, a 'wild potato'. [1]

While the wild relative, Solanum bulbocastanum,ñis found in Mexico and cannot naturally cross breed with potatoes, potatoes are members of the nightshade family - a group of plants known to naturally produce toxins. [2] There are concerns that such toxins from the wild relative may be carried into the GM potatoes inadvertently and thus enter the food chain.

There is also confusion over the purposes of the trials. The BASF applications states:

'The purpose of the release of the genetically modified plant, including its initial use and any intention to use it as or in a product in the future.

The trials will be conducted for development purposes. In the first three to four years the purpose of the small-scale experimental trial will be the screening of events for improved resistance to Phytophthora infestans (proof of concept under UK field conditions with UK specific Phytophthora infestans strains). In addition during the course of the trial the following will be observed and recorded: agronomic performance (e.g. plant vigour and yield), and selected plant characteristics (e.g. emergence, flowering, maturation), as well as stability of the trait.'

The trial will also be used to gather environmental data required to obtain commercial approval for the GM potatoes.

However in February a Defra press release ignored many of the commercial aspects of the trial: 'The trials will test the effectiveness of the potato's resistance against UK strains of the disease.' [3]

In contrast, in a February press release BASF were confident that the GM potatoes were blight resistant: 'The plants BASF will be field testing have already shown (in the greenhouse and the field) that they can complement the existing resistance and provide the plant with much stronger protection from late blight.' [4]

BASF confirmed to GM Freeze that they intend to test 80 lines of GM potatoes in East Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

'BASF confirmed to me that their previous greenhouse and outdoor trials in Europe have already convinced them that GM blight resistance is effective. It is now clear that the Cambridgeshire and East Yorkshire trials are about the commercial development of GM potatoes and not merely to test if the resistance is effective. The use of genes from a wild relative of potatoes, and not wild potatoes, raise additional safety concerns that need to be cleared up before outdoor trials commence.ñ We need to be sure that none of the 80 GM lines are producing unexpected toxins. The company and Defra are guilty of putting out misleading information. It's time BASF came clean and made a clear, honest statement about the true purpose behind these risky trials and present clear evidence that the GM spuds are safe. Defra should not approve the trial until the safety has been established.'

END

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065

1. 'The potatoes have been modified, using a natural trait found in a wild potato, to resist the devastating fungal disease late blight.' BASF press release, 27 February 2007. CW669-07

2. British Poisonous Plants. MAFF Bulletin 161 1968 - potatoes produce toxins known as alkaloidal glycosides or solanines in the green parts of the plant. Symptoms include chronic anaemia, gastritis and can be fatal in humans if not treated.

3. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070227b.htm and also http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/061201b.htm

4. BASF press release, 27 February 2007. CW669-07

Australia: Proposed laws 'to release untested GMOs'

Sidney Morning Herald, April 23 2007

The federal government will be able to release untested genetically modified organisms into the environment under proposed new emergency response laws, activists say.

Greenpeace and Gene Ethics told a parliamentary inquiry in separate submissions they were concerned that the broad terms of proposed legislation could allow governments to release potentially dangerous biological agents for almost any reason.

The inquiry is considering legislation that amends gene technology regulation.

A clause in the proposed amendment would allow the minister to speed up the release of a genetically modified organism (GMO) in response to an emergency.

"Gene technology holds great potential for Australia and there may be circumstances where a genetically modified organism is uniquely capable of dealing with a health or environmental emergency," Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Minister senator Eric Abetz said when he introduced the legislation to the Senate last month.

Under the proposed changes, the minister could give the go-ahead for the release of a GMO if he considered it necessary to deal with an imminent threat.

But Louise Sales from Greenpeace said the clause bestowed a broad and sweeping power on the minister as it did not explicitly define what would be considered a threat.

The drought could be considered a sufficient threat to justify the release of plants genetically modified to resist dry conditions with no investigation, Greenpeace said.

"It's basically left to the minister's discretion with no need to prove a threat exists," Ms Sales said.

"The current wording... is so broad it could include current pests and disease you see in agricultural property systems all over the country.

"The risks associated with GMOs are not properly known and do need to be assessed."

Cane toads were an example of biological controls gone wrong, Ms Sales said. The toads - introduced to eradicate another pest but now a plague in their own right - were an example of why a full safety assessment should be done before any biological agents were released into the environment, she said.

Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics, a lobby group critical of genetically modified crops, said the clause was an invitation for an experimental organism to be released without any assessment process.

"We find that totally unacceptable," he said.

But Health Department deputy secretary Mary Murnane said guidelines had been written to control the administration of the emergency power.

Safeguards in the guidelines included consultation, she said.

Ms Murnane said the powers could only be used if the country faced an imminent and serious threat that put the population or economy at risk.

"It can't be something to leverage a preferred policy position on the part of somebody," she said.

The courts could impose "severe consequences" if the power was used for something that was not an imminent and serious threat, she said.

The health department also disputed Greenpeace's claim that the change could lead to genetically modified plants being released to cope with drought.

USA: Monsanto Demands Ban On Honesty

The Spoof, 23 April 2007

St. Louis, MO: Perhaps taking a cue from the brave leader of our nation, Monsanto Company has written to FDA and FTC demanding that milk producers be blocked from telling the truth.

Monsanto produces and sells an artificial hormone which increases milk production from dairy cows when given to them. However, the US is the only industrial nation in the world where the hormone is approved for use. It has been banned in most other countries. An increasing number of US milk producers have refused to use the hormone for health reasons and notifying the public of that fact by using slogans like: 'Our Farmer's Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones'.

It is very unusual for a multinational biotech company to demand MORE government regulation, but that is exactly what Monsanto is now doing. The company contends is is 'deceptive and misleading' for anyone to claim they DO NOT use the hormone known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST).

'Those darned farmers and dairymen are out to get us by publishing actual facts,' said Monsanto spokesman Andrew Burchett, 'and, we are looking to our government regulators to provide us protection.'

'We produce the hormone by combining cow DNA with E Coli bacteria, and before you must ask, yes, it's *that* E Coli bacteria. But it is totally unnecessary and uncalled for to share that information with the public. Our artificial hormone is approved by FDA. We made darned sure of that by hiring a couple of their top staffers and providing them with dream jobs and salaries in the stratosphere. We now deserve and expect some protection for our investment.'

'It is an artificial argument for users to claim they do not use our artificial hormone just to improve the marketability of their more natural products,' said Burchett, 'and I must tell you our company resents that very much. If we have to, we are completely willing and prepared to go to court to block anyone's freedom of speech on this issue.'

'After all, nothing at all must be allowed to stand in the way of our deserved profits and CEO compensation. Least of all some bogus and trumped up issue like human health.'

The FDA and FTC are expected to grant Monsanto's ban on free speech in accordance with current policies of the Bush administration.

The story above is a satire or parody. http://www.thespoof.com/about/disclaimer.cfm It is entirely fictitious.

India: Centre refuses to divulge details of GM field trials

The Times of India, 23 April 2007. Nitin Sethi

NEW DELHI: In an era of transparency, the government has been less than candid on issues of public health. It has, despite an SC [Supreme Court] order, avoided explicitly mentioning the "implications and biological results" of field trials of genetically modified crops. In fact, it has questioned the competence of the court to decide matters of 'science and technology'.

The ministry of environment, in its affidavit filed as a reply to the SC order, has divulged the complete list of 144 applications it has approved for testing since 2006, including ones of crops meant for human consumption like okra, rice, cauliflower, groundnut, tomato and potato.

The admission that trials for food crops were cleared and the government, despite the court order, did not explain the impacts of such trials has the green brigade up in arms.

Ironically, the government, instead of explaining the possible public health and environmental impacts of such trials, has merely detailed the process it is following and the trials it is using for testing these food crops, the very process under review in the court.

"When the court asked for implications and biological results of the tests of GM crops, the government could have explained the possible biological and environmental impacts of such trials and their results and not just a list of what is being tested and how," said Aruna Rodriguez, one of the petitioners.

USA: Sale of modified seed corn stopped

Associated Press, April 23, 2007

Minnesota has stopped the distribution and sale of a certain genetically modified variety of Syngenta seed corn because it doesn't comply with state regulations. Farmers were told not to plant the root-worm resistant seed.

Syngenta officials told the Minnesota Department of Agriculture on Friday that 7,480 units of "Agrisure RW MIR 604" seed were distributed to 99 seed dealers in Minnesota.

Mary Hanks, a biotechnology specialist with the department, said officials still didn't know Friday how much of the seed might have been delivered to farmers or if any had been planted. She said it apparently went to dealers across the corn-growing areas of Minnesota.

While the seed in question has federal approval, Minnesota requires companies to receive a commercial use exemption before they can sell genetically modified, or GMO, seed. Syngenta neglected to get the required state approval, Hanks said.

State Agriculture Commissioner Gene Hugoson said he wants aggressive action by Syngenta to retrieve all the unapproved seed shipped to and sold in Minnesota, including any that might have been purchased from a dealer in another state.

Last December, Golden Valley-based Syngenta Seeds, Inc., which is part of Swiss-based Syngenta AG, agreed to pay a $1.5 million penalty to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for selling and distributing a seed corn containing an unregistered genetically engineered pesticide.

Poland: Poland's status as 'GMO-free' under threat

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside press release, 23 April 2007.

Poland's future as Europe's leading "GMO Free Zone" stands on the brink: Corporate pressures to open the market for commercial planting of GMO have further intensified, whereas public rejection of GM foods is firm and universal.

The Polish government is wavering in it's commitment to keep Poland GMO Free. The decision on whether or not to allow the commercial planting of GM seeds in the Polish countryside is hanging in the balance after the Prime Minister pledged support for a new act (Feb.13th 2007) that would allow special GMO Zones to be created. This will be debated in the Polish parliament later this year However, public awareness of the dramatic consequences of allowing the commercial planting of GMO in Poland remains very low.

The ICPPC conference "Genes Are Not For Sale" to be held in Wawel Castle, Krakow, on April 25th, addresses these consequences. It offers the unique opportunity to hear some of the most respected and knowledgeable speakers on this subject to have ever been brought together on one platform in Poland. They include Dr Arpad Pusztai, the first scientist to discover liver and kidney disorders in mice fed GM potatoes and to suffer the consequences of making his findings public. Percy Schmeiser, the renowned Canadian cereal farmer who single handedly took on Monsanto after being accused and fined for "illegally" sowing GM seeds on his land.

This conference is held under the patronage of the City of Krakow, which was amongst the first authorities in Poland to declare Krakow a GMO Free Zone and is a 'counter-conference' to the "First international biotechnology conference" being held in Krakow at the same time. For further information see www.gmo.icppc.pl click on Union Jack and then sub-heading 'anti GMO manifestation'.

Contact person/s: Julian Rose or Jadwiga Lopata tel/fax 00 48 33 8797114

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside
MiÍdzynarodowa Koalicja dla Ochrony Polskiej Wsi
34-146 StryszÛw 156, Poland tel./fax +48 33 8797114
biuro@icppc.pl
www.icppc.pl
www.gmo.icppc.pl
www.eko-cel.pl

Australia: Proposed laws 'to release untested GMOs'

The Sydney Morning Herald, 23 April 2007.

The federal government will be able to release untested genetically modified organisms into the environment under proposed new emergency response laws, activists say.

Greenpeace and Gene Ethics told a parliamentary inquiry in separate submissions they were concerned that the broad terms of proposed legislation could allow governments to release potentially dangerous biological agents for almost any reason.

The inquiry is considering legislation that amends gene technology regulation.

A clause in the proposed amendment would allow the minister to speed up the release of a genetically modified organism (GMO) in response to an emergency.

"Gene technology holds great potential for Australia and there may be circumstances where a genetically modified organism is uniquely capable of dealing with a health or environmental emergency," Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Minister senator Eric Abetz said when he introduced the legislation to the Senate last month.

Under the proposed changes, the minister could give the go-ahead for the release of a GMO if he considered it necessary to deal with an imminent threat.

But Louise Sales from Greenpeace said the clause bestowed a broad and sweeping power on the minister as it did not explicitly define what would be considered a threat.

The drought could be considered a sufficient threat to justify the release of plants genetically modified to resist dry conditions with no investigation, Greenpeace said.

"It's basically left to the minister's discretion with no need to prove a threat exists," Ms Sales said.

"The current wording... is so broad it could include current pests and disease you see in agricultural property systems all over the country.

"The risks associated with GMOs are not properly known and do need to be assessed."

Cane toads were an example of biological controls gone wrong, Ms Sales said. The toads - introduced to eradicate another pest but now a plague in their own right - were an example of why a full safety assessment should be done before any biological agents were released into the environment, she said.

Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics, a lobby group critical of genetically modified crops, said the clause was an invitation for an experimental organism to be released without any assessment process.

"We find that totally unacceptable," he said.

But Health Department deputy secretary Mary Murnane said guidelines had been written to control the administration of the emergency power.

Safeguards in the guidelines included consultation, she said.

Ms Murnane said the powers could only be used if the country faced an imminent and serious threat that put the population or economy at risk.

"It can't be something to leverage a preferred policy position on the part of somebody," she said.

The courts could impose "severe consequences" if the power was used for something that was not an imminent and serious threat, she said.

The health department also disputed Greenpeace's claim that the change could lead to genetically modified plants being released to cope with drought.

22 April 2007

UK: Protestors plant GM trial site with organic potatoes

Indymedia.org.uk, Press release, 22 April 2007

Contact Carl McCoy on 07858 177 178

People from all over the country are currently planting organic potatoes in the field proposed as a GM potato trial site outside Hull. It is hoped that the donation of safe spuds will prevent the planting of the controversial crop, which threatens the livelihoods of local borage growers and organic farmers.

Anna Lock explained: "If you want to eat good safe potatoes, you have to plant good safe potatoes. By planting organic potatoes in this field today, the field will be rendered unsuitable for the GM trial. Scientific experiments need controllable variables, tiny organic seed potatoes hidden deep in the ground are a variable controlled only by nature. These seed potatoes will grow and BASF's experiment will no longer be possible on this site."

The rally started as a GM-free potato picnic accompanied by live music with around 300 protestors, including kids and cyclists and many dressed as Mr Potato Head. A large number then set out across the field to plant organic potatoes. The rally marks the end of the government's consultation process on the experiment. The crop is the first to be proposed after public pressure bought an end to the trialing of GM in the UK nearly 3 years ago.

Yolande Black travelled all the way from Bristol to attend today's protest, "I think the government is testing the water with these potato trials, and it is vitally important that we show them that resistance is still alive and kicking and that we will continue fighting them every step of the way. GM is not a solution. 20% of conventional potato varieties are already resistant to blight and BASF have admitted that there is no market for GM food in the UK."

80 acres of borage have recently been sown near the trial site, and the crop will fail if beekeepers keep to the British Beekeepers Associations guidelines of keeping hives at least 6km distant from GM crops. The GM farmer has announced that he will not proceed if the issue is not resolved for his neighbours.

Note to editors:

1. Contact details: Carl McCoy on 07858 177 178 or visit the website at www.mutatoes.org

2. The site is one of two due to be planted this year, the second proposed trial site at the National Institute of Agriculture and Botany (NIAB) in Cambridgeshire last weekend. The Hull trial site is to replace the one in Derbyshire after the farmer who pulled out. BASF intends to continue the trials for the next five years.

3. Borage is a lucrative crop grown as a source of Starflower Oil and used as a healthfood supplement and in skincare creams and cosmetics. BASF failed to contact the local borage farmers in advance of the trial. The farmers stand to lose up to GBP80,000.

4. On 5th April a public meeting and debate about the planting of the GM potatoes was held in Hedon. Dr Arpad Pusztai was one of the speakers attending. His experiments into feeding GM potatoes to rats appeared to demonstrate the GM potatoes cause damage to the rodents immune systems and growth rates. The work raised massive public concern and awareness of GM, but the experiments were never repeated. His evidence, and those of BASF's PR representative, caused the local council to renew their 2003 stance against GM. Opposition from local people attending was also strong, and a petition is due to be handed over to DEFRA and the farmer concerned before the rally.

5. In North America where GM crops are now widespread, cross-pollination regularly contaminates surrounding crops, even jumping species. Earlier in 2007 it was found that the experimental rice line LL601 had contaminated worldwide rice supplies, causing massive loss of markets, despite assurances that it was in a low risk cross pollination category.

6. BASF is a multinational company based in Germany. They were part of the notorious AG Farben which manufactured poison gas for the concentration camps, used slave labour and was convicted of war crimes at the end of WW2. It claims to be the largest chemical company in the world, and in 2005 it was the 3rd biggest global seller of pesticides.

7. Both Ireland and the Netherlands were due to run BASF's GM potato trials, but these were abandoned after concerns were raised about the environmental threats they posed.

8. Protestors are planting around 3000 organic seed potatoes of several different varieties.

Zambia: Zambia's Parliament Approves Biosafety Bill

(Media-Newswire.com, 22 April 2007.

The Zambian parliament has approved a bill to regulate genetically modified organisms ( GMOs ), a signal that the country is on the path to formally incorporating modern agricultural biotechnology into its national development plan.

The biosafety bill, drafted by the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Science and Technology, will, among other things, establish a National Biosafety Authority ( NBA ), promote public awareness of biosafety, and provide mechanism for liability and redress for any harm or damage caused to human and animal health by GMO.

"This is good news as Zambia, now, stands to gain from modern agricultural biotechnology," notes James Wachai, the author of GMO Africa Blog, which provides news and commentaries about advances in agricultural biotechnology in developing countries.

Mr. Wachai advises Zambian politicians, who, in the past, have expressed pessimism about the safety of genetically modified foods to human health and the environment, to use the new biosafety law to lure biotechnology investors into the country.

"Biosafety laws' main thrust should be to boost biotechnology investments, both in the health and agricultural sectors," he observes, adding, "With the right political goodwill, a country like Zambia stands to gain immensely from agricultural biotechnology."

To read more about Zambia's biosafety law, go to www.gmoafrica.org.

Contact

James Njoroge
Tel. 206-257-0035

USA: Dylan's got the answers about genetic engineering

Central Maine, Morning Sentinel, April 22 2007. By C.R. Lawn of Waterville.

Why do we need to amend Maine's laws concerning genetically engineered seed? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

If the state Board of Pesticides Control, as expected, approves applications from biotechnology giants Dow, Pioneer and Monsanto to register genetically engineered (GE) corn, that corn's acreage in Maine will increase.

Both corn and canola readily cross-pollinate. Their pollen is wind-borne. No one can build a fence high enough or tight enough to keep it out. As acreage increases, so will the risk of contamination of non-genetically engineered crops and consequent economic loss, especially for certified organic farmers whose markets demand GE-free products.

The Russians tried in Berlin to keep people in. As Cold War tensions escalated, Bob Dylan wrote his legendary anthem in April 1962. The Cuban missile crisis would unfold six months later. For decades, we would live under "peaceful co-existence," a euphemism for a process neither peaceful nor supportive of either side's existence.

So when the Maine Department of Agriculture, years later, promulgated its "Plan for Co-existence" between GE and non-GE growers, the words brought back chilling memories.

Co-existence, as practiced by the department, no more supports peace among farmers than "peaceful co-existence" did among nations. So far, it has been an excuse to give carte blanche to big biotech.

Back to Dylan. How many times can a man turn his head, pretending he just doesn't see? In 2001, the Legislature passed a first-in-the-nation law requiring GE seed manufacturers to provide planting instructions to minimize potential cross-contamination. But the state's agriculture officials never adequately enforced the law, allowing Monsanto to disseminate "instructions" that didn't teach farmers how to take any specific steps to minimize potential cross-contamination, and moreover, they implied that 80 feet was a safe distance to separate varieties to prevent crossing.

The minimum industry standard for separating hybrid corn varieties is 660 feet. The USDA Yearbook of Agriculture, 1961, recommends 1,260 feet.

State agricultural officials, while extolling biotech's benefits, have never acknowledged its risks. Their co-existence plan, though drawn from a document by organic expert Jim Riddle, deleted his most important section on risk and neutered his language, substituting the word "mix" for "contaminate." The issue is not mixing per se, it is the consequence of mixing, which is contamination of the non-GE crop. The consequences are not equal.

Co-existence requires that the risk and the burdens of avoiding risks be shared reciprocally by both parties. Compare Riddle's definition of co-existence -- "the ability of farmers to provide customers with a choice between GE and non-GE ... crops and products" -- with the department's tepid -- "the ability of farmers to meet the needs of their customers while respecting the needs of their neighbors."

Respect is not sufficient when neighbors can unintentionally inflict economic damages on each other.

L.D.1650 would provide some of that protection. While neither banning nor restricting the use of GE technology, it would make GE patent holders, not farmers, liable for any contamination that results in damages over $250. If biotech proves as safe as its lobbyists claim, the costs will be negligible. If not, the multibillion-dollar gene giants that benefit most from the technology will be far better able to bear its costs than our small farmers, who could be put out of business by one lawsuit. We haven't yet had any farmer vs. farmer lawsuits over GE in Maine. L.D. 1650 would keep it that way.

All disputes would be heard in Maine courts under Maine law instead of in Missouri where most GE cases go now. A court order and prior notification would be required before company representatives could come onto a farmer's land to test for patent violations, overriding typical provisions in GE technology use agreements where farmers sign away those rights. Farmers whose crops were tested could request that split samples be taken for independent verification. These modest provisions would help level the field, both for farmers using GE technologies and neighbors choosing not to.

How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man? Time for each side to grow up and eschew knee-jerk reactions.

Organic advocates like me must recognize biotech is here to stay at least until supplanted by better/safer science, and efforts to ban it will be fruitless and counterproductive.

Big biotech must recognize organic is here to stay, respect its choice not to use the technology and acknowledge its right to protection from genetic contamination. Both sides need to preserve choices for all farmers.

C.R. Lawn of Waterville, a longtime Bob Dylan fan, founded Fedco Seeds in 1978.

21 April 2007

UK: Meacher: 'Blair's Britain makes me sick'

The Sunday Telegraph, 21/04/2007. Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor.

Tony Blair has created a "staggering degree of inequality" in Britain, perpetuated a culture of greed and undermined democracy, according to one of those vying to succeed him.

Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, now a Labour leadership candidate, said that society was more unequal now than at any time since the 1930s. A new class, the "mega rich", had been given unprecedented power and access to government by Mr Blair, who was himself obsessed by money, he claimed.

Mr Meacher said that he was close to securing the 44 names necessary to mount a challenge to the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, the overwhelming favourite to succeed Mr Blair. "I'm getting very close to it," Mr Meacher said. "I have 25, [John] McDonnell has 15 and the overwhelming majority of those will switch to me if John realises that he can't make it and drops out."

The MP for Oldham West said he believed passionately that Mr Brown should face a challenge. "People should have a choice. We should not have a coronation when there has been no debate on policy since Blair came in, in 1994.

"It's crucial that Brown is made to answer as to what he's going to deliver to us. We are entitled to know."

While Westminster was fixated on a Blairite challenger, Mr Meacher said, it would be wrong to underestimate the Left. "David Miliband, Charles Clarke, John Reid, it's a matter for them but it's quite interesting that there is a desperate thrashing around to find a candidate and they have not been able to do so. The tendency is to regard the Left as non-existent. That is a really serious misreading of the state of the Labour Party."

Accusing Mr Blair of exacerbating inequality, he added: "We are now a more unequal society than at any time since the 1930s. The average package of the chief executive of a FTSE 100 company is GBP46,155 a week. The average wage is GBP400 a week. That is a staggering degree of inequality.

"We now have four classes - an underclass who are so poor that they cannot participate in any meaningful way, a working class who are okay, a fairly well off middle class then a new category, the mega rich who are in a category of their own in terms of wealth, power and their influence on the Government through private meetings with ministers.

"I feel very sick and angry about it. I didn't expect this to happen under a Labour Government. The reason it has happened is, if I can quote Peter Mandelson in 1997, New Labour is very relaxed about people getting filthy rich."

Mr Blair, he said, had "far too little concern" for the people at the bottom. "Tony's natural mates are his big business friends. He feels comfortable with them, he admires and respects them and he gets a good response from them. They are only too glad to have someone in power whom they can do direct deals with."

The Prime Minister, said Mr Meacher, had also ridden roughshod over Parliament. "It would be hard to say this is a genuine parliamentary democracy. The framework is there but the decisions are fixed at private meetings between the Prime Minister and the power brokers in society, the financial houses, industry and the media."

Hitting out at the influence of Lord Sainsbury, the former science minister, with whom he sparred over the issue of genetically modified crops, Mr Meacher said: "People say that is why I was sacked. Lord Sainsbury was appointed by Blair. Blair himself is also pro-GM. Lord Sainsbury provided a lot of money to the Labour Party and he was clearly involved in a lot of GM research. This all mixed in with the Government's objectives."

He said a "conscience of the nation" watchdog should be created to look at all decisions of national importance and prevent abuses of power.

He claimed Mr Brown blocked a decision he took as environment minister to force the top 1,000 companies to publish their greenhouse gas emissions. "So if you ask if he's green - anything but. His feel for this agenda is very weak."

USA: Minnesota stops sales of genetically modified seed

West Central Tribune - Willmar,MN,USA

Read the article: http://www.wctrib.com/articles/index.cfm?id=19186§ion=News

UK: Protest march over GM crop trial

Hull Daily Mail, 21 April 2007

Protestors have made an 11th hour appeal to an East Yorkshire farmer to ditch a controversial crop trial.

More than 150 objectors joined a rally and march this afternoon to urge farmer Michael Wilkin to abandon plans to test genetically modified (GM) potatoes on his land.

Green campaigners met at Preston Road Community Centre, in east Hull, before marching to the trial site in Preston.

The marchers carried placards and banners amid a strong police presence to ensure the protest passed off peacefully.

Mr Wilkin, of Humber Lane, Welwick, has agreed to lease a hectare of land for testing on blight-resistant potatoes.

German firm BASF Plant Science approached him after Derbyshire farmer pulled out of the same trial.

UK: Non GM Potatoes planted at Hedon test site

Indymedia.org.uk, 21 April 2007.

Protesters are planting non-GM potatoes in the field near Hull where BASF intend to trial their GM potato variety. About 100 protesters are spread across the large (several acre) field, with two mounted police and 2 foot police standing by watching - not even filming, for once.

Update: 2 cops on off road motorcycles have entered the field.

150 people attended the protest in Hull to listen to speeches and enjoy a GM free potato picnic - some food provided by Veggies of Nottingham and music provided by Seize the Day (among others).

People are attending from around the country, including Cambridge (where the other trial is) and from as far as Brighton and Bristol.

UK: Honey fears may scupper GM potato trial

Friends of the Earth press release, 21 April 2007. The farmer due to grow an experimental GM potato trial in East Yorkshire may pull out because of the impact that the trial might have on neighbouring crops [1]. The revelation comes as the Government consultation for the GM trial by biotech firm BASF, closes and campaigners hold a protest rally and GM-free potato picnic today (Saturday) [2].

Farmers near the East Yorkshire trial farm are concerned about the threat that the GM potato trial poses to their borage crops. Borage is a high value crop grown to produce starflower oil for health food supplements and skincare products.

But local borage growers fear massive financial losses if the GM trial goes ahead because beekeepers (whose bees are vital to help pollinate the borage crop and produce speciality borage honey) do not want to bring their hives into the fields for fear that their honey will be contaminated. One borage farmer alone estimates that this could result in a £50,000 loss. Companies like Rowse Honey and Sainsbury's require beekeepers supplying them with honey to place their hives at least six miles away from any trial site [3].

The GM potato trial [4] has faced intense local opposition. Both East Riding District Council and Hedon Town council have voted against the trials. And local MP Graham Stuart, who supports the borage farmers, believes that BASF's proposals had been rushed and that the trial shouldn't go ahead this year. Furhermore, a local petition against the trial has attracted hundreds of signatures.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs public consultation on the trial closed yesterday (Friday) [5]. Campaigners do not hold much hope that it will be rejected, despite strong opposition, because Environment Secretary David Miliband personally approved trials for the same crop in Cambridge last year.

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner, Clare Oxborrow said:

"BASF was so desperate to get its GM potatoes in the ground that it neglected to consult with the local community and failed to realise the impact that this trial would have on nearby borage growers. The farmer due to host the trial is rightly concerned about the impacts on neighbouring farmers. He should pull out and the trial should be scrapped.

If this trial goes ahead it will not only risk a huge financial blow for farmers, but also threatens to contaminate future non-GM potato supplies. Conventional breeding already produces blight-resistant potato varieties. There are too many risks and costs involved in trialing this product that no-one wants."

Notes:

[1] The farmer due to host the BASF trial farms land on the Preston/Hedon border but lives over 10 miles away in Welwick. He has not yet signed the contract to conduct the trial. http://www.holderness-gazette.co.uk/artgmpotatotrials.htm.

[2] For more information about the rally and GM free picnic see http://www.mutatoes.org.

[3] http://www.defra.gov.uk/hort/Bees/meet06.htm.

http://www.j-sainsbury.com/files/reports/cr2005/index.asp?pageid=52link

[4] BASF plans trials of blight resistant GM potatoes at two sites in the UK, Cambridge (which already has Government approval) and Hedon/Preston, East Riding of Yorkshire. Plans for the same trials in Ireland were abandoned because the Irish Government imposed tough conditions on the trial. The conditions imposed by Defra are much weaker, making it easier and cheaper for BASF to go ahead with trials in England www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=309&iType=1079. [5] http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/applications/07r4201.htm.

USA: Monsanto fumes over milk labeled as hormone-free

Chicago Tribune, Apr. 21 2007. By Julie Deardorff.

In the United States, the milk products you eat and drink might come from cows that have been given an artificial growth hormone called rBGH. Or they could be produced by animals that have not been treated with the genetically engineered "supplement."

Should dairy producers who shun the synthetic hormone be allowed to label their products "rBGH-free?"

This is the crux of a battle between biotech giant Monsanto, the producer of the hormone, and an increasing number of dairy producers choosing not to use it.

In letters to the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission, Monsanto complained that labels promoting rBGH-free milk are misleading consumers into thinking that rBGH milk is somehow inferior to milk from cows not treated with the hormone.

The corporation apparently is concerned that consumers are being duped by unsavory marketing practices and paying too much for rBGH-free milk. In fact, the hormone, used to increase milk production by about 10 percent, received FDA approval in 1993. It's both safe and virtually undetectable in milk products, according to the FDA.

But no long-term studies have been done, and some experts contend that high levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF) found in rBGH raise the risk of breast, colon and prostate cancers.

Samuel Epstein, author of "What's in Your Milk" (Trafford Publishing, $24.95), argues that rBGH milk makes cows sick, is contaminated by pus and antibiotics, is nutritionally and chemically different than natural milk, is supercharged with IGF and poses dangers without any benefits, especially given the national milk surplus.

Some companies do go too far. Kleinpeter Dairy's statement that "many people believe that rBGH causes premature puberty in children" isn't backed by evidence. But cows don't need the synthetic hormone, and consumers don't seem to want it. Until we know more, there's no reason milk labels shouldn't be able to say, "From cows not treated with rBGH."

USA: The melee over milk labels

Chicago Tribune, Apr. 21 2007. Editorial.

At the supermarket you'll find eggs from vegetarian-fed hens and apples grown without the use of pesticides. Or you can buy regular old eggs and apples. But you get the information you need to make your choice.

If St. Louis-based agribusiness giant Monsanto has its way, though, you'll have less information at the supermarket. You'll be denied the option of choosing milk from cows that haven't been given an artificially engineered growth hormone.

Earlier this month, Monsanto filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. The claim: that the no-growth-hormone labels some dairies attach to their milk are misleading and "result in higher milk prices for consumers and less choice for dairy farmers."

Monsanto wants those labels removed.

If only the key issues here were milk prices and farmers' choice. The bigger issue, it seems, is the protection of Monsanto's profits.

Since its approval by the federal Food and Drug Administration in 1993, artificially engineered growth hormone, known as rBGH, rBST or Posilac, has been used by farmers to increase milk production by about 10 percent. Monsanto, as the primary producer of this hormone, has profited from this use. But in recent years, more and more dairies have begun asking their farmers to refrain from using the hormone and adding labels to their products to reflect the shift.

These labels, Monsanto claims, imply that milk produced with the aid of its hormone products is unsafe. It says the FDA has found no difference between milk produced by cows treated with growth hormone and milk produced by those left untreated. And in fact, the Illinois Department of Public Health requires dairy products that claim to be produced without rBGH to also include the FDA's exculpatory information about growth hormone. As if to say: Our cows didn't get growth hormone, but it wouldn't matter if they did.

That message should suffice. The dairies' labels should be allowed to stay.

The use of artificial growth hormone in dairy cows may not have any deleterious effects on human health. But milk produced with the help of artificial hormones contains elevated amounts of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which some studies have shown to raise the risk of various cancers. That said, no direct link has been established between the IGF-1 found in milk produced with the help of an artificial hormone and increased cancer rates.

It's worth noting that the perceived safety of a drug or chemical compound can change over time. Example: Some people now choose to avoid plastics manufactured with bisphenol-A, which has been in wide use for decades, because some studies have linked it to cancer, obesity and diabetes. The products remain on the market and are generally viewed as safe even for use in the manufacture of baby bottles and breast pumps. To buy or not to buy? That choice remains where it should be, with the buying public.

Consumers deserve the same level of choice when it comes to milk purchases.

Monsanto has every right to protect its profits. But not at the expense of consumers' right to know.

20 April 2007

USA: Tribes seek limit on wild rice bioengineering

Timberjay Newspapers [USA], April 20 2007 Volume 18, Issue 16

Tribal officials as well as supporters of sustainable agriculture are turning to the Legislature in hopes of heading off genetic alterations to one of the Ojibwe culture's most sacred foods - manoomin, otherwise known as wild rice.

Tribal officials, like Bois Forte Tribal Chairman Kevin Leecy, say they can't afford to allow scientists to manipulate the wild rice genome, and they're hoping a Senate bill (SF 2103) introduced last month, will hold such research at bay, at least for now. The measure would require an environmental impact statement before any open-air tests of genetically-engineered wild rice could be conducted. It would also require the Department of Natural Resources to identify and assess threats to natural stands of wild rice in the state.

The bill was passed out of two Senate committees, including the Finance Committee, last week.

In testimony on the bill before the Senate Government Operations and Oversight Committee last week, Leecy noted the extraordinary steps the Bois Forte have taken to protect the wild rice crop on Nett Lake. "No motorized boats are allowed on Nett Lake, the dam is carefully monitored and we have invested in the most modern equipment to clear the lake's seven inlets and outlets and keep the waters alive," he said.

Leecy said the prospect of genetically-altered wild rice escaping test plots is the concern that is fueling opposition to the idea. "History has shown that it is hard to contain these things in test plots," said Leecy during an interview with the Timberjay late last week. "Supposed improvements of white rice led to contamination, which cost the white rice industry $100 million in the southern U.S."

Leecy, who was recently named chairman of the Indian Legislative Affairs Council, has been busy lobbying in recent weeks on several issues, but this one, in particular, has the attention of tribal officials. "We're taking a strong stand against it," Leecy said.

Tribal concerns about the threat appear legitimate. Dennis Olson, director of the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy, told senators in testimony last month that no technology exists "to segregate genetically engineered from non-genetically engineered crops." Opponents of genetically modifying wild rice say it could be even more difficult to control than many crops, because it is widely consumed or otherwise carried by migrating waterfowl, which could easily spread altered rice seeds to other lakes in the state. Pollen from those plants could quickly enter the genome of natural wild rice beds, with unknown consequences to the health of those stands and the wildlife that depends on wild rice.

Potential impact to wild rice economy

Such contamination could have a significant impact as well on efforts by the Bois Forte and other tribes to market their wild rice. With the increasing consumer preference for natural foods, Bois Forte officials are readying a major marketing push to introduce their Nett Lake rice to an upscale gourmet foods market. "We're emphasizing the premium quality," said Andy Datko, CEO of the Bois Forte Development Corporation, which is spearheading the effort. The band has developed a new website (nettlakewildrice.com) that will help educate consumers, using sound and video, on how real wild rice is harvested and processed, and why it is a superior product to farm-raised paddy rice. Datko said the re-branding of the product will be combined with new outlets for selling the rice. In addition to the website, the band will be selling the premium rice through the WELY radio station, the band-owned Y Store, and the Fortune Bay gift shop. "We also want to get it on cooking shows," said Datko, "to get it more exposure."

The upscale marketing push will also help support an increase in the price for Nett Lake rice. The website will sell premium rice at about $15 a pound, $10 a pound for broken rice. That's more than the product has typically sold for, but Datko said that's unlikely to be an issue for a goumet food.

But contamination from genetic modification could derail such marketing efforts, tribal officials fear, especially in some foreign markets, such as Europe, where concern about genetic engineering is more widespread than in the U.S.

Well-known White Earth activist Winona LaDuke, made that same point during Senate testimony favoring legislation to protect wild rice. She said genetic contamination would likely close off markets in countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan - countries which prohibit the importation of genetically-modified foods.

Political arguments in play

A few individuals have testified in recent weeks against the proposed wild rice protections. Beth Nelson, president of the Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council suggested the legislation is premature, because it is currently too expensive to conduct genetic modification of wild rice. And Ron Phillips, a University of Minnesota agronomist, urged the Legislature against closing off a potential line of research for the university. Phillips, however, was speaking for himself, not the university.

Leecy said despite its usual concern for academic freedom, the University of Minnesota has taken a neutral stand on the wild rice protections. And at least one other U of M professor has testified in favor of the protections.

19 April 2007

Europe: GMO-free regions on the increase in Europe

3d European Conference on GMO-free Regions, Biodiversity and Rural Development

Organisers and co-sponsors:

Foundation on Future Farming
European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering
Green / EFA group in the European Parliament
Foundation pour une Terre Humaine
Grassroots Foundation

Press release, 17 April 2007

300 representatives of GMO-free regions across Europe have gathered in the European Parliament in Brussels today for the 3rd International Conference on GMO-Free Regions, Biodiversity and Rural Development. The conference celebrates the growth in the GMO-free movement, with the number of GMO-free regions in Europe increasing from 174 to 236 over the past year and from around 3000 to over 4200 municipalities and communities. "The GMO-free movement in Europe is going from strength to strength. There are tens of thousands of farmers within the EU who have committed to exclude GMOs on their land. We expect more regions and farmers to follow suit," said Gerald Lonauer of the Network of GMO-free regional governments.

By standing up to the Commission, GMO-free regions have helped prevent an enforced spread in the use of GMOs in EU agriculture. National bans on the insect-killing Mon810, the only GM-maize still available and approved for commercial cultivation in the EU, have been supported by 2/3s of Member States in Council. "We welcome the announcement today by Bulgaria to ban Mon810 and are confident there will be more to come," said MEP Monica Frassoni, co-president of the Green Group, who hosts the conference in the Parliament.

"Despite numerous environmental alarm bells, agricultural biodiversity in Europe is seriously under threat, both from agricultural chemicals and the decline of seed pools, presided over by the seed industry. Declining biodiversity, over-specialisation and the over -exploitation of natural resources could destroy European agriculture if left unchecked," said Benedikt Haerlin of GENET and Foundation on Future Farming, who co -organised the conference.

The seed industry has worked tirelessly to try and prevent free seed exchange, farm-saved seeds and regional innovation and preservation to the detriment of European agriculture. Its efforts served in part to prevent European legislation to protect and pr omote regional and traditional as well as so-called 'amateur' seed varieties. "Eight years after the Council and the Parliament have adopted measures to support regional and farmers seed development, we expect the European Commission to finally implement these measures to prevent further declines in agricultural biodiversity in Europe," said Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf , Vice President of the EP Agricultural Committee.

Contact in Brussels:

Benedikt Haerlin (GENET / FFF) +49 173 999 7 555 and Helmut Weixler (Greens) 0475 6713 40

More information:

www.gmo-free-regions.org

Europe: EFSA panel considers nptII plant gene safe

AllAboutFeed.net, 19 April 2007.

New information provided by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has made EFSA's GMO panel to reconfirm its opinion on the use of the nptII gene as a selectionable marker in GM plants for food or feed.

The nptII gene (neomycin phosphototransferase II) provides resistance to certain antibiotics, such as the aminoglycosides kanamycin, neomycin and geneticin, in plants. The panel previously addressed the issue of whether the antibiotic resistance could be transferred from plants to animals in 2004, finding that there is no scientific evidence that such a transfer would occur.

New assessment

On the basis of evidence - both previously existing and additional - the panel considers that it is "very unlikely" that the presence of the nptII gene in plants would change the existing prevalence of the gene in bacterial sources in the environment and therefore poses no risk to human or animal health or the environment.

EFSA has forwarded its opinion to the EC and EU member states (plus Norward and Sweden). These, it says, "will now be able to take into account EFSA's most recent scientific advice on the nptII gene when considering GMO authorisation issues.

Europe: EU experts fail to agree approval of GMO beet

Scientific American, 19 April 2007. By Jeremy Smith

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU biotech experts failed on Thursday to agree on approving an application for genetically modified (GMO) sugar beet, again exposing the bloc's deep-seated rift on biotech foods, the European Commission said on Thursday.

The sugar beet, called H7-1, was developed jointly by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto and German plant breeding company KWS SAAT AG to resist glyphosate-containing herbicides.

The application is for use in food and animal feed produced from the beet, for example sugar, syrup, dried pulp and molasses. The modified sugar beet would not be for cultivation.

Experts representing the EU's 27 national governments failed to reach the consensus needed in the EU weighted voting system either to approve or reject the application. Under EU law, the paperwork now goes to EU ministers for a final decision.

If the ministers fail to take a decision within three months, then the Commission -- the EU's executive arm -- usually issues its own authorization under a legal default process.

Since the EU's six-year unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO products was lifted in 2004, the Commission has authorized a string of GMOs in this way, outraging green groups.

For many years, EU countries have not been able to secure the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval. They last agreed to authorize a new GMO product in 1998.

European consumers are well known for their wariness towards GMO foods but the biotech industry insists its products are safe and no different to conventional foods.

Maize decision delayed

The national experts also discussed two other GMO applications, both for maize hybrids. But there was no conclusion and the debate would resume at their next meeting scheduled for May 10 and 11, the Commission said in a statement.

The first maize hybrid, known as MON810/NK603, was submitted for EU approval by Monsanto and is designed to resist certain insects and also glyphosate -- the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

The second GMO maize, a hybrid known as 1507/NK603, has been developed to resist certain field pests like the European corn borer, and also the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate. It is made by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co., and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen Seeds.

Croatia: EU Experts To Discuss GMO

Javno.com, 19 April 2007.

Biotechnology experts of the EU will this week discuss the approval of three new genetically modified agricultural crops, with very slim chances of pushing through the long-term blockade in approving genetically modified products, European officials said.

The requests relate to the approval of two genetically modified hybrids of corn and one genetically modified type of sugar beet, but do not envisage their planting in Europe.

The request for the approval of the corn hybrid MON8110/NK603, altered to be resistant to certain insects and the glifosate herbicide was submitted by the American company Monsanto. Pioneer Hi-Bred, a branch of the DuPont, and Mycogen Seeds, a branch of Dow AgroSciences, submitted the request for the approval of the corn hybrid 1507/NK603, genetically altered to be resistant to certain vermin like the corn moth, and herbicides glufosinate and glifosate.

The request for the approval of a genetically altered type of sugar beet, h7-1, resistant to herbicides containing glifosate, was jointly submitted by Monsanto and the German company KS SAAT.

EU experts will discuss and perhaps vote on these requests, but are not expected to reach the necessary consensus to either accept of reject the submitted requests, officials say. At the moment I am seeing nothing that could result in taking a concrete stand, said an official.

In that case the requests will fall under the jurisdiction of agriculture ministers who will dsicuss them within three months.

If the ministers fail to reach an agreement on the requests, which is also plausible, the jurisdiction falls to the European Commission that usually approves the requests with a precisely defined legal procedure.

In the six year period since the lifting of the unofficial moratorium on the approval of new GMO products, the European Commission has approved a number of GMOs, drawing the rage of ecologists.

USA: Of Frankenmice and men

The Daily Targun, 19 April 2007. By Holly Moeller / Columnist

In 1953, two young men in England transformed the world of science in what seemed like an instant. With an almost obscenely short two-page paper in the scientific journal, Nature, James Watson and Francis Crick revealed the structure of DNA, the molecule that encodes life. The two won the Nobel Prize, science's highest honor, for their work and set off the genetic revolution.

Scientists worldwide hurried to unlock the mysteries of the genetic code, discovering how the simple double helix of DNA could dictate the profound differences between tree and tortoise, bacterium and boy. They learned to extract DNA, copy it, sequence it, and ultimately, put it into different organisms to change the way these creatures grew. This was the birth of the genetically modified organism, or GMO.

After Watson and Crick's monumental publication 20 years ago, the first GMO - E. coli, which expressed a piece of frog DNA - was created. Today, genetic modification is a critical part of scientific research: It is used to track gene expression, locate protein, and occasionally, make interesting things like "frankenmice." You know, the glowing critters pictured in your friend's biology textbook. They've been transformed to express a fluorescent jellyfish protein. It didn't end there, of course. By 1978, scientists had developed a strain of E. coli, which could produce insulin to treat diabetics. Today, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the biggest employers of GMOs. Our ability to control gene expression allows us to save lives with cheaper medicines and more effective production.

It seemed only logical to extend our newfound expertise to agriculture, hoping to further refine the crops humanity that has domesticated over thousands of years. Only 15 years ago, the first genetically altered food hit stores: the Flavr Savr tomato of 1994, engineered by Calgene to tempt consumers with a longer shelf life. Unfortunately, the higher price sat poorly with customers, and the FlavrSavr was saved for canned tomato paste.

Then in 2000, after eight years of development, the poster child of genetically modified foods burst onto the scene. Known as "golden rice" for its color, its publicists thought it just as golden for its purpose. This rice was engineered to produce beta carotene, which the human body transforms into vitamin A, critical for vision. The product "could save a million third-world children a year" from blindness due to vitamin A deficiency, headlines proclaimed.

But hidden behind the golden curtain, some feared, was the real cause of vitamin A deficiency: malnutrition. Golden rice addressed only the eyes, when resources should be directed toward providing a varied, balanced diet that would preserve the entire growing body. And low beta-carotene content in the rice meant children would have to eat more than four pounds of rice each day to meet the recommended dose (although a newer version of golden rice has reduced consumption to realistic amounts).

Potentially more dangerous are the flaws in genetic modification itself, often brushed aside in the face of such promising developments. Usually, genetic modification is used to make crops easier to grow in monoculture (where only one plant variety is grown with dangerous intensity, requiring a largess of oil to provide fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation).

A popular incorporation is the Bt gene from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, which causes the crops to produce an insecticide. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that Bt toxin kills insect friends too, like the monarch butterfly and the honeybee (whose pollinating efforts, incidentally, are critical to New Jersey agriculture).

Meanwhile, other GMOs, like Monsanto's "roundup ready" line of plants, carry a gene for pesticide resistance, which theoretically, makes it easier to control weeds without damaging the crop. Unfortunately, evidence is mounting that these genes can "jump ship" into the local weed population through crosspollination of the crops with neighboring plants. In 2005, John McLeod, England's director of the National Institute of Agriculture and Botany, called this discovery "not at all surprising." But it's certainly troubling to farmers and ecologists, who worry about the consequences of the escapee genes. Not only do pests become harder to control, but the genetic diversity of our crops' wild cousins decreases. For generations, we looked to those relatives for inspiration in plant breeding. What will happen if they vanish?

Of course, GMOs are big business for one group: the corporations. Each year, a farmer who wants to use a GMO has to buy seed, equipment and a technology license from the company. While a farmer would normally save a portion of his harvest for the next year's planting, the seeds of GMOs are often designed to be low-yielding or even infertile. And with escapee genes abounding, if the farmer decides to forgo the special seeds for a year, the corporation may "discover" their patented gene in his crop and file a hefty lawsuit. The strategies corporations use to maintain their annual customer base and protect their technology have proved devastating for America's small farmers.

Where do you and I see GMOs? Recent statistics suggest up to 70 percent of food products in the local supermarket include some genetically modified product. Which ones? Well, it's hard to say because the Food and Drug Administration doesn't require the labeling of genetically modified food. (If your food product might produce an allergic reaction though, as some soy transformed with Brazil nut DNA did recently, you must mention this on the packaging.) The last time I checked, not too many manufacturers were volunteering any information. It's safe to say that the number of products is growing though. Land planted with genetically modified crops has increased by a factor of 50 in the past 10 years.

Is there a solution? We might start by taking a cue from across the Atlantic. European countries require companies to label food products that have genetic modifications. While the jury may still be out on the health effects of GMOs, at least then, we consumers have the chance to make a choice. Otherwise, if we are what we eat, we might soon become frankenmen.

Holly Moeller is a Rutgers College junior majoring in chemistry and biology. She welcomes feedback at hmoeller@eden.rutgers.edu.

Europe: EU patent in five years, says industry commissioner

EU Observer, 19 April 2007.

The European Union could have a common patent by 2012, the bloc's research and industry commissioner Guenter Verheugen has said, while blaming EU capitals for the 20-year deadlock which has harmed innovation in the 27-nation union.

http://euobserver.com/9/23898/?rk=1

South Africa: Biowatch Heads Back to Court Over Monsanto

Cape Argus (Cape Town), April 19 2007. By John Yeld.

Environmental groups around the country will have their eyes fixed firmly on a full bench in the Pretoria High Court on Monday when it hears an appeal that could have a significant influence on how they operate in the future.

The court is to hear an appeal by Biowatch South Africa - a lobby group opposed to the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into local agriculture and the environment - against a court order that it pay the legal costs of the South African component of transnational seed and chemical giant Monsanto.

The costs order, which raised legal eyebrows, was made against Biowatch during its successful application for a high court order compelling the Department of Agriculture to provide access to information that would shed light on the basis for the department's decisions about permitting GMO crops in South Africa.

Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd joined these court proceedings to op-pose the application, arguing that it had to protect confidential information.

But Biowatch maintained that it did not require the release of any information protected in law as confidential.

In February 2005, Acting Judge Eric Dunn ordered that Biowatch be granted access to almost all the information it had requested.

He reaffirmed that the environmental group had a constitutional right to this information, that access to the information was in the public interest and that Biowatch had been compelled to apply to the court to exercise this right.

The judge also said that granting access to this information was a ne-cessary part of the proper administration of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act.

Instead of applying the general legal principle that costs should follow the outcome of litigation, Acting Judge Dunn ordered Biowatch South Africa to pay the legal costs of Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd.

If the costs order stands, the environmental group could effectively be bankrupted, and similar groups would be wary of going to court in future, even if they believe they have a watertight case to argue.

Biowatch said it was appealing the costs order partly because no order had been made for payment of its legal costs, although it had been successful in its application.

In addition, the court had found that it had been compelled to apply to it for access to the information to which it was entitled.

"(Also), the costs order could have a deterrent effect on future public interest litigation because it creates the impression that if any part of a request for information is found to be insufficiently specific, even a successful litigant may be heavily penalised."

The Legal Resources Centre is actng on Biowatch's behalf in the appeal.

UK: Clear intentions Bill McKelvey's assumptions about the future of farming are not science but opinion shaped by institutional interests.

The Guardian (Comment is free), April 19 2007. By Peter Melchett.

Professor Bill McKelvey, the director of the Scottish Agricultural College, has disclosed new scientific findings which show that Britain must further intensify farming practices in order to feed the UK population. The professor has discovered that food prices will soar in the future, GM crops are going to be required to provide enough food, industrial turkey farming, as practised by Bernard Matthews, has been criticised unfairly, and that food shortages are possible in the UK in the next 25-50 years. Europe will have to use GM crops. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bill_mckelvey/2007/04/food_for_thought.html

These would all be fascinating and, to some of us, surprising new scientific findings but this isn't science. This is actually guess work and personal prejudice being pushed by a pro-GM campaign group, the Science Media Centre. I have absolutely no objection to people campaigning for GM crops, just as I campaign against them. What is both dishonest and dishonourable is scientists and journalists who pretend to be presenting scientific findings when they are simply pushing personal opinions, or worse, opinions shaped by financial and institutional interests which they do not disclose.

The London briefing given by Professor McKelvey yesterday was organised by the Science Media Centre, which is run by Fiona Fox. In the past, Fiona Fox was linked to the Living Marxism network. Martin Durkin, another Living Marxism disciple, made the Channel 4 programme on global warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which presented scientific information and the views of scientists in misleading and completely inaccurate ways, to try and disprove the accepted view of human-induced climate change.

Another Scottish professor, Professor David Miller of Strathclyde University, described the Science Media Centre as being "not as independent as it appears". It pushes views "largely in line with government scientific policy". The Centre receives 70% of its funding from business, and is funded by companies with GM interests like Dupont and Astra Zeneca. Professor Miller points out that the Science Media Centre has had to have the "ac.uk" removed from its email address because of its corporate funding. The Science Media Centre has never provided any scientists who are sceptical of GM with a platform. It hosts pro-GM campaigning events, such as the launch of the Agriculture Biotechnology Commission set up by the GM industry. The centre regularly press releases the views of scientists who are part of industry-funded lobby groups as if they were independent university scientists rather than company employees or GM industry funded.

That is exactly what it did in hosting Professor McKelvey's musings on the future of farming. Professor McKelvey has a long history of supporting GM crops. The case he makes rests on a number of political rather than scientific assumptions. For example, he assumes a continuing spread of highly unhealthy, meat and fat rich diets across the globe, something few scientists believe is sustainable in either environmental or human health terms. Bill McKelvey also assumes that we will see a rapid expansion of crops grown for biofuel, despite the fact that huge areas of land are needed to produce these fuels, for almost no environmental gain. The OECD reckons that 72% of the EU's arable land would be needed to provide just 10% of the fuel used in the EU. If we allocated a fifth of Europe's arable land to biofuels, we'd cut greenhouse gas emissions from European transport by just 1-2%.

These assumptions, and the predictions which are based on them, are perfectly valid personal opinions for someone who believes in a future dominated by GM crops and pesticide dependent agriculture, but they are nothing to do with science. My own assumptions about the future are that the human diet must change to a more environmentally friendly and healthy one, relying more on pulses and grains and less on meat. I assume that we will be able to feed the world, even with a rising world population over the next 50 years, but that we will have to do it with farming systems that rely on renewable energy from the sun for fertility, not on oil and gas based artificial fertilizer. I am happy to make these assumptions clear, and to say clearly what my interests are as an organic farmer and someone who works for an organisation dedicated to organic food and climate-friendly food and farming. All I ask is that journalists make sure that those with opposing views are equally clear about their interests, affiliations and funding.

Australia: Public comment may prompt GM licence changes

ABC News, 19 April 2007

Australia's gene technology regulator says public comment could force changes to the licence for two proposed genetically modified (GM) wheat crops.

Victoria's Primary Industries Department wants to grow GM drought-tolerant wheat at two sites near Horsham and Mildura in the state's west.

Federal regulator Dr Sue Meek says it will be the first time these types of wheat have been tested, and a series of containment measures around the sites have been proposed.

Dr Meek says the proposed licence for the trial is now open for public comment.

"At this stage in our assessment process we haven't identified any risks to people or the environment, but obviously part of the process of the consultation is to have people have a look at our assessment, see what they think, look at the licence conditions that we've proposed and see whether they're adequate for the purpose," she said.

Horsham Mayor Gary Bird says he believes the trials have the support of farmers and councillors.

"The trials are under 10 acres - they're only a small bit of ground - and it'll be interesting to see how they do succeed," he said.

"As a group I'm sure that we will acknowledge that this is a direction that we have to take with these dry years, and all sit back and see how successful it does become."

Malaysia to Enforce Labelling of GM Foods

Inter Press Service, April 19 2007. By Anil Netto.

PENANG, Apr 19 (IPS) - A long-awaited law to make the labelling of genetically modified (GM) products mandatory is expected to be finally passed in Malaysian parliament this month and come into force by the end of the year.

It has been a long and winding road for the Biosafety Bill, work on which began in 1996. Officials are now keen on getting the bill passed and it could not have come at a more critical juncture.

United States business lobbies, in their submissions to the U.S. Trade Representative, had earlier insisted that mandatory labelling ''should be firmly opposed by the U.S.'' in negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Malaysia. They argue that labelling food as GM would imply that such products were inferior.

FTA negotiations between the two countries have already missed a Mar. 31 deadline that would have allowed fast-track approval in the U.S. Congress under special presidential authority. Negotiators are nonetheless pressing on, meeting again this month in the U.S. to thrash out contentious issues.

Activists worry that industry demands during the Malaysia-U.S. FTA negotiations could threaten the new mandatory labelling law or result in it being further watered down or rendered ineffective.

''Such demands are unreasonable and if they are agreed to it would mean that the health and environmental concerns of Malaysians will be pushed aside for the benefit of foreign companies selling food containing GMOs,'' said S. M. Mohamed Idris, President of the Consumers Association of Penang, in a statement.

Apart from the Biosafety Bill, an amendment to Malaysia's Food Regulations under the Health Ministry, that would also require mandatory GM labelling, is under consideration.

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang pointed out that the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade states that ''technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective''. Legitimate objectives would include ''prevention of deceptive practices, protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment''.

''The prevention of deceptive practices includes product information and labelling, so it is clearly within our sovereign right to have mandatory labelling of GMOs and GM products,'' he wrote in his blog.

The Malaysian Cabinet appears to be standing firm. ''We will not allow our population to consume without being able to assess what they can or cannot take as food or medicine,'' Natural Resources and Environment Minister Azmi Khalid was quoted as saying. ''The country needs legislation and Malaysia seems to be one of the few countries in the lead that is putting the legal framework in place.''

Malaysia has been trying to develop its biotechnology sector and, in line with that, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has been promoting agro-business in the country.

Azmi said that a biosafety law was necessary as foreign biotechnology firms needed a proper legal framework to develop their businesses in the local environment. Under the law, a full disclosure of all the properties of GM products would be required while two advisory bodies that would approve imports of GM products had been set up.

Mandatory GM labelling would assure Malaysians who are particular about what they eat and drink on ethical, religious and health grounds that there has not been contaminated by genes from an unrelated species. Muslims are prohibited from taking pork, alcohol, and the meat of animals that have not been slaughtered according to Islamic rites; Hindus do not eat beef and many Hindus and Buddhists are vegetarians.

Those who have allergies would also be wary of GM food while many others would opt for non-GM or organic food if they had a choice.

There are also fears that Malaysia is under pressure to allow imports of heavily subsidised American rice -- some of which could be genetically engineered -- to Malaysia.

Malaysian farmers have protested against any attempt to further open up the domestic rice market to imported rice, prompting International Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz to assure them that rice was not on the negotiating table.

But activists point out there has been no assurance that the U.S. has agreed to exclude rice. ''In the absence of transparency in the negotiations that are going on, we have no choice but to assume the worst -- that is, rice is one of the items in the negotiations, and if the agreement is signed and sealed, then genetically engineered rice could be on our plates soon,'' Indrani Thuraisingham, chief executive officer of the Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations, told IPS.

At present, Malaysia does not import rice from the U.S. It is about 65 per cent self-sufficient with the remainder coming from Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia. Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan, the aim is to achieve 90 percent self-sufficiency.

But there are concerns that the Biosafety Bill, which regulates the commercialisation of GM food and other biotech products in Malaysia, and the FTA could pave the way for more GM products to enter Malaysia as long as they are labelled.

The bill itself has come before parliament on more than ten occasions, observed Indrani, each time watered down a little. But she added that it was still better than nothing.

Even though Malaysia has no cultivation of genetifically engineered crops, GM food has already penetrated the local market. In one Malaysian study of soy samples obtained from traditional markets, grocery stores and supermarkets, tests showed that 18 out of the 85 samples (or 21 per cent) were positive for three introduced genetic elements. The samples that were tested positive were mainly raw beans and tofu.

Activists have also expressed concern about previous cases of contamination reported overseas involving GM rice from the U.S. such as the abandoned GM herbicide-resistant Liberty Link 601 strain which was found to have contaminated the popular 'Cheniere' variety. Because of such contamination cases, many countries have rejected U.S. rice, points out Indrani; ''so there could be dumping in countries with U.S. FTAs.''

The use of pesticides has also increased following the introduction of genetically engineered crops, warn activists.

Two years ago, the international Codex Committee on Food Labelling, meeting in Malaysia, was forced to defer a decision on mandatory labelling of genetically modified (GM) food. The U.S. and four other countries threw a spanner in the works even though mandatory labelling had received majority support among the country delegations present, including the Malaysian delegation.

Asia has big stakes in the GM safety debate because it has both a vast consumer base as well as the greatest number of farmers. But Asian countries are, thanks to pressure from activists, inclined to follow Europe in insisting on labelling. Thailand, South Korea and Japan are among countries that have labelling laws in place for GM products. On the other hand, populous countries like India, China and Indonesia already consider genetic engineering safe and have been developing their own GM crops.

Activists in Malaysia fear that even with mandatory labelling, consumers might not be aware of what exactly GM food is. Moreover, local rice farmers, who have been dwindling in numbers in recent years, could be on the losing end if import tariffs are reduced under the FTA from 40 percent to zero.

''Nowadays consumers are into cheap food. People go for the cheapest; they are not looking to support local farmers,'' observes Sarojeni Rengam, director of the Pesticide Action Network's Asia Pacific regional office based in Penang. ''There is a need to change attitudes and perspectives.''

18 April 2007

Europe: EU experts set to debate three new GMO applications

Scientific American, 18 April 2007.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU biotech experts will discuss three applications this week to approve new genetically modified (GMO) plants but are unlikely to break the bloc's longstanding deadlock on GMO foods, officials said on Wednesday.

The applications, to authorize two modified maize hybrids and one GMO sugar beet, do not relate to cultivation in Europe.

Experts representing the EU's 25 national governments will discuss and possibly vote on the applications. But they were not expected to reach the required consensus under the EU's weighted voting system either to approve or reject them, officials said.

If this happens at Thursday's meeting, the paperwork will be escalated to EU agriculture ministers for debate at a future meeting. Normally, this has to happen within three months.

"At the moment, I can see nothing that would not lead to a non-opinion," one EU official said.

If the ministers cannot agree, again a likely scenario, then the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, usually issues its own authorization under a legal default process.

Since the EU's six-year unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO products was lifted in 2004, the Commission has authorized a string of GMOs in this way, outraging green groups.

For many years, EU countries have not been able to secure the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval. They last agreed to authorize a new GMO product in 1998.

European consumers are well known for their wariness towards GMO foods but the biotech industry insists its products are safe and no different from conventional foods.

Modified maize, beet

The first maize hybrid, submitted for EU approval by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, is known as MON810/NK603 and designed to resist certain insects and also glyphosate -- the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Monsanto's application relates to food and animal feed produced from the modified plants or containing ingredients derived from those plants.

The second GMO maize, a hybrid known as 1507/NK603, has been developed to resist certain field pests like the European corn borer, and also the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate.

The maize 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 all food and feed uses, and all food, feed and processed products derived from the GMO maize plants.

The GMO sugar beet, called H7-1, was developed jointly by Monsanto and German plantbreeding company KWS SAAT AG to resist glyphosate-containing herbicides. The application relates to food and animal feed produced from the beet, for example sugar, syrup, dried pulp and molasses.

Europe: GM maize and beet applications debated

Reuters, 18 April 2007.

EU biotech experts will discuss three applications to approve new genetically modified (GMO) plants. Experts representing the EU's 25 national governments will discuss and possibly vote on the applications to authorize two modified maize hybrids and one GMO sugar beet.

"At the moment, I can see nothing that would not lead to a non-opinion," one EU official said. If the ministers cannot agree, again a likely scenario, then the European Commission , the EU's executive arm, usually issues its own authorization under a legal default process.

GMO authorization

Since the EU's six-year unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO products was lifted in 2004, the Commission has authorized more GMOs in this way. Although the European consumers are well known for their wariness towards GMO foods, the biotech industry insists its products are safe and no different from conventional foods.

Modified maize and beet

The first maize hybrid, submitted for EU approval by US biotech giant Monsanto, is known as MON810/NK603 and designed to resist certain insects and also glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Monsanto's application relates to food and animal feed produced from the modified plants or containing ingredients derived from those plants.

The second GMO maize, a hybrid known as 1507/NK603, has been developed to resist certain field pests like the European corn borer, and also the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate. The maize 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 all food and feed uses, and all food, feed and processed products derived from the GMO maize plants.

The GMO sugar beet, called H7-1, was developed jointly by Monsanto and German plantbreeding company KWS SAAT AG to resist glyphosate-containing herbicides. The application relates to food and animal feed produced from the beet, for example sugar, syrup, dried pulp and molasses.

USA: California rice seed tests clean for GM traits

Calrice.org, 18 April 2007.

A comprehensive test of California's rice seed for the 2007 crop year yielded no detection of genetically modified (GM) traits associated with the Liberty Link gene that appeared in southern-grown U.S. rice in August 2006.

Seed samples were collected by California Crop Improvement and forwarded to a GIPSA-approved laboratory for analysis using the 35S-Bar PCR test to a detection limit of 0.01 percent (0.01%). Over 200 samples were collected. The samples were combined by variety and a total of 73 lots were tested. Testing results are available online at http://www.calrice.org/AB_2622.htm_ (http://www.calrice.org/AB_2622.htm

"We are very pleased with these results," commented California Rice Commission president Tim Johnson. "They are consistent with our expectations and will offer our trading partners added assurances that the rice they purchase is free of Liberty Link traits."

In February, the California Rice Certification Committee (AB 2622 Committee), an independent regulatory body established pursuant to state law, notified public and private breeding programs, seed dealers and holders of farm-saved seed of the testing requirement.

All entities that submitted rice seed for sampling have received a copy of the complete testing results provided by the laboratory and a letter certifying these results.

"In light of the challenges facing the U.S. rice industry, this is a prudent step," noted Charley Mathews, chairman of the AB 2622 Committee. "The combination of a certification letter and availability of testing results will provide growers clear documentation that seed has been tested, and warehouses and handlers reassurance that the product they are receiving does not contain Liberty Link traits."

The latest round of seed testing re-affirms the safety of California' rice seed. California has tested is public seed four times since the discovery of Liberty Link traits in southern rice in August, all with non-detect results for Liberty Link varieties LLRICE601, LLRICE62, LLRICE06 and LLRICE04. None of the GM events in question are present in California, and commercial production of GM rice is currently not occurring in California or elsewhere in the U.S.

On August 18, 2006, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that trace amounts of regulated, genetically engineered (GE) rice were found in samples taken from commercially produced long grain rice. In early March, APHIS announced that two additional GM traits had been discovered in another variety of long grain rice. The trace amounts in question have only been identified in southern long grain rice, in a variety that is not present in California.

For more information about the California Rice Commission and the California rice industry, go to http://www.calrice.org.

UK: 'Only intensive farming' will feed Britain
Organic agriculture 'will never meet demand'
Professor warns of soaring prices and shortages

The Guardian, April 18 2007. David Adam, environment correspondent.

Britain must continue to intensify its farming practices to meet soaring demand for cheap food and prevent shortages, a leading agricultural expert said yesterday. Demand for biofuels, booming economies of developing countries and climate change will put demand on food supplies that can only be met by intensive techniques, said Professor Bill McKelvey, head of the Scottish Agricultural College. Prices could soar and future generations in the UK may find they can no longer take plentiful food for granted.

At a London briefing, Prof McKelvey defended intensive techniques and said alternatives such as organic farming would not cope with predicted growth in population. "There is a need to continue to intensify farming. Organic farming has a place but it will never feed the growing population of the world," he said.

Media criticism of modern farming techniques after the bird flu outbreak at the Bernard Matthews turkey farm in Suffolk had been unfair, he said, adding that intensive farming protects the environment because it reduces the amount of land used for agriculture. Europe would also have to overcome its "illogical" opposition to genetically modified crops to help boost yields, he said.

"In the UK, we are becoming less self-sufficient in food. I think it's possible in the next 25 to 50 years that there will be food shortages in the UK." The proportion of average British family income spent on food might double from 10% to 20%, he said. The UK currently provides 60% of its own food, and imports were increasing, said Prof McKelvey, who advises industry and the government.

With world population forecast to grow from 6bn to 8.5bn in 50 years, he warned that countries such as New Zealand that export food to Britain were likely to switch attention to China and India. Food demand there is increasing sharply and meat consumption in China has doubled in the last decade. Prof McKelvey said the solution was farmers producing more food on the same amount of land. Wheat production increased four-fold in the last 50 years and in the next 50 years would probably have to rise by the same level again, despite a shortage of suitable land. "There are only two ways to do that. We either take land from rain forests or we intensify existing farms. We will protect the wild environment by making better use of farms."

Plant breeding - conventional and using genetic modification - was the best way to produce more food from the same amount of land. Although very little is grown commercially in Europe, millions of hectares of GM crops have been grown across the world in recent years.

"Europe is going to have to face up to using GM crops," he said. Climate change is also expected to put pressure on food supplies, despite an initial boost in productivity for some crops.

Prof McKelvey said great swathes of agricultural land would be lost to desert, with the effects already felt in areas such as southern Spain. Bio-fuels, a suggested solution to global warming, could bring added problems for food production.

Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."

17 April 2007

USA: GMO Alfalfa Will Devastate Organic Dairy Industry
Organic Valley Farmers Call for Permanent Injunction of GMO Alfalfa

PRNewsire, 17 April 2007.

LA FARGE, Wisonsin -- Organic Valley farmers are joining the Center for Food Safety in a fight against the sale of Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) alfalfa seed. Products certified under the USDA Organic seal cannot be genetically modified, and GM alfalfa drift threatens the integrity of certified-organic alfalfa crops, says the organic farmer-owned cooperative.

"Consumers respect and trust what the USDA organic seal represents, which includes no GMOs," said Organic Valley CEO George Siemon. "If the seal no longer represents a GMO-free product, the integrity of the seal will be greatly compromised and consumers may no longer choose organic products. The organic dairy industry is now at approximately $1.4 billion in sales. GM alfalfa drift would severely impact the market for our farmers' products."

The Center for Food Safety recently won a lawsuit filed in northern California finding the USDA illegally approved GM alfalfa without conducting the required Environmental Impact Statement. A judge in the Federal Northern District ordered a preliminary injunction, stopping the sale of GM alfalfa seed. Monsanto and Forage Genetics, developers of the seed, are arguing against a permanent injunction, which is now being sought by the Center for Food Safety.

"The USDA cannot ensure GMO alfalfa can be grown without cross-contaminating other crops, so it should not be allowed and it is not needed. Farmers have been growing alfalfa successfully for a hundred years," continued Siemon.

In the Declaration in Support of a Permanent Injunction against the sales of GMO Alfalfa, Siemon is explicit about the problem. The 975 dairy and livestock farmers of Organic Valley "feed their animals an all-organic diet that is on average 60 percent alfalfa. Each cow eats approximately 32.5 pounds of certified organic alfalfa a day." Siemon goes on to say "contamination of organic alfalfa stands or seed stock will devastate the organic farmers who market milk."

"Alfalfa is a perennial with a three-mile pollination radius, so farm buffers won't work," explains Fred Kirschenmann, Iowa Leopold Center Distinguished Fellow and a farmer in North Dakota. "It is impossible to contain."

"We still don't know the long term effect of GM crops on the health of animals and people," Kirschenmann adds. "It took us 40 years to find out that CFCs were blowing a hole in the ozone."

Organic feed is already expensive and in short supply, and if organic alfalfa becomes contaminated by GM alfalfa, it would greatly compound the feed shortage, according to Siemon. Organic dairy farmers in the United States need approximately 450,000 tons of certified organic alfalfa annually to feed their organic cows.

"If farmers can't source adequate organic feed, they will not be able to produce organic milk," Siemon said.

In addition, if GM Alfalfa is allowed, organic farmers will be forced to test at great expense. Each test can range from $179-$259. The concern over GM crops and food is fueled by U.S. organic consumers who have expressed skepticism over genetically modified crops, which are banned in Europe. This concern is reflected in a 2006 Hartman Group study, "Organic 2006: Consumer Attitudes & Behavior," which showed one of the primary reasons organic consumers buy organic food is to avoid genetically modified products.

Organic Valley/CROPP Cooperative: Independent and Farmer-Owned

Organic Valley Family of Farms is America's largest and oldest cooperative of organic farmers and is one of the nation's leading organic brands. Organized in 1988, it represents 975 farmers in 27 states and one Canadian province and realized a record $334 million in 2006 sales. Focused on its founding mission of keeping family farmers farming, the cooperative produces 200 organic foods, including organic milk, soy, cheese, butter, spreads, creams, eggs, produce and juice. Its sister brand, Organic Prairie (http://www.organicprairie.com), produces delicious organic pork, beef, chicken and turkey. Look for Organic Valley and Organic Prairie in leading supermarkets, natural foods stores and food cooperatives nationwide. For more information, call 1-888-444-MILK or visit http://www.organicvalley.coop.

Philippines: 'Rice Deities' Descend on Agriculture Department, Demand Protection from GMO Rice Threat

Davao Today, 17 April 2007.

Manila, 16 April 2007‚Greenpeace activists dressed to symbolize the bul-ul, a traditional Ifugao rice guardian, carried out a sit-in protest at the Department of Agriculture's (DA) doorsteps in Quezon City today. The peaceful action was meant to tell the DA to act on its mandate to protect the country's food supply, in this case against looming GMO rice (genetically-modified rice) threat posed by the agency's pending decision on GMO rice Bayer LL62.

As part of the protest, the activists also displayed a banner with the message "Keep our rice GMO-free!" and delivered a bul-ul carving to DA Secretary Arthur Yap's office to remind him daily of the DA's important role in watching over the country's precious rice supply. The bul-ul, Greenpeace says, also symbolizes how this grain is inextricably linked to our culture and way of life, and should serve to remind us how GMO rice must never become a reality in the Philippines.

"We are calling on the DA to be a vigilant guardian of our country's most precious food crop," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia campaigns director Von Hernandez. "Our rice is under threat from corporate-driven genetic-tampering. Instead of entertaining the application of the GMO rice Bayer LL62 the DA should ensure that our rice supply is safe both to the environment and human health."

"GMOs pose inherent risks to the environment and human health. These genetically-manipulated organisms threaten biodiversity, food security, farmers' livelihoods, and consumers' choice. As the guardian of the country's rice supply, it is clear that the DA should act now and reject the application of Bayer LL62, as well as all other GMO rice applications in the future," he added.

The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), an attached agency of the DA, is currently reviewing an application for the approval of the GMO rice Bayer LL62, for food, feed and processing in the country. Bayer LL62 is rice genetically-manipulated to resist the powerful weed-killer glufosinate which is meant to be used in conjunction with the said GMO crop. Greenpeace has been actively blocking the approval of Bayer LL62, asserting that its entry into the country's food chain will have disastrous consequences on the Philippines' most important food crop. The approval of Bayer LL62 will further set a dangerous precedent that will open the floodgates to the future entry of other GMO rice strains in the country.

Bayer submitted its application for the authorization of LL62 GMO rice in August 2006. But although the BPI announced last month that LL62 is still under assessment, they have yet to publicly disclose how far the application has gone, and at what date the public can expect the final decision. Greenpeace says that this is why their call for the rejection of Bayer LL62 is urgent.

"If protecting the integrity of our rice is their intention, then there is no need for the BPI and the DA to dilly-dally over a decision that should in fact be straightforward. But the BPI's record in approving GMOs is far from reassuring. In the 49 months since December 2002, the BPI has approved 40 GMOs for commercial use in the Philippines. But the general public, who ultimately consumes these GMOs, is hardly aware of this development," said Hernandez. "If we had not raised the issue of LL62 rice into public attention, would the BPI have given this application the prominent public exposure that it rightly deserves? Based on the little they have disclosed so far, perhaps not. And yet, this is a decision that will affect all of us Filipinos at the most basic level in the decades to come."

"This also therefore serves as a challenge addressed to the DA that they make known to the public whether they are committed to protecting the integrity of our rice and rice supply or not," he added.

Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production grounded on the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity, and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic-engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity, and poses unacceptable risks to health.

Attachments (available at www.greenpeace.org.ph, or upon request):

1. Scanned copy of the correspondence between Greenpeace and BPI
2. Scanned copy of the list of approved GMOs in the country as faxed by the BPI to Greenpeace

For more information:

Von Hernandez, Campaigns Director, +63 917 526 3050
Daniel Ocampo, Genetic Engineering Campaigner, +63 897 6416
Lea Guerrero, Media Campaigner, +63 916 374 4969, +63 2 434 7034 loc 104, lea.guerrero@ph.greenpeace.org

Lea Guerrero
Media Campaigner
Greenpeace Southeast Asia
tel: +63 2 434 7034
fax: +63 2 434 7035
mob: +63 916 374 4969
skype: leaguerrero
lea.guerrero@ph.greenpeace.org

USA: Faculty Senate Nears Showdown Over UC-BP Pact

The Berkeley Daily Planet, 17 April 2007. By Richard Brenneman.

UC Berkeley faculty will cast their ballots Thursday on competing resolutions triggered by the largest corporate grant in the history of the American university.

Questions about the nature of academic freedom, faculty hiring, the increasing reliance on corporate funds and the secrecy shrouding patent-directed research will culminate in an unusual two-hour special session that begins at 1 p.m. in Booth Auditorium at Boalt Hall.

The key issue is whether or not to create a blue-ribbon committee to oversee the half-billion-dollar research program that BP pl.c. ó previously British Petroleum ó is now negotiating with university administrators.

On April 5, student activists in StopBP-Berkeley.org forced university officials to release the previously secret appendices to the winning proposal that led the giant oil firm to pick UCB as the recipient of a complex 10-year funding package.

Release of the documents sparked a sharp April 12 letter from John M. Simpson of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights to Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.

Simpson charged that some of the scientists listed as participants were opponents of the deal and "were shocked to discover that their names and resumes were included," and accused Birgeneau of a "fundamental mischaracterization" in describing the grant process as open.

In an earlier letter to the foundation, Birgeneau had said the proposal "was developed in an open, not a secretive way," citing announcement of the proposal's formulation in emails to all faculty before it was drafted as well as notification of the academic senate.

Pie charts

Included in the recently released appendix were two pie charts, the first listing startup companies that had arisen from UC Berkeley by their departments of origin, and the second listing the startups by their commercial sectors.

The largest two sectors of origin were the Departments of Molecular and Cell Biology with 21 percent of the startups and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science with 20 percent, followed by Chemistry with 15 percent and Bioengineering with 14 percent.

Collectively, the departments which have given rise to academic entrepreneurialism were heavily over-represented among signatories backing the petition against the special oversight committee, while departments absent from the robes-to-riches pie charts were heavily represented in petitions calling for oversight.

The Energy Biosciences Institute that BP's funds will endow will conduct both open research and two parallel tracks of proprietary research, one conducted exclusively by BP scientists and aimed at creating patents that will belong solely to the company and a second, joint track conducted jointly by BP and university researchers that will lead to patents on which the company will have the right of first refusal and share royalties with the university.

A third track, consisting of research conducted only by university scientists, will yield patents solely to the school.

Letters

The newly released appendices show that university officials sought and won extensive support from local business associations, as well from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who addressed a Nov. 20, 2006 letter to Lord John Browne, BP's CEO.

Feinstein wrote to "wholeheartedly support" the two proposals presented by UC campuses (UC San Diego had also fielded a proposal of its own). "BP is to be commended for creating a center that will focus on developing new more efficient biofuels as a way to combat climate change," she wrote.

Two joint endorsement letters to BP came from corporate organizationa, one from regional business and economic development alliances and the other from BayBio, an interest group of regional biotechnology firms.

"There is no other region in the world," the first declared, "that matches the Bay Area's depth and breadth of research excellence, entrepreneurial vigor, and technological advancement.

The 15 signatories to that first letter included leading officials of the San Francisco, Oakland and Santa Rosa chambers of commerce, as well as the Solano Economic Development Council, the Contra Costa Council, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Bay Area Council, the East Bay Economic Development Alliance, the San Francisco Center for Economic Development, the Tri-Valley Business Council, the Bay Area Economic Forum and the Napa Valley Economic Development Council.

The BayBio letter pledged the support of "investors, entrepreneurs and industry executives dedicated to bringing clean energy technologies to the marketplace."

One of the 32 signatories to the BayBio letter was Neal Gutterson, president and CEO of Mendel Technology. Geneticist Chris Somerville, whose controversial hire by UCB Chancellor Robert Birgeneau is one of the reasons critics sought Thursday's academic senate meeting, chairs the firm's board of directors and is its leading scientist.

Somerville is expected to play a leading role in EBI, as is LBNL/UCB academic entrepreneur Jay Keasling, a founder of Amyris Biotechnologyóthe firm that hired BP's American fuels operations president John G. Melo while the university was bidding for the half-billion-dollar grant.

Another, separate letter, from Cisco Systems Vice President Patrick Finn, promised the computer network firm's support for the EBI and its programs.

The appendix also included "Five Universities You Can Do Business With," a February 2006 article from Inc. Magazine. Author Carl Schramm described five schools "that constitute the elite of the technology transfer world. They are Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, and Wisconsin."

Half of the appendices consists of resumes, both detailed and brief, of scientists who have signed on to participate in the research and descriptions of the labs where work will be conducted until a special-purpose facility can be built, partly with the help of $40 million in state funds promised by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The document is now available at the EBI's web site at www.ebiweb.org/proposal.htm.

Faculty critics

Critics fear that accepting a grant of unprecedented scale from Big Oil without special oversight could lead to a wide range of consequences, and contend that special oversight is needed to weigh the agreement's impacts both with the campus and outside.

Some, like agricultural specialists Miguel Altieri, Ignacio Chapela and Andrew Paul Gutierrez, say they fear that production of crops for conversion to fuelóthe cornerstone of the BP-funded projectócould wreak severe consequences in lesser-developed countries, including replacement of food crops with plants grown to fuel the cars of U.S. motorists.

Chapela is also a leading critic of the handling of genetically modified organisms (GMO), including the crops with tweaked genes that form one of the central elements in the BPI proposal. His research found genes from GMO corn invading the genomes of native species deep in Mexico, a country that bans import of GMOs.

Somerville, the recently hired UCB/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory geneticist, has ridiculed GMO fears, contending that the worst result that's ever happened "has been a mild rash."

Other concerns raised by critics have included the broader questions involving the increasing reliance of public universities on corporate funding, and its impacts on the shaping of the curriculum, the availability of funds for research programs, the relative pay of faculty across departments and the impacts on students.

The university's Graduate Assembly has passed a resolution calling for the same type of oversight that faculty critics seek, and is asking for two seats on the panel as well as independent funding for a research program to examine the "ethical, geopolitical and environmental impacts of biofuels.

USA: BIO Commends USTR for Successfully Concluding U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement

Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) press release, April 17 2007

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The following statement was issued today by Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) President and CEO Jim Greenwood regarding the recent conclusion of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement negotiations:

"BIO applauds Ambassador Susan Schwab and the staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) for their hard work in reaching a successful conclusion of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations. By recognizing the value of innovative, patented new medicines and raising the standards of protection for intellectual property rights, the FTA will go a long way in providing additional market access opportunities in Korea for U.S. biotechnology companies.

"BIO also congratulates Chief Agricultural Negotiator Richard Crowder and his staff for negotiating a separate understanding on several agricultural biotechnology issues. With BIO's support, the United States worked with the Republic of Korea to address a number of issues over the past year focused on ensuring that Korea's agricultural biotechnology regulations are science-based, and that trade of biotech-derived crops, foods, and feeds continues without disruption. With over one billion dollars in U.S. exports that may be produced from agricultural biotechnology products, achieving a constructive dialogue on these matters is a significant achievement.

"Korea has made important new commitments in the area of biopharmaceuticals that should provide the Korean people greater access to cutting-edge, life-saving new medicines. While it is disappointing that the Korean Government refused to address details relating to Korea's new drug pricing and reimbursement regulations, I am pleased that they have committed to adequately recognize the value of patented medicines and have agreed to an independent review body to review pricing and reimbursement decisions. Coupled with provisions increasing transparency, allowing greater dissemination of product-specific information over the Internet, and strengthening intellectual property rights, this package of commitments will help level the playing field for U.S. biotech companies in Korea.

"It is imperative that the U.S. Government closely monitor the implementation of Korea's FTA commitments regarding agricultural biotechnology and biopharmaceuticals. In particular, I urge the U.S. Government to work with Korea to ensure that Korea's new government reimbursement system for medicines does not run counter to the important goal of rewarding innovation and providing greater access to effective new medicines for the Korean people."

About BIO

BIO represents more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and 31 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the annual BIO International Convention, the global event for biotechnology.

USA: Film confronts genetically altered crops

TruthAboutTrade,org, 17 April 2007.

Genetically Modified Organisms have been a subject of much contention since initial experiments with them in the early '70s. The field of GMOs involves recombining DNA from different organisms, typically containing the genetic information to specific desired traits, to create a new organism with those traits. The results of such experimentation has led to plants that show resistance to frost and pests, iridescence, and even a planned "termination" date. Even animals have been experimented on, resulting in glowing pigs and fish.

Not all GMOs have made it past the experimentation stage, and some contest that not all GMOs have offered a great benefit for their cost of production.

Controversy now surrounds the idea of using GMOs in food products, particularly those containing the Bt bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis a bacteria found in soil that can be used for biological pest control. Bt naturally produces a crystal protein that is toxic to certain insects, and through DNA recombinant technologies, it has been reproduced in the cells of field crops, including corn, potatoes and cotton.

A film featured in the Winter and Spring Farmer's Market and Film Series will tackle the issue of GMOs in plants and animals. Produced by Produced by Bertram Verhaag and Gabrielle Kroeber, "Unnatural Selection" will be the first film at the Wednesday, April 18 event.

Paul Keiser, who co-produces the Winter and Spring Farmer's Market and Film Series with his wife Nancy Jones Keiser, said the 60-minute film is an "eye-opener that that everybody on the planet should see."

"Unnatural Selection" focuses on the GMO food industry, including interviews with Terje Traavik, of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology; Andrew Kimbrell, of the Center for Food Safety, in Washington D.C.; several farmers in Canada; and Vandana Shiva, an activist from Navdanya, New Delhi, India, among others. Keiser said many people should relate to the film, as a recent drop in the bee population could have a connection to GMO crops.

Keiser said the use of the anti-insect Bt bacteria in Michigan corn crops could be contributing to honeybee deaths. He said GMO crops are causing more harm than benefit to humans, and that the alarm bells are not ringing loudly enough.

"The purpose of genetically modifying different kinds of agricultural plants is for really major shareholders for large corporations to take ownership of all these crops," Keiser said. "Unfortunately, I view it as being what AIDS is to humanity a human population GMOs are to plants."

Traavik, from "Unnatural Selection," has done experiments with DNA recombinant technology in fish, Keiser said. The results have shown that such technology can cause irreversible damage in some instances.

"(Traavik) had these guppy-like fish. He had a group that was not transgenic and a group that was transgenic," Keiser said. "This is in a house situation, like a laboratory, where they treat all the animals very good in terms of feeding them well and giving them a good habitat. But the transgenic fish the guppy-like fish, which were very small and had a very short generation time at the end of 40 generations died off and the other ones didn't."

The film goes beyond the direct results of GMO crops to detail what some see as collateral damage in the industry. Patented GMO seeds have blown off trucks as they pass other farms, resulting in unintentional exposure and contamination between the crops, Keiser said.

"The organic growers, and even non-organic growers, become punished for this," he said. "There are no government remedies, there's no help coming. There is no protection for the non-GMO canola fields, soy fields, or cornfields. There's no legal protection. The courts often have favored Monsanto because they're big money and then it's on the farmer to clean all of that up out of their fields. In these cases, certified organic farms, their certification is suspended and they're punished. We think that's thoroughly unfair."

Following "Unnatural Selection," another film, "Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: A Three Year Fraud," will be shown. This 27-minute film focuses on farmers in India who become activists when GMO plants lead to the reduction of their cotton harvest and the destruction of the soil. "GMO Update," an 11-minute film on Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser and his battle with agricultural corporation Monsanto over the re-contamination of his canola plants from seed blown off trucks will also be shown.

The event will finish with an "Action Steps and Resources" presentation. Keiser said this part of the series will teach visitors where to look for information and things they can do themselves if they want to take action and be involved, noting examples of current efforts.

"There are two chefs, at least one of them out in the San Francisco Area, and they have a boycott against GMOs going on," Keiser said. "These chefs do not allow genetically modified foods to come into their restaurants. They view themselves as the stewards of their customers and of their clients' health. They're doing a lot of things there."

For more information on these films or the Winter and Spring Farmers Market, contact the Keisers at (616) 677-6176, the Community Media Center at (616) 459-4788 or www.grcmc.org, or the Wealthy Theater at (616) 459-4788 or www.wealthytheater.org

17 April 2007

New Zealand: Scientist says GE crops don't live up to promise

The Press, 16 April 2007. By Paul Gorman

Crop and Food Research is being accused of tunnel vision on genetic engineering (GE) by one of its former scientists.

Biotechnologist Dr Elvira Dommisse, who worked on the early stages of Crop and Food's GE onion experiments before the current field trials began, says GE crops have not lived up to their initial promise and the Crown research institute should invest more in conventional plant breeding.

The institute's application to carry out a 10-year Lincoln field trial of broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and forage kale genetically engineered to contain a natural pesticide to kill caterpillars was heard by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) in Christchurch last week.

Dommisse worked for the old Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and then Crop and Food from 1985 to 1993. She left because she found the work unrewarding and could not see it solving the problems people said it would.

She was critical of the "lack of precaution and lack of thinking" in Crop and Food's application to Erma, and said scientists working in the GE area were under pressure to develop lines that would become commercially viable.

Some scientists were not keen on GE work but were afraid to talk out about it for fear of losing funding on which jobs depended.

"New Zealand has invested quite heavily in it. As a scientist, once you narrow down into GE your skills are very much in that area. You can't just say, `I don't like this area any more, I'll zip over to plant breeding instead'.

"You have to try to push it - 'we have got this GE stuff, what are we going to do with it now? We have to keep getting our salaries for the next 10 years, get funding that will keep this project going'.

"If you can get a 10-year bloc of funding, you are home and hosed," Dommisse said.

She doubted the field trial would be a useful exercise if it were approved. Most people ate broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower for health benefits and would be unimpressed by GE brassicas.

By the time the 10-year trial ended, that would mark 30 years since the experiment began.

"They could have been spending that time and money to develop new commercial lines. What they could do instead is put a bit more money into conventional brassica breeding, using hand pollination and selection to look for good traits without tweaking the genes."

Scientists were "theoretical people, not growers", she said.

"They have done this under very strict conditions in the glasshouse but not in the field. You can't just transfer that to the fields, it's completely different."

On the last day of the Erma hearing on Friday, Crop and Food project leader Dr Mary Christey admitted there were no cast-iron guarantees all the GE material could be contained on the site.

"I don't think you can give an absolute to anything, but we would have a high level of probability of detecting things," she told the hearing.

Christey said she would not engage in any research that would compromise the environment her children inherited.

"I'm interested in ensuring the environment is preserved for them. I wouldn't engage in this research if I didn't think it wouldn't be damaging the environment.

"At the same time, I can see GE plants growing overseas and I can see the benefits that can accrue."

BioAg New Zealand founder Phyllis Tichinin said if the trial went ahead it was important for New Zealand's "social cohesion" that it was scientifically robust and advanced the country's international "scientific mana".

16 April 2007

Malaysia: Genetically-modified foods must be labelled: Malaysia to US

Agence France Presse, 16 April 2007.

Malaysia has insisted in free trade talks with the United States that imports of genetically-modified food must be labelled, reports said Tuesday.

Natural Resources and Environment Minister Azmi Khalid said Malaysia was demanding mandatory labelling even though the United States had suggested American companies only make voluntary declarations.

"Without the label, we will not know the contents of the food," Azmi was quoted as saying by the Sun newspaper.

"We will not allow our population to consume without being able to assess what they can or cannot take as food and medicine," he said.

Malaysia is a majority Muslim nation where there is strong awareness about consuming only foods that are considered halal, or permissible under Islam.

Under the concept of halal, pork and its by-products, alcohol and animals not slaughtered according to Koranic procedures are all "haram" or forbidden, as are any products derived from the animals.

Azmi said Malaysia had decided on compulsory labelling despite US opposition during trade negotiations on the basis it would hamper access to US imports, the state Bernama news agency reported

"In this aspect, our stand is consistent with that of Australia and the European Union," Azmi was quoted as saying.

The minister said proposed legislation on biosafety was expected to be passed by parliament and come into force by year's end, and that compulsory labelling would start after that.

Malaysia and the US embarked on negotiations for a free trade agreement in June last year, but talks became bogged down in February.

The two countries failed to work out a deal by a crucial March 31 deadline which would have allowed the agreement to be fast-tracked through the US Congress.

France: Trans-genetic Seed Problem in France

Organic-Market.info, www.biovert.com. 16 April 2007.

On the 23 of March 2007 in Uzès, hunger strikers set up in the open house of Montreuil, striking for an Uzès spring without GMO. This was the start of their 10th day of strike. Like them, 86 % of the French wished for a moratorium on the cultivation of GMO. While Jacques Chirac calls the whole world to the ecological revolution, his government is publishing a decree to transpose the order of 2001/18, in the hurry to legalize the voluntary dispearsal of transgenetic plants on French territory.

Thus, the GMO-farmers are told to inform their neighbors and to respect a distance of 50 meters of separation between the plots. Some rapeseed pollen had been found more than 4.5 kilometers from its initial field, and seeds transported by the wind at more than 20 kilometers. With GMO, an infernal spiral is engaged between civilian society and the seed and biotechnology industries. Are the French farmers really going to end up like the 950 organic farmers of Quebec, who were victims of both pollution and laws suits initiated by the multinational Monsanto?

Today certain French cooperatives, under pressure from the seeders, are imposing two chemical knife treatments on conventional corn, with which GMO would cultivate this spring. The Pioneer Society freely distributes the GMO seeds. Their objective is to command well the GMO by whatever means, even genetic pollution if necessary. Despite serious scientific alerts with this, again recently, the president Gilles Eric Seralini, member of Critigen and of the Commission of Biomolecular engineering, called out to the responsible politicians on the serious consequences.

In regards to health: MON 863, authorized for consumption, shows signs of hepatic and renal toxicity, revealed through rats fed for only three months with this famous corn. What's more MON 810, only to be cultivated today in France, is very close to this toxic corn and has never been correctly evaluated. Even the review of European rules of Organic agriculture is subject to the tough test. They predict accepting a contamination thresh hold of 0.9 %, at nine grams per kilogram, in the organic products. Such a rule will lift one of the last ramparts against pollution spread by genetically modified organisms.

Nature and Progress, the Federation of producers and of organic consumers, is rising up against this diktat of GMO and supports the action of the hunger strikers for a spring without GMO. They are calling the president of the Republic to beautifully withdraw by putting his acts in agreement with his speech of a moratorium by the institution of GMO, 100 % legally receivable by Europe before the seeds of the month of April 2007 are sown.

Send us your feedback: mail@bio-markt.info

Europe: EFSA panel reconfirms opinion on nptII plant gene safety

FoodNavigator.com Europe, 16 April 2007.

EFSA's GMO panel has reconfirmed its opinion that the use of the nptII gene as a selectionable marker in GM plants for food or feed poses no risk to human or animal health or the environment.

The nptII gene (neomycin phosphototransferase II) provides resistance to certain antibiotics, such as the aminoglycosides kanamycin, neomycin and geneticin, in plants. The panel previously addressed the issue of whether the antibiotic resistance could be transferred from plants to animals in 2004, finding that there is no scientific evidence that such a transfer would occur.

The new assessment was prompted by information provided by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) on the therapeutic value of such antibiotics. According to EMEA, aminoglycosides are becoming increasingly important in the prevention and treatment of serious invasive bacterial infections in humans (such as tuberculosis), since such bacteria are becoming resistant to other classes of antibiotics.

But in its earlier assessment the panel had said that aminoglycosides were not commonly used. It said that both kanamycin and neomycin were rarely used because of their side-effects.

Although EFSA agrees with EMEA on its evaluation of the use of antibiotics, a spokesperson for the authority told FoodNavigator.com that the evaluation is not about how much the antibiotics are used but on whether or not resistance can be transferred from plants to animals.

On the basis of evidence - both previously existing and additional - the panel concluded that the therapeutic potential of the antibiotics will be compromised by the presence of the nptII gene in plants "given the extremely low probability of gene transfer from plants to bacteria".

It considers that it is "very unlikely" that the presence of the nptII gene in plants would change the existing prevalence of the gene in bacterial sources in the environment. The conclusions of its previous opinion, that the use of the nptII gene as selectable marker in GM plants does not pose a risk to human or animal health or to the environment.

EFSA has forwarded its opinion to the EC and EU member states (plus Norway and Sweden). These, it says, "will now be able to take into account EFSA's most recnet scientific advice on the nptII gene when considering GMO authorisation issues.

15 April 2007

USA: Charlie and the Corn Stalk, a Rural Fairy Tale

Hoosier Ag Today, 13 April 2007. By Gary Truitt.

Charlie was a young boy who came from a poor family. Their farm was small and not particularly productive, and his dad was not the best farmer in the world. One day his dad handed Charlie a gas can and the family's last few dollars. He told him to walk to town to get some gasoline so he could take a truck load of corn to the elevator to sell. On the way, Charlie met a stranger who offered him some magic corn seeds in exchange for his gas can and money. Not being the sharpest kid in his 4-H club, Charlie readily agreed. He thought these surely must be those new triple stack GMO hybrids and that they would help his farm be more productive. His father was furious, threw the seeds out the window, and sent Charlie to bed with no supper.

The next morning Charlie awoke to find a giant corn stalk had grown next to the house; it stretched as high as he could see. Remembering the good fortune Jack had with his bean stalk, Charlie scampered up the stalk and disappeared into the clouds. Several hours later he returned, not with a golden egg, but rather a bottle of clear liquid. He told his father it was a magic fuel that would run their old truck. Skeptical, his dad poured it into the old truck and it started on the first try. Returning from town, Charlie's father remarked how well the old truck ran with the new fuel and instructed him to climb the stalk tomorrow and get more of it.

This went on for several weeks, and soon Charlie's dad was selling the new fuel to his neighbors for a handsome profit. Word of this magic fuel began to spread. Soon people from miles around were coming to Charlie's farm to buy some of the magic fuel. Several of his neighbors opened restaurants along the road to accommodate the new tourism. The increased tax revenue allowed the county to pave the road to Charlie's farm. His Uncle Bob opened a new car dealership to sell new vehicles to people who now had a new source of low cost fuel.

To keep up with the increasing demand, Charlie's dad hired a team of people to climb the stalk with Charlie each day to bring back a larger supply of the magic fuel. With the new high paying jobs, these people bought hew houses in the area, thus increasing the value of the land and real estate in the county. The school board voted to build a new high school, and the county council voted themselves a raise.

Then the stalk died. As suddenly as it had grown, it was gone and the supply of the magic fuel was gone. Charlie's dad fired the workforce; with no tourists, the restaurants closed; and the bank foreclosed on the new mortgages. Within 6 months all that was left was a rusting sign in front of Charlie's house that read: Ethanol Sold Here.

Many in agriculture have touted ethanol as the "golden egg" that will solve our problems and allow us to live happily ever after. At a recent rural development conference, noted national economist Mark Drabenstott cautioned that ethanol is not the long term answer to profitability in rural America. While it has given us higher grain prices and brought billions of dollars of new investment into rural areas, in the end it is a commodity: a commodity that can be produced almost anywhere in the world.

He urged rural leaders not build their entire economy around the ethanol industry. He urged counties to join together to develop regional strategies that take advantage of the unique resources of a particular geographic area. The State of Indiana has just made funds available for counties who are developing a regional economic plan. These are the magic seeds that will grow into a sound economic future for rural America.

14 April 2007

Greece: Corn ban

Kathimerini (English edition), April 14 2007

The government yesterday banned 16 types of hybrid genetically modified corn from being imported into the country, bringing the total number of banned corn types to 47.

Greece took the move despite a European Union decision to accept the corn. Agricultural Ministry officials said the decision was based on scientific evidence showing that the corn could have harmful environmental effects.

The ministry yesterday also blocked the import of 88 tons of Chinese rice grown from genetically modified seeds.

India: CIC orders govt to divulge toxicity of GM foods

The Times of India, 14 April 2007. Manoj Mitta.

NEW DELHI: If a genetically modified (GM) food causes allergies or contains toxins, can the government refuse to disclose such bio-safety information on the grounds that it involves "commercial confidence" or "trade secrets" and that it will compromise the "competitive position" of the bio-tech company concerned?

Central Information Commission (CIC) said no on Thursday and ordered the department of biotechnology to disclose toxicity and allergenicity data on transgenic food crops that are being field-tested across the country.

In a far-reaching interface between RTI and environmental protection, the head of CIC, Wajahat Habibullah, directed the government to make public within 10 working days all the relevant data on genetically engineered brinjal, okra, mustard and rice which have been approved for multi-location trials.

The order came on an appeal filed by a Greenpeace activist, Divya Raghunandan, against government's refusal to disclose the data saying it was covered by Section 8 (1)(d) of RTI Act which exempts from disclosure "information, including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party".

While arguing for the disclosure of the toxicity and allergenicity data, Raghunandan cited a recent rat-feeding study in Europe by three French scientists who, despite the efforts of bio-tech major Monsanto to keep the matter under wraps, established that a genetically modified maize brought out by that company was not a safe food.

Raghunandan also drew attention to an alarming admission made by the government in response to her RTI application.

Although it has approved their multi-location field trials, the government said that the data on rice, okra and mustard was "under development" and "yet to be evaluated" by it. Such laxity in regulation, she said, could lead to genetic contamination in the areas where field trials were being held even before the toxicity and allergenicity data had been analysed.

Given the obvious public interest in the health risk assessment of genetically modified foods, CIC observed that the government should be, under Section 4 of the RTI Act, proactively putting out all the relevant data without waiting for applications for their disclosure.

But CIC declined Raghunandan's plea for making public the minutes of the meetings of the Review Committee on Genetic Modification (RCGM), which approved the various proposals of multi-location field trials of genetically modified food crops.

Since RCGM's minutes mention details of the proposals made by each of the bio-tech companies, Habibullah chose to leave it to the government to take a call on whether those confidential documents could be made public.

manoj.mitta@timesgroup.com

India: Info body gives bio-tech dept a RTI power-punch

Financial Express (India), 14 April 2007.

NEW DELHI, APR 13: In a verdict which may have a far-reaching consequence in the future, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Friday directed the department of bio-technology (DBT) to make public the data generated from the tests carried out on transgenic crops by agro-biotech companies.

Chief commissioner Wajahat Habibullah delivered this right to information (RTI) power-punch, in response to an petition filed by Greenpeace India, after the review committee on genetic modification (RCGM) under DBT consistently refused to part with this closely guarded secret for over a year.

Striking down the DBT's contention that the data falls under Section 8.1.(d), Habibullah pointed out that the request of the applicant for toxicity and allergenicity tests on genetically modified (GM) rice, mustard, okra and brinjal cannot be refused under the RTI Act. Any further grounds for non-disclosure are invalid even if the data in reference are in the process of development.

The information was also directed to be disclosed under section 4. (1). (d) of the RTI Act, which states "provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons."

Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan who appeared pleaded before the CIC on behalf of Greenpeace India said, "The Commission's order is significant as past experience shows that RCGM has not used the right kind of protocols for bio-safety testing".

In February, last year, Greenpeace India had requested the RCGM to make public the toxicity and allergenicity data for four GM crops alongwith the minutes of the meeting.

"Our victory today is in keeping with the spirit of the RTI, and has only strengthened the RTI as a tool to building a participatory democracy, " Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace India.

13 April 2007

Australia: Campaign launched against GMO food

Australian News, Green Left Weekly, 13 April 2007. By Annolies Truman, Perth

"There is no future for oil-dependent agriculture", well-known Columban priest and Philippines-based anti-GMO campaigner Brian Gore told the WA launch of Say No to GMO (genetically modified organisms) on April 5.

About 20 people attended the event, which was also addressed by Annie Kavanagh, president of the Organic Growers Association, and Maggie Lilith and Chris Tallentire from WA's Conservation Council.

Gore showed excerpts from his new film, Unjust Genes, which features London-based anti-GMO campaigner Dr Mae-Wan Ho, who warns that GMO crops could lead to "global famine, environmental devastation and massive crop failures".

The Columbans operate two organic demonstration farms in the Philippines, encouraging farmers to plant traditional varieties of rice and corn and extricate themselves from dependency on multinational agricorps. "As oil has gone up, so has the cost of fertilisers", explained Gore.

"We don't need it", argued Gore. "On our traditional farms, good organic practices yield a good crop without depleting the soil or polluting the environment. In economic terms alone, this is superior to hybrid seeds and agro-chemicals or to GMO."

"Bio-tech companies can see there is a fortune to be made out of control of the whole food chain", Gore said. "They're planning for GMO crops to wipe out everything else, and Monsanto and the like will be the sole owners of all food crops, forcing every grower to pay tribute to them."

The speakers highlighted the uncertainty of GMOs' effects on human health and the environment and argued that they are being grown and sold without adequate research. Gore cited the film Safe Food, Safe Planet that investigated the case of GM papaya in Thailand. It escaped from the confines of the experimental farm where it was being trialed, and is now "wild". It has also been shown to possess high allergenic properties.

Gore claimed that the recent scandal around Monsanto's GM corn was just part of a very messy problem. He said that at least one insurance company is refusing to insure anyone involved in GMO production.

Kavanagh said that the current WA moratorium on GMO runs out in 2008. "Say No to GMO is campaigning for a 10-year extension of the moratorium", she said. "We also want mandatory labeling of products containing GM ingredients. We want protection of non-GM crops from GM contamination. Agri-chemical and biotechnology companies and GE users need to be made liable for examination, containment and associated costs."

Lilith warned that although WA agriculture minister Kim Chance has said that the moratorium will continue until 2008, bio-tech companies and some growers' associations are lobbying for the ban to be lifted. The Pastoralists and Graziers Association (Western Grain Growers) has criticised the state government for locking farmers and consumers out of the potential "benefits" of GM technology. In addition, the WA Farmers Federation has this year overturned its previous opposition to GM.

"The pressure is on", concluded Lilith. "It is imperative that consumers act now to support an extension."

[For more information email jan60gro@yahoo.com or phone Maggie on (08) 9420 7260.]

Canada (Quebec): People are tired of not knowing what they are eating, says co-op

The Record, 13 April 2007. By Rita Legault.

Members of the Sherbrooke chapter of Friends of the Earth believe so strongly that consumers should support local farmers they opened their own regional market.

The Marche de Solidarite Regionale, which celebrated its first anniversary this month, is based on the slogan "Think global, eat local".

"David Suzuki said that if we want to save the planet, we have to buy local," said Friends of the Earth president Andre Nault.

The ingredients of an average North American meal travel some 2,400 km - 1,500 miles - to get to our dinner tables, said Nault, and that's bad for a number of reasons.

The most significant by far is the environmental impact of voyaging veggies and fruits. The further food is shipped the greater the impact on the environment because travel by plane, train and automobile burns fossil fuels releasing greenhouse gases that are causing climate change, said Nault.

"Our regional market does not have that impact," Nault said, noting some 1,200 local products sold at the co-op come from about two dozen producers located within a radius of 25 kilometres of Sherbrooke. The only exceptions are organic, vegetarian specialties that come from Les Jardins de la Cite in Ham Nord.

The solidarity market also features a handful of imported fair trade products from Sherbrooke's Carrefour de Solidarite Internationale, such as coffee from Peru as well as creams and balms made by a local producer from shea butter collected by a women's cooperative in Africa.

"But the main mission of the marketplace is to promote local agriculture - the role of which is to feed the local population and not to feed the world," Nault said, explaining that buying local increases regional food autonomy and supports farmers who return their profits into their own businesses, communities, and the regional economy.

"When you buy a Granny Smith apple from South Africa, barely 13 or 14 per cent of the profit remain in the region," Nault said, adding that some 87 per cent of the profits of large retailers go elsewhere.

Buying local also encourages links between consumers and producers, said Nault.

"It creates a bond of confidence because people know what ends up in their food," he said, noting the link between buyers and sellers encourages producers to develop products that meet the demands of consumers, such as healthier foods that do not contain unwanted additives.

For example, Nault said most of the products sold at the regional solidarity market are free of genetically modified organisms (GMO) that are found mainly in soybeans, corn and canola.

"You can't get chickens that don't eat grain, and much of that contains genetically modified organisms," he said. But aside from the chickens and grain-fed veal, other meats are GMO-free including ecological beef and organic lamb from cows and sheep who graze on Townships' hay and pastures and are not injected with hormones.

"People are tired of not knowing what they are eating," said Nault. Another benefit of buying local is rediscovering the taste of farm-fresh produce.

Farm fresh eggs, even milk and butter, taste better, Nault said, adding the milk sold at the market is non-homogenized and pasteurized at low temperatures, which preserves the enzymes and beneficial bacteria.

Produce that hails from other countries is often picked unripe so that it can withstand the long travel and is often preserved with waxes, irradiation, and fungicides. Local doesn't need to be preserved for long periods. And because it's fresher, it contains more vitamins.

Nault admits most people enjoy oranges and bananas as well as fresh vegetables in the winter, and most consumers would be unwilling to live like their grandparents, who dined on diets of root vegetables and canned fruits and veggies in the winter. But he said the market can meet 90 per cent of the grocery basket needs of 1,100 people.

Members, who pay an annual membership fee of $20, fill out their orders by Internet from a selection of available products from some two dozen producers. That includes staples such as meat and poultry, fresh fruits and vegetables, organic breads and bakery goods, maple products and eggs, milk, cheese and other dairy products.

Once the orders are sent in, producers deliver the items to the Friends of the Earth offices (at 843 King St. W.) every Wednesday and Thursday, where they can be picked up.

Producers receive the amount indicated on the price list, said Nault. The regional market adds 15 per cent to cover its costs.

Ecological beef farmer Alain St-Jacques from Boucherie Jacquar in Stoke, and Coaticook lamb producer Joel de La Bruere from Bergerie du Lys, two of the market's suppliers who were making deliveries this Wednesday, said their sales have increased steadily since they joined a year ago.

Both told The Record one of the main advantages of the regional market is direct contact with consumers.

"We get to know what they want," said de la Bruere, adding he sometimes provides samples and recipes so that customers can get to know his products, which include a variety of cuts of fresh lamb and sausages.

"With lamb, you don't have a choice," he said. "Not everyone has tasted lamb, but almost everyone has had beef."

St-Jacques, who runs a butcher shop at his Stoke farm, said the regional market provides another sales point for his meat as well as an opportunity for consumers to get to know him and his products.

While de La Bruere sells most of his meat at the regional market, organic farmer Russell Pocock from Saunders Farm in Compton sends most of his produce to markets in Boston, New York and Philadelphia.

"Financially, this doesn't represent much for me at this point," Pocock said. "The most interesting part is the idea."

Pocock said he used to try and sell his organic produce in Sherbrooke and Montreal, but he was not so successful in regional markets. "Now we are filling up big trucks, our farm is growing, and we are better equipped.

"Andre's objective is to sell everything I grow here, but I'm spending more energy and making less money delivering two bags of carrots here than two truckloads to Boston," he mused. "It's the crazy economics of the thing. The economies of scale are still not there. We are participating because we hope the idea will grow."

Nault said he doesn't really believe he will be able to sell all of Pocock's produce at the regional market, but he hopes to double their take in the next year. At the current growth rate, that seems a reasonable possibility. "We started with only one day every two weeks," Nault said, noting that in the first year they sold some $240,000 worth of local products. He predicts they will hit $400,000 in sales next year.

"Originally we expected to do the business we are doing now in three or four years," Nault said, pleased the idea is catching on and spreading to other regions, including nearby Waterloo.

Les Amis de la terre du voisinage de Waterloo hopes to launch its own regional market in May. Organizer Lise Brideau said her group has received its patent letters, has signed up two dozen producers, and has a list of 115 families ready to join.

Nault said groups in other regions of the province are also looking into setting up regional markets along the same concept. That includes several areas of the Monteregie including Granby, Valleyfield, Boucherville, and Longueuil, as well as Quebec City, Saguenay, Rimouski, and Joliette.

For more information about Sherbrooke's Marche de solidarite regionale call the Friends of the Earth at 562-4413 or visit their website at www.atestrie.com.

The Philippines: NOAM backs banning of GMOs in Negros

Daily Star, April 13 2007

The Negros Organic Agriculture Movement has expressed support to the move of the provincial government to ban genetically modified organisms in Negros Occidental.

In its position paper signed by its 17 members, NOAM said that the banning of GMOs in the province is indispensable in attaining the goal of making Negros the "Organic Food Bowl in Asia."

The group's move came after the Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed in the first reading the ordinance that will prohibit the entry of GMO products in Negros Occidental.

"We totally agree with the provincial government that banning GMOs within the territorial jurisdiction of the province is indispensable in the attainment of such goal," NOAM said.

The group cited legal, economic and technical grounds as well as health and environmental considerations in stating their position. It said that most documented experiences in Spain, Canada, USA showed that GM crops produce lower yields at higher costs that resulted to lower income of farmers compared to farmers planting non-GM crops.

In the Philippines, they said, BT corn seed is two times more expensive than hybrid corn.

"A basic issue about GM crops is that it is not a precise technology and the GM products are not stable and it causes genetic pollution," NOAM said, adding that pests will easily develop immunity to GM crops, therefore, GM technologies are not reliable and not sustainable way to control pest.

The growing ill-effects of GM crops on health have affected people in South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, North Cotabato and Davao Oriental, they said.

On effects to the environment, NOAM also noted that GM corn contamination can occur up to 530 meters even at 19 days planting interval.

If contamination occurs, it could happen without the knowledge and consent of farmers and consumers alike, the group added.*NLG

12 April 2007

UK: Interview with former GM scientist on GM potato trials

The Soil Association, Podcast transcript on GM potato trials - 12 April 2007.

Listen to the Listen to the podcast [mp3, 2,968 KB]

Interviewer: I'm Michael Green, Policy Officer at the Soil Association. I'm going to talk to Ken Hayes, the Soil Association's standards researcher who's previously done research and development into GM plants.

So Ken, you used to work in a GM laboratory. Can you tell me more about the research that you were doing there?

Ken: I was researching the very early stages of pollination when the pollen first lands on the stigma. The aim was to better understand how brassicas such as cabbage and broccoli prevent self-pollination. Commercially, this mechanism is a bit of a pain because it makes it really difficult to maintain favourable traits by in-breeding.

Interviewer: So, genetic engineering sounds like an incredibly precise process. Can you tell me a bit more about how scientists insert genes from one organism into another?

Ken: Scientists have manipulated a soil borne bacteria which infects plants and causes crown gall disease. This bacteria has evolved a mechanism for inserting genes into the plant which then causes the tumorous growth you can sometimes see on nut trees and vines ‚ it causes quite a commercial problem. But the plant biotechnologists have removed the genes which caused the tumorous growth and put foreign genes which are then inserted into plants at random and that's the very first stages of the GM development.

Interviewer: Okay, how could this process of inserting one gene into another organism lead to, for example, unintended side effects?

Ken: Well, it's the insertion of the foreign gene into the plant's genome ‚ it's completely at random. And there's always an element of uncertainty as to how that gene will interact with its new environment - with the other genes around it, with the other molecules within the plant's cell. That's quite a complicated system of how the gene is expressed, and how the resulting protein which is what the gene produces interacts with all the other molecules and all the molecular pathways within the cell.

Interviewer: So there's a lot that scientists don't know about the effects of genetic modification on our food...

Ken: Yes, because of this random insertion of the gene, there's always going to be an element of uncertainty as to how that gene will react to being expressed in the new plant and that could lead to things like allergic reactions to toxicity when we consume the plants. And then also how that gene would then interact if it was to cross-fertilise with another plant ‚ a different variation.

Interviewer: A recent Russian study by Monsanto showed that feeding rats GM potatoes actually damaged their internal organs. Do findings like this surprise you?

Ken: Okay, no I don't think it is surprising when you insert a foreign gene into another plant. I think it's inevitable that it's going to behave slightly differently, and the repercussions of that should always be researched very thoroughly. These findings suggest that there should be more research done.

Interviewer: So in your experience, do you think that there's much potential to control some of the unexpected side effects of GM?

Ken: I think there will always be an element of uncertainty, there will always be that unknown factor, as toÖ you can't understand everything. There's so much in science which we don't know and so that element of risk will always be there, and considering what risks are at stake, where you're introducing this GM technology into the natural environment, into our food which we eat every day, then I don't think you're ever going to be able to eliminate those risks.

Interviewer: So do you think that the official scientists are in denial about the risks of GMOs?

Ken: No, I don't think the scientists themselves are in denial. I mean they're very aware of the risks. Everyone is ‚ it's very much in the public domain. Theoretically, the concept is very attractive and very powerful and I think it's up to governments and up to businesses and regulatory bodies to always take those risks and those uncertainties on board and make sure that they don't disregard the repercussions of introducing such plants and such GM technology into our food.

Interviewer: So in the light of these new GM potato trials in England, are consumers still right to be concerned about GMOs?

Ken: Yes, I think they are very much right to be concerned because there just really isn't the research done into the potential risks of GM on our food. There haven't been the experimental studies into what implications introducing foreign genes into plants and into animals could have.

Interestingly, when I was preparing for this interview, I was having a quick look on some science journals for articles about risks to GM, and it turned out there were so many more articles written about opinion pieces and comments on GM without any experimental basis to them, and it just seems that there's a real lack of experimental data into the risks of GM in our food.

And there's so much in the development process of a GM plant which is behind closed doors, and there's a real need for the controls and the checks and the research done by biotechnology companies to become public and for everyone to be able to see.

Interviewer: Okay, well thanks a lot Ken. That was really interesting to hear about your thoughts on GMOs.

The British countryside has been GM-free for the last four years when Genetically Modified crops were last grown as part of the Government's Farm Scale Evaluations of the environmental impact of GM.

But all this is set to change this month which marks the start of trials of a new GM potato here in England. These trials are going ahead in spite of widespread opposition from consumers and the food industry, not to mention the emerging evidence of the health risks of eating GM potatoes.

The potatoes have been developed by German chemical company BASF who claim they will be resistant to the common fungal disease, blight. The trials are designed to see how the new potatoes will fare outside the laboratory and the first potatoes are due to be planted in April at a farm in Cambridgeshire and will shortly be followed by another farm in North Yorkshire.

This appears like a last-ditch attempt by the biotech industry and the Government to grow GM crops in our countryside. However, it is unlikely that the British public will have any appetite for BASF's GM spuds. Shoppers have already rejected GM foods, supermarkets refuse to stock them, major food manufactures like McCain's won't use them in their products, and the British Potato Council, which represents our potato farmers, has also opposed the trials.

And these new trials in England have also been overshadowed by controversy surrounding GM potatoes across Europe. In March, a Dutch court ordered GM potato trials to be halted in Holland after they found that the government had illegally permitted the trials because the risk to the environment had not been properly assessed.

The following week after the Dutch trials were shelved, BASF announced that they were pulling out of GM potato trials that they had planned over in Ireland. The Irish trials were initially delayed in 2006 due to the strict regulations required by the Irish government, which required detailed plans for the monitoring of the health and environmental impacts as well as the installation of a high security electrified fence.

So instead, BASF are opting to grow their spuds here in England where the GM regulations are much more relaxed.

If you'd like to find out more about GM technology including the new GM potato trials, then you can visit http://www.soilassociation.org/gm.

Zambia takes steps towards biosafety law

SciDev.Net, 12 April 2007. By Michael Malakata.

[LUSAKA] Zambian policymakers have adopted a biosafety bill that paves the way for legislation to deal with issues surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The bill was drafted by the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Science and Technology, and submitted to parliament on 3 April for scrutiny and adoption.

Minister of Science and Technology Brian Chituwo said the bill was needed because GMOs were bound to find their way into Zambia.

Currently, Zambia does not have a regulatory framework to regulate biotechnology issues, including the research, development, application, import, export, transit and use of genetically modified products.

If enacted into law, the bill will establish a National Biosafety Authority (NBA) and Scientific Advisory Committee. The NBA will ensure the bill is adhered to and provide guidelines on its implementation. The Scientific Advisory Committee will oversee the operations of the NBA.

The bill will promote public awareness of biosafety with information and consultation services.

It also seeks to provide a mechanism for liability and redress for any harm or damage caused to human and animal health, non-GMO crops, socio-economic conditions, and biological diversity by any GMO or product.

Minister of Justice, George Kunda, said the Zambian government was eager to have the bill passed and made into law to allow for the domestication of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which Zambia is a signatory. The international agreement aims to provide protection in the transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology.

Kunda said Zambia needs the legislation to avoid becoming a 'dumping ground' for such products, as it currently does not have the technology to test imported material for GMOs.

Saviour Chishimba, chairperson of the Education, Science and Technology Committee said, "The bill is aimed at ensuring that Zambia remains a GMO free country."

Zambia is one of several countries in southern Africa that prohibit the growing or consumption of GMO foods. Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland have taken a similar stance.

Ireland: Casting a cold eye on organics

Irish Farmers Journal, 14 April 2007. By Con O'Rourke.

Organic foods are treated in the 'lifestyle' features of the media with a respect bordering on reverence. Interest in such foods is driven by concerns about food safety and the environment, but perhaps also as a fashion statement by the chattering classes. Maybe it's time to 'cast a cold (scientific) eye' over the whole organic sector to see how its various claims and assumptions stand up.

What is 'organic'?

Organic foods are those grown without the aid of manufactured fertilizers and pesticides. Unfortunately, the wholesome image of 'organic' has also been adopted by advertisers to sell many other products such as cosmetics and 'organic pure water' (go figure!). 'Organic' is becoming a debased cliché, rather like 'executive', 'designer' and 'de-tox' before it.

The nutrition of green (photosynthetic) plants is an entirely inorganic process. Plants use sunlight to synthesise living tissue from the simple raw materials carbon dioxide, water and a range of minerals. The term 'organically-grown' is a misnomer, since the plant roots can absorb soil nutrients only in their simplest (inorganic) form, e.g. as ions of the major nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK). 'Organic' should be replaced with a less ambiguous term, possibly adapted from the German or French equivalents of 'biologisch'/'ïkologisch' or 'bio'.

Since crops can absorb the identical NPK ions from the soil solution, from the breakdown of organic matter (both naturally-occurring and applied) or from commercial fertilizers, nutrient analyses cannot prove that a particular food has been 'organically-grown'. Thus the approval and inspection procedures for the provenance of organic produce are based more on trust than on science.

Nutrition / taste

Organic foods are claimed to be more nutritious and to taste better, with Darina Allen of Ballymaloe going so far as to declare that they are essential for health. However, such claims would have to satisfy all of the following criteria: 1) Randomised, replicated field trials of the same variety, grown both organically and conventionally under otherwise identical conditions: 2) Laboratory analyses of the produce for all major nutrients (carbohydrates, fats, proteins, fibre, minerals, vitamins, etc.): 3) Double-blind taste-panel evaluation (i.e. where neither the tasters nor the presenters know the origin of particular samples): and 4) Statistical analysis of the results and publication in peer-reviewed scientific or medical journals. Few organic claims satisfy even one of the above criteria.

The Soil Association (U.K.) had claimed for over 50 years that organic produce was more nutritious and tasted better. However, when recently challenged by the UK Advertising Standards Authority they were unable to provide creditable supporting evidence and had to cease making such claims.

Pesticide residues

Analyses by the Department of Agriculture show that Irish staple foods (mainly dairy/meat products and vegetables) contain either no or negligible amounts of pesticides. The prescribed limits for pesticides (parts per million or per billion) are occasionally exceeded, mainly in imported tropical products, but such limits are set at about 1/100th or less of what might be considered harmful. Sir John Krebs (UK Food Standards Agency) has remarked that 'A single cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic pesticides in the diet'.

The environment

Organic farming is promoted as being environmentally friendly. This is based mainly on using less (or no) pesticides and organic manures/composts instead of commercial fertilizers. In conventional farming, however, pesticides are increasingly restricted to more environmentally-friendly and biodegradable products. The rates and times of fertilizer application are also limited by the EU Nitrates Directive.

Dairying and beef dominate Irish farming. Both are mainly grass-based - a major marketing advantage for our 'green and clean' image. No pesticides are applied to Irish grassland, and strictly-supervised fertilizer inputs are confined mainly to nitrogen for spring growth and sufficient phosphorus and potassium to replace what is removed by the grass. This is as close as it gets to 'organic'.

Organic Island

The organic sector regularly calls for Ireland to become an 'organic island'. This might work if we had a completely self-contained agriculture, with no imports or exports, and complete recycling of all crop, animal and human wastes and remains. But we export more than 80% of our output, and with it some of the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium used in its production. Although some nitrogenous losses can be replaced by growing N-fixing leguminous crops, we have scant native deposits of phosphorus and potassium. Without imported fertilizers, yields would gradually decline to 19th-century levels, with serious losses of exports and jobs. A foretaste of this scenario occurred in Ireland during World War II; in the absence of imported fertilizers, phosphorus deficiency became widespread in both crops and animals.

GMOs

Genetically-modified (GM) crops have been around since the 1970s and now total 100 million hectares annually worldwide (about 15 times the entire farmed area of Ireland). They have been consumed regularly by some hundreds of millions of people and have been found to be no less safe than conventional foods. Predictions of environmental and ecological catastrophe have failed to materialise. Consumer resistance to GM foods in Europe is sustained by the tabloid press ('Frankenstein foods'), environmentalists, organic growers and by the EU restricting GM food and animal-feed imports (usually on dubious health and environmental grounds).

BASF is planning field trials of GM blight-resistant potatoes in Ireland. At present, organic potato growers have a special dispensation to spray against blight. However, their rules restrict them to traditional (19th-century) copper-based sprays.

Copper is a persistent and poisonous heavy metal, with long-term environmental effects, and is soon to be banned by the EU. GM potatoes would require no spraying and will not 'contaminate' adjacent conventional (and particularly organic) crops since, as every gardener knows, potatoes are propagated asexually by vegetative tubers rather than by pollination. It is ironic that current organic rules ban a GM variety which has such obvious benefits for the sector.

World population

Organic yields are significantly lower than for conventional crops and they are currently incapable of feeding the world's six billion people. To do so would require about a doubling of the area under cultivation, with consequent destruction of natural habitats. An organic world could, however, be achieved by eliminating half the population - but which half, and who decides? cost

Due to lower yields and higher labour inputs, organic foods cost up to 50% more. This may be of little concern to the virtuous suburban housewife on her weekly 50-km round-trip in an SUV to buy a few kilos of organic vegetables in a farmers' market. There is a certain paradox in that growth of the organic sector has coincided with increasingly strict regulations to ensure that our food is safe and that the environment is protected. Thus a consumer's decision to 'go organic' may be due more to a general lifestyle choice (and increased affluence) than to specific health or environmental threats.

* Dr Con O'Rourke is a plant scientist.

New Zealand: Demonstrators disrupt hearing

The Press, 12 April 2007. By Paul Gorman

[image caption - STREET PROTEST: protesters display placards outside a hearing in Christchurch on an application to research genetically-engineered plants.]

Canterbury scientists behind a scheme to attack caterpillars with genetically engineered (GE) brassicas found themselves under fire yesterday.

Crown research institute Crop and Food Research has been developing GE broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and forage kale that will kill caterpillars.

Now it wants to bring the brassicas out of the glasshouse and into the garden.

Crop and Food's application to complete a 10-year field trial at Lincoln to help eliminate the wriggly pests is the subject of a three-day Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) hearing, which began in Christchurch yesterday.

The hearing was disrupted by anti-GE protesters who blew whistles and made speeches in the meeting room. Police helped security guards, and one person was charged with trespass.

Protest spokesman Garry Edmonson said they opposed the discussion of genetic modification in New Zealand.

"GMOs will never be accepted in Aotearoa. This whole process should never have taken place. The moratorium should never have been lifted."

Erma received 959 submissions on the application ‚ 941 against, 17 in support and one abstaining.

Despite that, Erma's initial evaluation report says there will be minimal risk of adverse environmental effects and little chance of any adverse effects on human health and safety, on Maori and on the Treaty of Waitangi, given the controls proposed over the destruction of the plants.

Erma's analysis also believes the trial is likely to benefit society.

Crop and Food says it has conducted 34 similar field tests since 1988.

Crop and Food project leader Dr Mary Christey has been developing brassicas during the past five years, which contain the natural pesticide already used by organic growers, Bacillus thuringiensis , known as Bt.

Bt kills caterpillars that are dining out on the plants, mainly caterpillars of the cabbage white butterfly, the diamondback moth and the soybean looper.

The application is to trial the GE brassicas in a secured, contained field of up to 0.4ha.

Greenpeace, one of several groups opposing the trials, is questioning Erma's objectivity in proposing the application be approved.

Greenpeace lawyer Duncan Currie said Erma had incorrectly applied the 1996 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act at several levels.

Erma had misapplied the act in assessing uncertainty and risk, had failed to assess the "opportunity cost" in the sense of lost funding to other, non-GE, research, and had incorrectly scoped risks, costs and benefits, he said. The authority had never turned down a GE field trial application, and Currie called on the Government to decline this one.

"The appearance is that any application, no matter how misconceived, how pointless and no matter what level of opposition, will be approved."

Potential environmental risks included contamination of non-GE crops, the development of insect resistance to the Bt toxin, effects on non-target insects, such as butterflies, and the escape of the genes.

"Trials to test insect resistance to GE Bt brassica are a waste of both time and money. The research around the world for Bt brassica already shows that insects build up resistance, the consumer doesn't want it, farmers won't grow it and certainly can't sell it."

Christey said anybody who grew cabbages appreciated the damage caterpillars could cause.

"Under laboratory conditions, caterpillars feeding on cabbage which has been genetically modified so it produces Bt all die within 48 hours, and the plant is virtually undamaged."

The plants would be destroyed before flowering or secured for analysis in the lab.

She declined to say where the trial plot would be and what security measures would be taken if approval was granted.

The hearing continues today.

USA: Monsanto's plans for Kunia pose risk for other crops

Star Bulletin (Hawaii), April 12 2007. Paul H. Achitoff,

MONSANTO just announced its purchase of thousands of acres in Central Oahu to test genetically modified (GM) crops, and protests of the Legislature's refusal to hear bills prohibiting genetic engineering of taro and coffee have been in the news. The newspapers publish a steady stream of letters from industry employees suggesting that anyone unwilling to give the industry free reign is an ignorant fear-monger mindlessly opposed to everything "biotech," from aspirin to stem-cell research. Time for a reality check. Here are some facts -- you decide.

In the past six months, three federal courts have ruled that the USDA broke environmental laws when allowing Monsanto and others to grow GM crops that could contaminate other crops or harm the environment, including corn and sugar cane engineered to produce powerful drugs in their cells. Hawaii's Judge J. Michael Seabright found USDA acted in "utter disregard" of the law.

During the past year, the U.S. long-grain rice crop was discovered contaminated by GM varieties not approved for human consumption, resulting in rice import bans by Japan, rejection of contaminated shipments by the European Union, and lawsuits to recover huge losses to rice farmers. The California Rice Commission has called for a moratorium on planting GM rice in California. Thousands of farmers in the United States and Canada have been investigated and/or sued by Monsanto for saving seeds with patented GMO traits. Farmers have paid huge fines even when their crops were inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto's traits. On the other hand, Monsanto refuses to take any responsibility for contamination of others' crops.

Consumers want as much organic produce as they can get; it's the fastest-growing agricultural segment. But since the genetically engineered papaya was introduced, to the hosannas of the Hawaii Farm Bureau, it has become virtually impossible to grow organic papaya reliably in most parts of Hawaii; the GM trees cross-pollinate other trees, and GM seeds are spread everywhere by birds and people. Even UH's papaya seed stock is contaminated. GM papayas receive much lower prices than conventional or organic papaya, and the export markets to Japan and Korea, where consumers refuse to buy GM fruit, have been seriously damaged. Should Kona coffee farmers assume they have nothing to worry about from GM coffee field testing?

Claims that GM crops will enhance yield or improve nutrition are completely speculative, even after years of research and development; 99.9 percent of all GM crops worldwide are corn, soy, canola or cotton designed to be resistant to herbicides, produce their own pesticides, or both. Monsanto developed crops resistant to its RoundUp herbicide so it could sell more RoundUp, which farmers can now dump on their fields without killing their crop. Sales of RoundUp skyrocketed six-fold from 1992 to 2002, producing RoundUp-resistant "superweeds" infesting 2 million acres of U.S. farmland. To kill RoundUp-resistant weeds, farmers are turning to even more toxic herbicides, such as 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange produced by, you guessed it, Monsanto.

Pesticide-producing crops are not resistant to many corn and cotton insect pests, including the boll weevil, mirids, plant bugs and stink bugs. Farmers continue to spray insecticides to control them, and overall pesticide usage on such crops climbs back up after an initial drop.

Claims that GM crops have been "proven safe" or are "rigorously tested" are simply false. The EPA regulates pesticide-producing crops, but requires no feeding studies with the GM crop; nor does the FDA require any such proof. Scientific studies of GM foods in animals have shown signs of organ damage and raise legitimate concerns about allergies, immuno-suppression, and toxicity. Because the industry has fought requirements that GM foods be labeled so consumers can make their own choices, it's impossible for consumers or doctors to track illnesses back to their sources. Yet 70 percent of all processed foods in supermarkets now contain unlabeled GM ingredients.

About a year ago, the USDA's own inspector general issued a scathing audit criticizing USDA for failing to adequately regulate field tests of GM crops. The USDA was unaware of the location of many field trial sites and failed to conduct required inspections. A long and ever-growing list of contamination incidents has amply demonstrated that no field protocols have succeeded in reliably containing experimental GM crops, like the ones Monsanto plans to grow in Kunia.

Want to know more about exactly what crops Monsanto will be growing, or where? Too bad! Monsanto claims it's "confidential" -- that is, none of your business. Oh, and the Hawaii legislators who refuse to hear bills seeking to restrict genetic engineering of taro, coffee, or anything else? Monsanto says it's none of their business, either. We're all Monsanto's guinea pigs now.

Paul H. Achitoff is managing attorney in Hawaii for Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund.

11 April 2007

USA: Film confronts genetically altered crop

Truth About Trade and Technology, 11 April 2007.

Genetically Modified Organisms have been a subject of much contention since initial experiments with them in the early '70s. The field of GMOs involves recombining DNA from different organisms, typically containing the genetic information to specific desired traits, to create a new organism with those traits. The results of such experimentation has led to plants that show resistance to frost and pests, iridescence, and even a planned "termination" date. Even animals have been experimented on, resulting in glowing pigs and fish.

Not all GMOs have made it past the experimentation stage, and some contest that not all GMOs have offered a great benefit for their cost of production.

Controversy now surrounds the idea of using GMOs in food products, particularly those containing the Bt bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis a bacteria found in soil that can be used for biological pest control. Bt naturally produces a crystal protein that is toxic to certain insects, and through DNA recombinant technologies, it has been reproduced in the cells of field crops, including corn, potatoes and cotton.

A film featured in the Winter and Spring Farmer's Market and Film Series will tackle the issue of GMOs in plants and animals. Produced by Produced by Bertram Verhaag and Gabrielle Kroeber, "Unnatural Selection" will be the first film at the Wednesday, April 18 event.

Paul Keiser, who co-produces the Winter and Spring Farmer's Market and Film Series with his wife Nancy Jones Keiser, said the 60-minute film is an "eye-opener that that everybody on the planet should see."

"Unnatural Selection" focuses on the GMO food industry, including interviews with Terje Traavik, of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology; Andrew Kimbrell, of the Center for Food Safety, in Washington D.C.; several farmers in Canada; and Vandana Shiva, an activist from Navdanya, New Delhi, India, among others. Keiser said many people should relate to the film, as a recent drop in the bee population could have a connection to GMO crops.

Keiser said the use of the anti-insect Bt bacteria in Michigan corn crops could be contributing to honeybee deaths. He said GMO crops are causing more harm than benefit to humans, and that the alarm bells are not ringing loudly enough.

"The purpose of genetically modifying different kinds of agricultural plants is for really major shareholders for large corporations to take ownership of all these crops," Keiser said. "Unfortunately, I view it as being what AIDS is to humanity a human population GMOs are to plants."

Traavik, from "Unnatural Selection," has done experiments with DNA recombinant technology in fish, Keiser said. The results have shown that such technology can cause irreversible damage in some instances.

"(Traavik) had these guppy-like fish. He had a group that was not transgenic and a group that was transgenic," Keiser said. "This is in a house situation, like a laboratory, where they treat all the animals very good in terms of feeding them well and giving them a good habitat. But the transgenic fish the guppy-like fish, which were very small and had a very short generation time at the end of 40 generations died off and the other ones didn't."

The film goes beyond the direct results of GMO crops to detail what some see as collateral damage in the industry. Patented GMO seeds have blown off trucks as they pass other farms, resulting in unintentional exposure and contamination between the crops, Keiser said.

"The organic growers, and even non-organic growers, become punished for this," he said. "There are no government remedies, there's no help coming. There is no protection for the non-GMO canola fields, soy fields, or cornfields. There's no legal protection. The courts often have favored Monsanto because they're big money and then it's on the farmer to clean all of that up out of their fields. In these cases, certified organic farms, their certification is suspended and they're punished. We think that's thoroughly unfair."

Following "Unnatural Selection," another film, "Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: A Three Year Fraud," will be shown. This 27-minute film focuses on farmers in India who become activists when GMO plants lead to the reduction of their cotton harvest and the destruction of the soil. "GMO Update," an 11-minute film on Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser and his battle with agricultural corporation Monsanto over the re-contamination of his canola plants from seed blown off trucks will also be shown.

The event will finish with an "Action Steps and Resources" presentation. Keiser said this part of the series will teach visitors where to look for information and things they can do themselves if they want to take action and be involved, noting examples of current efforts.

"There are two chefs, at least one of them out in the San Francisco Area, and they have a boycott against GMOs going on," Keiser said. "These chefs do not allow genetically modified foods to come into their restaurants. They view themselves as the stewards of their customers and of their clients' health. They're doing a lot of things there."

For more information on these films or the Winter and Spring Farmers Market, contact the Keisers at (616) 677-6176, the Community Media Center at (616) 459-4788 or www.grcmc.org , or the Wealthy Theater at (616) 459-4788 or www.wealthytheater.org

Australia: Scientists discover how whet can stick-it-out in the salt

MolecularPlantBreeding.com, media release, 11 April 2007.

It may not be quite as salt-loving as a mangrove, but scientists have discovered that wheat has more in common with the coastal dweller than anyone realised.

The Molecular Plant Breeding CRC's Dr Yusuf Genc has found that different varieties of wheat have different ways of dealing with salinity.

The research has implications for cereal breeders, who have long sought to breed varieties that are resistant to salinity.

When most people think of salinity they imagine vast and desolate tracts of land, too salty for even the hardiest crop to grow. But the conspicuous 'dryland' salinity is only part of Australia's salinity problem. Transient salinity, the seasonal movement of salt in and out of the soil profile, is not as severe, but is responsible for losses of up to $1.3 billion per year for the Australian farming economy.

Some 67% of the dryland cropping area in Australia has potential for transient salinity; and when it hits, the toxicity and resulting decrease in growth makes for meagre yields.

While no small effort has gone into the development of new salt-tolerant varieties, researchers have so far had limited success.

But with new insight into the mechanisms that wheat uses to cope with salt, breeders may soon be able to select for salt tolerance.

'People have been working on this for 50 years and guess what? There are very few varieties that have been released from breeding programs with any kind of salinity tolerance,' says Dr Genc.

According to Dr Genc, keeping the salt out is not the only coping mechanism. Rather, much like a mangrove tree, it seems that some wheat varieties take the salt up into their roots, but are less affected by it than other varieties.

"The majority of people working in this field are trying to improve the ability of the plant to exclude the salt."

"Our research has shown that keeping the salt out is not the only coping mechanism. Rather, some wheat varieties take the salt up into the plant and tolerate it."

The mechanism, known as "tissue tolerance", could result in dramatic yield increases for salinity-affected growers if it could be bred into other wheat varieties.

Genc and his team grew two wheat varieties, Berkut and Krichauff, at varying salt concentrations, and evaluated their salt uptake and grain yields.

While both are known to be good salt tolerators, they found that Berkut does not prevent the salt from entering the plant as well as Krichauff. Instead, it takes the salt in but still yields as much as Krichauff if not more.

"This was at first puzzling, because traditionally researchers thought high salt concentration meant poor ability to withstand the salt," says Genc.

"It was then that we realised there were two mechanisms at work in these wheat varieties."

Some varieties had the exclusion ability whereas other varieties had the tissue tolerance ability. Genc says that this could be the reason breeders have had such difficulty selecting for salt tolerance.

"When you test such varieties together, the relationship between salt content in the plant and salinity tolerance tends to disappear because you have different varieties with different abilities."

"Our research has shown that salt exclusion is definitely not the only mechanism at work for all varieties," he said. Now, with a better understanding of the physiology of salt tolerance, Genc is looking to identify DNA markers, a kind of genetic 'fingerprinting', which will allow breeders to screen for salt tolerance. With field trials planned for later this year, Genc hopes to find the same effect in the field. 'We've picked two sites. Both are saline affected sites. I really can't wait to plant this population,' he says. 'The results from these trials could be a major step forward towards salt-tolerant wheat.' Dr Genc is a Molecular Plant Breeding CRC researcher based at the University of Adelaide and South Australian Research and Development Institute.

European Commission to support failing biotech crop sector

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 11 April 2007.

Brussels -- The European Commission intends to promote genetically modified (GM) crops in Europe, even though it admits that that the European public does not want to eat GM foods, warned Friends of the Earth Europe today. The European Commission's mid-term review of the EU's Biotech Strategy today called for increased financial and political support for biotechnology applications - including GM crops - while acknowledging the poor performance of the GM crop sector and its widespread public opposition. [1]

Helen Holder, GMO Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said, "The European Commission's own research shows that the use of GM crops is an economic failure. But instead of scrapping its support, the Commission is instead ignoring the wishes of the majority of the European public and asking for looser regulation and more taxpayers' money for genetically modified crops." [2]

Research published last month by Friends of the Earth Europe shows that environmentally-friendly farming will create more jobs and make the EU more competitive than if it grows genetically modified (GM) crops [3].

"Growing genetically modified crops has not lived up to expectations on increasing competitiveness and employment. In contrast, the green farming sector - including organic production - provides an environmentally friendly source of food while stimulating the economy and creating jobs, but is unfortunately starved of political and financial support by European Union decisionmakers," Ms Holder added.

For more information, please contact:

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe: Mobile +32 (0)474 857 638

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 25 42 61 05, Mobile: +32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

NOTES

[1] The European Union's Biotechnology Strategy was adopted in 2002 for a period of eight years, with an evaluation due this year. The Commission's proposals are being sent to EU member states for agreement at the EU Competitiveness Council this June. For the mid-term review, see: http://ec.europa.eu/biotechnology/docs/com_2007_175_en.pdf

[2] The poor performance of GM crops will be confirmed by the European Commission's research institute (IPTS) next week, when the results of a cost benefit analysis of biotechnology in the European Union are presented at a conference in Brussels.

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Draft summary report "Contributions of modern biotechnology to European policy objectives". Study website: http://bio4eu.jrc.es/

[3] "The EU's Biotech Strategy: Mid-term review or mid-life crisis? A scoping study on how European agricultural biotechnology will fail the Lisbon objectives and on the socio-economic benefits of ecologically compatible farming" Friends of the Earth Europe, March 2007

Executive summary:

http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_biotech_MTR_midlifecrisis_March07_execsum.pdf

Full report:

http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_biotech_MTR_midlifecrisis_March07.pdf

Rosemary Hall
Communications Officer
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue Blanche 15
B-1050 Bruxelles
Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 542 6105
Mobile: +32 485 930515
Fax: +32 2 537 5596
rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org

The Philippines: Staving off GMO invasions

Nature Speaks, 11 April 2007. By Benedicto Sanchez.

I PLANNED to write an Easter column about the resurrection and the "afterlife" of some former high-ranking Maoist cadres who returned to their childhood Christian faith. But that will have to wait another time. A happy Easter to all!

April 11, 2007 is a heartbeat away when the provincial government holds a second public hearing on the anti-GMO ordinance to protect the island's emerging organic food industry.

Those who will attend should heed a recent TIME article on how American organic farmers were double-crossed when genetically modified (GM) corn cross-pollinated their cattle feed. Their experience should ring warning bells in Negros Island, the organic food bowl of Asia.

Organic food, by globally-accepted standards, must be free of GM materials, and organic crops are required to be isolated from non-organic crops. That might be possible with chemically-cultivated crops, but with GM planting materials, that is fast becoming a tall order.

As the Time article noted, as GM crops become more prevalent, there is little that an organic farmer can do to prevent a speck of GM pollen or a stray GM seed from being blown by the wind onto his land or farm equipment and, eventually, into his products. In 2006, GM crops accounted for 61 percent of all the corn planted in the U.S. and 89 percent of all the soybeans. With the resurgence of corn-based ethanol in the US, we can expect a further percentage increase of GM cornfields.

It noted the experience of Californian Albert Straus, owner of the Straus Family Creamery. He decided to test the feed that he gives his 1,600 cows and was alarmed to find that nearly six percent of the organic corn feed he received from suppliers was "contaminated" by GMOs.

With five other natural food producers, Strauss and organic industry leader Whole Foods announced that they would seek a new certification for their products, "non-GMO verified," in the hopes that it will become a voluntary industry standard for GM-free goods.

A non-profit group called the Non-GMO Project runs the program, and the testing is conducted by an outside lab called Genetic ID. In a few weeks, Straus expects to become the first food manufacturer in the country to carry the "non-GMO verified" label on top of his "organic" certification. With Whole Foods inside the loop, the rest of the organic industry is expected to follow his footsteps.

If you wonder about the big deal on GM-free certification, well, it IS a big deal. The additional cost for the "non-GMO verified" label is no chicken feed, as Strauss found out.

To stamp out GM corn, Straus plunked $10,000 testing, re-testing and tracing back his products: from his own dairy's milk, to other dairies that supply some of his milk, to the brokers who sell them feed, to their mills that grind the corn, to farmers who grow it. To put the GM-free label on his ice cream, Straus will have to trace the chickens that provided the egg yolks, the grain used in the alcohol that carries his vanilla extract and the soy lecithin used as an emulsifier for his chocolate chips.

Certification labeling is a crucial element in the organic industry. It's a mark of good housekeeping, a seal of trustworthiness that a product is free from growth hormones, antibiotics, poisonous synthetic chemicals and GM contaminants. In the global organic market, an organically-labeled food item translates to premium prices above their non-organic counterpart.

With the growing incidence of cancer which are traced to junk and fast food, the organic industry has rephrased the adage to "an organic apple a day keeps the doctor away." That means that even if a consumer pays more for organic products, the cost still constitute a savings if organic produce can keep the doctor at bay.

Let the bleeding hearts of those who pushed for the second hearing to give the likes of Monsanto and other transnational GM-based companies a fair shake take to heart Albert Strauss's lessons in life. By abetting the GM invasion of our organic island, they would have shown not their spirit of fair play but their bias toward these multinational companies, and their betrayal of the organic industry. Please email comments to bqsanc@yahoo.com.

10 April 2007

West Africa: Civil Society Rejects ECOWAS Plan for Biotech

Lagos This Day (Lagos), April 9 2007. By Godwin Haruna.

The planned introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) crops by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) ministers into the region has been rejected by a coalition of civil society organisations at a one-day conference in Accra, Ghana, last week.

The conference, which was organised by Environmental Rights Action/ Friends of the Earth, Nigeria and Friends of the Earth, Ghana, also condemned the planned introduction of GMO cassava in Ghana following the failure of similar trials in Nigeria and the non- conclusive outcome of the over three year-confined trials of BT Cotton in Burkina Faso.

The conference timed as a parallel event to the ECOWAS Ministerial meeting on biotechnology has the theme: "Checking the GMO Policy Thrust in ECOWAS" and it was attended by NGO representatives from Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Cameroun as well as scientists, consumer groups, students, farmers and journalists.

A resolution adopted after the conference noted that the GM debate was not about food production only but matters of food sovereignty, good governance and democracy and as such, ECOWAS governments needs to rise to the occasion by rejecting any attempt to privatize the region's food chain by a few corporations.

The participants stressed that an all inclusive process devoid of biotech industry interference be put in place by ECOWAS to produce an acceptable Agricultural Action Plan for West Africa.

It demanded that ECOWAS governments should reject industry lobby to open every space for GMOs through laws that provides for the declaration of GMO-free zones.

They further stated that ECOWAS ministers must develop a policy that prioritizes the development of local agricultural systems and look away from dependence on the biotech industry and their sponsored organizations who being profit fixated see the people merely as markets.

West Africa: Resistance continues to GM crops
Mali: not on my farm

Le Monde diplomatique, April 2006

Cotton is the main currency earner for Mali, one of the world's poorest countries. Before Mali would allow the introduction of GM cotton, it asked a citizen's jury to evaluate its potential advantages and dangers. After deliberation, the jury voted against GM.

By Roger Gaillard

A tall, thin man jumped to his feet and grabbed the microphone. In a resonant voice, his forefinger raised towards the fans that struggled to mitigate the midday heat, he addressed the meeting in Bambara, the local language: "We're just poor farmers. Why are they asking us to accept GMOs if the rich farmers in northern countries don't want them?" There were murmurs of agreement from the audience. The microphone was passed to a young farmer with her baby: "What's the point of encouraging us to increase yields with GMOs when we can't get a decent price for what we already produce?"

This happened in the south of Mali, one of the poorest countries in the world. Sikasso is a quiet town in a rural province that produces two-thirds of Mali's main currency earner, cotton. For five days in January, 43 small farmers, many of them women, met for an extraordinary exercise in participatory democracy. The Sikasso Regional Assembly, the provincial parliament, invited cotton growers from across the region to form a citizens' jury to evaluate the potential advantages and dangers of introducing GM into Malian agriculture. The Citizen's Space for Democratic Deliberation (Ecid) took its name from a form of public debate that is already well-established in Mali. For the first time in West Africa, the jury was supported by European partners promoting participative methods as a means of assessing technological choices and development policies (1).

The Sikasso forum was a response to the strong pressure being exerted upon African countries by food-processing multinationals, led by the United States company Monsanto and the Swiss Syngenta Foundation, which aspire to industrialise the agricultural sector and open markets to transgenic crops. They are promoting Bt cotton, which produces an effective toxin against certain pests, theoretically allowing the reduction of pesticide use and guaranteeing higher yields to farmers. Since West Africa is the world's third-largest cotton-producing area, there is much at stake for these companies, which enjoy the support of the US Agency for International Development and its $100m budget to encourage biotechnologies in the developing world.

African responses have been varied. Despite the threat of famine, Zambia has refused aid from the World Food Programme, which notoriously peddles surplus US GM maize. Benin has accepted this double-edged gift, despite declaring a five-year moratorium on GMOs in 2002. South Africa, the food industry's bridgehead, has grown transgenic cotton and maize for almost 10 years, with controversial results. In Burkina Faso, Mali's neighbour, full field trials of GM cotton have been under way since 2003 despite opposition.

In Sikasso, the citizens' jury members listened with sustained concentration to expert witnesses from western and southern Africa, India and Europe. Molecular biologists, agricultural engineers, members of NGOs and representatives of farmers' movements answered wide-ranging questions about the benefits and dangers: environmental and health risks, real productivity increases, socio-economic factors, ethical and legal issues, and cultural implications, all the more relevant for often being unspoken. The Bambara expression for GM is Bayere ma'shi ("transformed mother"): in a country where animism remains a powerful force beneath a veneer of Islam, the reality of genetic engineering - transferring genes from one species to another - is enough to disturb.

Much discussion

There was much discussion of the crucial problem of intellectual property rights and the patenting of living organisms. As the Beninese geneticist Jeanne Zoundjihekpon, from the NGO Grain, pointed out: "Bt seeds are protected by patents that give companies absolute control over growers. Small farmers have always kept seed from the harvest to re-sow the following year, but now the threat of legal action will deprive them of that right." This is a telling argument in an area of Africa where, as Mamadou Goita, director of the Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage, reminded the assembly, the cotton industry is in crisis. The Malian Textile Development Company, 60% of which is owned by the state and 40% by the French company Dagris, is losing money following the devaluation of the CFA franc and the collapse of the global market in white gold, despite the fact that between 1994 and 2005 annual production rose from 320,000 to 600,000 tonnes.

The World Bank has made the company's privatisation in 2008 a necessary condition for any financial aid to Mali's government. At a time when the cost of imported chemicals is rising, the company's losses have driven down the price it pays to producers from 210 CFA francs per kilo in 2004 to 160 (approx 30 US cents) in 2006. Cotton is no longer profitable and many farmers who grow it exclusively are considering diversifying into food crops such as millet and maize. But GoÔta has another suggestion: "Organic cotton could be a passport to markets in European countries where there is opposition to GMOs. In Mali there are 3,000,000 people who depend on cotton, so we simply can't compete with a power like the US, which practises a policy of dumping by paying massive subsidies of $4bn a year to just 25,000 growers."

The multinationals refused to put their case to the jury. "We sent several invitations to Syngenta and Monsanto," explained Barbara Bordogna, a biologist with RIBios and a member of the Ecid steering committee, "but they seem reluctant to engage in an open and transparent debate that they are unable to control." But Monsanto did recommend farmers who supported its cause. A Zulu farmer, TJ Buthelezi, who has been growing Bt cotton since 1996, insisted that the results were conclusive: ever since fields sown with transgenic cotton withstood a flood that devastated conventional crops, he has exclusively grown GMOs, including maize which he eats himself without any ill-effect on his health. "Copy me," he told the Malian farmers. "Get rich!"

PV Satheesh, from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, put the counter-argument with the results of a methodical three-year study showing that traditional cotton growers in his region had obtained higher yields than those testing transgenic seed, and that pesticide use with Bt varieties was only marginally lower than with conventional varieties. The higher price of Bt seed, combined with disappointing yields, eventually ruined many small farmers. Following Monsanto's refusal to agree compensation, the state of Andhra Pradesh recently banned it from operating within its borders.

Other witnesses expressed less polarised positions. Ouola Traore is an agronomist and head of the cotton programme at the Institute for the Environment and Agricultural Research in Burkina Faso, where Bt cotton has been undergoing tests since 2003 with a view to starting commercial production after 2010. He said: "The only way to determine whether GMOs are a future solution for West Africa is to carry out in-depth research into local varieties adapted to our climate." But his call for independent public research didn't go down well with an audience suspicious of the notorious dependence of Africa's scientific institutions upon funding from lobbies promoting biotechnological development.

The members of the jury finally separated into several committees (one all-woman) based on the size of their holdings. After deliberating for a day, they returned their verdict: no. The Sikasso farmers unanimously rejected the introduction of GMOs to Mali, their primary concern being to prevent dependence upon multinationals by preserving local varieties and traditional know-how. As Brahim Sidebe, put it: "We want to be the masters of our own fields, not slaves."

Birama Kone emphasised the preservation of a cooperative way of life: "Our farmers are used to helping each other. The danger is that GMOs will destroy that sense of friendship and solidarity. If I have a GM field and my neighbour doesn't, contamination problems are bound to create conflict between us."

For the women, Basri Lidigoita called for research into using traditional agronomic techniques to improve local varieties, and for better training for small farmers, especially in organic farming.

The jury's recommendations were passed to the Sikasso Regional Assembly on 29 January and broadcast by local radio stations (whichhad relayed the debate daily) and by Malian television. The result is not binding, but it is likely to prove influential since Mali is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2). Under proposed legislation there would be public consultation at a national level before the introduction of any GMO, even for testing.

"We don't want GMOs, ever," said Lidigoita, "and we are calling upon the government to prevent them entering the country. If farmers grow them illegally, we'll set fire to their fields."

Translated by Donald Hounam

Roger Gaillard is a journalist with the InfoSud press agency, Geneva

Notes

(1) The Biosafety Interdisciplinary Network, which organises courses in biosecurity at the universities of Geneva and Lausanne, will soon offer one in the Malian capital, Bamako.

(2) The Cartagena Protocol on the prevention of biotechnological risk, adopted as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, is intended "to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements". By the set date of 4 June 2001, 103 countries had signed.

9 April 2007

The Philippines: BPI upholds permit for GMO corn

AgBioView & the Phillipine Star, 9 April 2007.

Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) Director Joel Rudinas has upheld the permit for Monsanto's genetically modified corn MON863, assuring that the strictest tests and most stringent standards were applied by the BPI on the genetically-modified organism (GMO) corn MON863 before it was approved for entry and cultivation in the Philippines.

Rudinas said that the BPI approved MON863 "for direct use as food or feed and for processing on Oct. 7, 2003 based on a stringent regulatory process and compliance of the applicant on the terms and conditions set forth under Department of Agriculture (DA) Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 2002."

Rudinas said that contrary to fears raised by international environmental watchdog Greenpeace, "the safety assessments were conducted based on the context of international agreements like the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Codex Alimentarius and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)."

Rudinas added that "Corn MON863 has undergone a process of scientific and technical assessment. Under DA AO8, the scientific evidence on the safety of Corn MON863 was examined thoroughly by an independent team of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) and parallel examination done by technical personnel of the Bureau of Agriculture, Fisheries and Product Standards (BAFPS) for food safety and the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) for feed safety."

Earlier, Greenpeace claimed that the corn strain showed signs of toxicity based on a study undertaken by a panel of three independent scientists in France.

The study, argued Greenpeace, showed that laboratory rats fed with the GMO corn Monsanto (MON) 863 YieldGard Rootworm displayed kidney and liver toxicity.

MON 863 is corn genetically manipulated to produce its own insecticide called "modified Cry3Bb1" to kill rootworm insects in the soil.

It also contains gene coding for antibiotic resistance.

Rudinas said "the evaluation is rigorous and the BPI and its partner-institutions ensure that only genetically-modified crops that have been well studied and found safe to human and animal health are allowed into our food supply and into our environment."

Given these processes, Rudinas said "the DA upholds the permit for Corn MON863, which allows the importation of the regulated article for direct use as food, feed and for processing." Rudinas said the BPI, however, would revisit the risk assessment for Corn MON863 "if new data provide that the risks have changed."

Moreover, Rubinas added, "the DA and its regulatory agencies will continue to monitor all GM crops and products that have been granted commercial approval to ensure that there are no significant risks to human and animal health and the environment."

Entitled "New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity," the study was published in the scientific journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.

The study analyzed results of safety tests submitted by Monsanto to the European Commission (EC) when the company was seeking authorization to market MON 863 in the European Union.

The data shows that significant health risks were associated with the GMO corn.

Still, EC granted licenses to market MON 863 for consumption by both humans and animals.

The data was obtained by Greenpeace following a court case, and was passed on for evaluation by a team of experts headed by Prof. Gilles Eric SÈralini, a governmental expert in genetic-engineering from the University of Caen in France.

South-East Asia: Korean, Vietnamese defoliant victims join forces

Yonhap, April 9 2007

South Korean and Vietnamese veterans of the Vietnam War stood together Monday to demand compensation from US manufacturers of Agent Orange, which they say has caused them ongoing illnesses.

In front of a 31-meter tower at South Korea's national cemetery, they burned incense and paid a silent tribute together to honor the hundreds of thousands of war veterans buried there, Yonhap News Agency reported.

The veterans share a bitter past as well as the same agony in the present ‚ what they claim are the lingering after-effects of the deadly defoliant sprayed by the US during the war.

They are fighting together to receive compensations from the US makers of Agent Orange.

The victims of the fatal chemical carry a continuing legacy of the Vietnam War, which ended three decades ago.

More than 4.7 million Vietnamese are said to continue to suffer from a range of illnesses, including birth defects, cardiovascular disease, cancer and nervous disorders because of the chemical defoliant dropped during the war in which South Korea fought alongside the US. South Korean activists estimate the number of Korean victims of the chemicals at around 150,000.

South Korea dispatched about 320,000 soldiers to Vietnam to become the largest foreign contingent of U.S. allies fighting in the war, with 5,000 killed in action and nearly 11,000 others wounded, according to official data.

"The past is bygone. South Korea and Vietnam are friends and partners for now and the future," Do Xuan Dien, a Vietnamese veteran, told Yonhap News Agency.

The 75-year-old former army major general arrived in Seoul earlier in the day for a week-long stay in his capacity as vice president of the Vietnam's Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA).

He is heading a nine-member delegation from the VAVA, which paid homage to the fallen soldiers at the National Cemetery in Seoul, along with around 120 members of the South Korean group of Agent Orange victims.

"We are preparing for a lawsuit against the makers of Agent Orange. So we want to learn from the South Korean group's experience," the grey-haired Vietnamese man said.

Last year, a South Korean court ordered Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co., two makers of Agent Orange, to pay US$62 million in compensation to thousands of South Korean Vietnam war veterans and their families.

India: Farmers implead in the GM public interest litigation

There's been another major development in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) brought by Aruna Rodrigues and three co-Petitioners before India's Supreme Court.

Over 6.5 million farmers from every state in India are asking the Supreme Court to let them join the case before the Court, saying GM crops risk irreversibly damaging India's farmland and biodiversity.

This new move follows on from the application already filed in the Supreme Court by the Association of the Rice Millers and Exporters in India, who want a GM moratorium to protect the rights of farmers and consumers to grow and consume GM-free crops, as well as to ensure - in their interest and in the national interest - that exports don't suffer because of GM contamination. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7310

EXTRACT: it is now quite clear that the [national Government] of India and its Regulator consider the protection of Monsanto and the rest of the industry as having priority over public health and India's sovereign interests of food security and her bio-safety.

Press release, 9 April 2007

Over 6.5 million farmers from every state in India 'pray" to India's Supreme Court to be impleaded in the GM Public Interest Litigation (PIL). In an unprecedented and huge reaction to the Union of India's continuing drive to force GM crops on an unaware farming community and an unaware population, farmers say:

"No GM crops"; "NO" to the absolute certainty of irreversible contamination of their fields and seed stock if GM crops are not banned.

Contamination from GM Crops Including Field Trials Risk Farmlands & India's Bio-diversity in Perpetuity

Contamination, even the risk of contamination, from GM crops has been long denied by the GE Industry as a figment of the imagination of those opposing GM crops. However, it is a biological FACT and the physical evidence of genetic contamination being reported from all over the world is now incontrovertible and conclusive. The recent GM rice contamination of US long-grain rice is so serious that the damage to the US rice industry is valued in billions of $s with countries moving to ban US rice imports and American farmers being stopped from planting rice in the current season. The GM contamination of rice in the US is spiralling out of control despite the best attempts of farmers, millers, exporters and the Regulator to contain it and clean-up. Thus, the strategy of GM crop developers in the US and other parts of the world has now changed to demanding that they be allowed to contaminate Non GM crops! Regulation is being 'bent' to allow contamination. And the reasons are:

* That testing techniques are not sensitive enough to detect contamination at zero detection levels so some contamination is therefore inevitable and should be accepted as reasonable, even of organic certified crops! Thereafter, contamination of all crops by GM will be so pervasive that we will be faced with a 'fait accompli' everywhere, particularly in India and the developing world, that it will be futile to oppose it. 'NATURAL' SEEDS WILL BE VIRTUALLY EXTINCT. This is quite simply the objective of the Biotech GE industry led by Monsanto.

The question that must be asked is; why is the Union of India with its Regulator the GEAC and DBT aiding and abetting such an objective? This is the mystery because, the astonishing fact is, that the Union of India and its Regulator are complicit in allowing the contamination of India's farmlands, food and the environment, as they continue to actively promote and approve GM crops and field trials of every conceivable oilseed, grain and vegetable, not undertaken in any other country in the world. GM crops continue to be largely untested by regulators that rely on the crop developer's assurance of their safety. Leading International scientists warn of the serious hazards connected with GM crops; that they are unsafe for human and animal health and for the environment. Toxicity and allergenicity tests are conspicuous by their absence in every country, not just India. When the Regulator was requested by GreenPeace for such data under the RTI for brinjal and okra, it was refused on grounds of CBI (Confidential Business Information). Thus, it is now quite clear that the Union of India and its Regulator consider the protection of Monsanto and the rest of the industry as having priority over public health and India's sovereign interests of food security and her bio-safety.

Genetically engineered crops because of the certainty of genetic contamination therefore also preclude or negate farmer rights to grow Non-GM crops, and indigenous people's community rights. Without the required prohibitions and remedies in place, farmers are faced with multiple threats arising from the adverse and irreversible impact of GMOs on them. They therefore require the following action to be taken immediately (amongst other measures):

i. No GM Crops to be Grown in India.

ii. A Full List of Field Trials and their Locations during 2005-7: It is also required that DNA sequences of the genes in field trials are put in the public domain to allow probes to be easily developed to perform independent PCR tests to detect whether these experimental genes have contaminated farmlands and / or made it into food. GE crop developers may not be allowed to hide behind bogus claims of CBI (confidential business information), as the GEAC have repeatedly cited, putting public health and the environment in jeopardy.

iii. Deterrent & Precautionary Measures:

* Any farmer that suspects his fields have been contaminated will have the right to ask for tests to be conducted on his crop and land. Detection levels for GM contamination are being constantly refined and state-of-the-art labs are currently able to detect traceability levels of genetic contamination of less than 0.01%. It is stressed that farmers require zero tolerance for genetic contamination. The Regulator will not be exempt from responsibility if contamination occurs, the rules for which must be addressed.

* Testing for genetic contamination, which will be required periodically, or as required by stakeholders for quality assurance regarding the genetic purity of their crop. These are required to be done at the crop developers' expense and will be carried out in a time-bound way within the stipulated period of time, non compliance of which will attract penalties as laid down.

* Compensation for genetic contamination will be penal to be worked out according to the well grounded and established legal principle of Tort and will also entail criminal liability individually and collectively.

iv. The Institution of an Ombudsman: Given the track record of the Government and its Regulator and anti-farmer stance in promoting GM crops, it is clear that we have a thoroughly compromised Government. Therefore, in order to engender a commitment to objectivity, it is required that the many issues outlined above, most critically the environmental defence of India, must be overseen by an independent and autonomous Body, free of bureaucrats in its management, with the active involvement of civil society in the election and execution of its mandate. Such an 'Ombudsman' must carry the critical Constitutional mandate of the 'Protection of India's Biodiversity'. It therefore becomes necessary that its authority is underpinned by an Act of Parliament by which it will be instituted.

Petitioners

Dr. KrishanBir Chaudhary: Petitioner No 1
Executive Chairman Bharat Krishak Samaj
With Co-Petitioners:
Arun K Shrivastava (New Delhi) and
Mrs. Begari Samamamma (Andhra Pradesh)

9th April 2007

8 April 2007

USA: Milk flows freely

The Register-Guard, April 8 2007. By Tim Christie.

The family members who own Lochmead Dairy and Dari-Mart stores offer a simple explanation for why they never used artificial hormones to boost milk production: Their cows don't need it, and their customers don't want it.

"We sell milk directly to customers," Lochmead president Jock Gibson once said. "We know damn well and good they don't want it."

In recent years, the Junction City dairy has watched as a growing number of dairies in Oregon and Washington - Tillamook, Umpqua, Darigold, Wilcox Farms, Alpenrose - have taken the same path. The Pacific Northwest dairies are at the forefront of what has now become a national movement away from artificial hormones in dairy products.

Consumer preference is driving those dairies away from recombinant bovine growth hormone, known as rBGH or rBST, made by Monsanto Co. and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1993. The artificial hormone, which mimics the cow's natural hormones, boosts milk production by 10 to 15 percent.

The latest dairy to reject rBGH is also the biggest: California Dairies Inc., which ships 14 billion pounds of milk each year, accounting for 8 percent of all liquid milk shipped in the United States.

The Fresno-based cooperative told its member farmers last month that it would no longer accept milk from cows treated with the artificial hormone.

Members who decided to keep using rBGH would have to pay a premium to cover the co-op's cost of shipping the milk to alternative markets.

"We're merely responding to our customers' demands and we've gotten very strong support," said Richard Cotta, the co-op's CEO.

A Monsanto spokesman, Andrew Burchett, said, "It's a concern when U.S. farmers are denied access to approved technologies that are going to help them make money. It's also a concern that milk that is no different is being disparaged by deceptive marketing."

Richard North, a project director for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, which has been waging a national campaign against rBGH for more than three years, said California Dairies Inc.'s sheer size means its decision on artificial hormone will have a ripple effect in the industry.

Consumers, North said, are "voting with their dollars. ... The dairies that continue to allow this are losing market share and they know it.

"The more milk brands that go rBGH-free and label it, that puts more pressure on other dairies that are not rBGH-free to do the same," he said.

Most Oregon dairies already have gone that route, North said. Some produce milk without rBGH, but still use it for other dairy products, he said.

Umpqua Dairy in Roseburg stopped buying milk from farmers who use rBGH about four years ago, said Steve Feldkamp, chief operating officer.

"It's really consumer driven," he said. "Consumers are telling us they don't want to have any possibility of (an artificial) hormone in our milk, so we listened to our consumers."

(Dairies can't say their milk is "hormone-free" because cow's milk contains natural hormones.)

Tillamook Country Creamery Association, the co-op that makes Tillamook brand cheese and ice cream and whose members account for about half of dairy production in Oregon, began phasing out rBGH in the milk it uses to make cheese in 2004.

Tillamook spokesman Mark Wustenberg said in a statement that the decision was "based mainly on what we were learning from our consumers through market research, customer and consumer comments, market trends and buying habits." He said co-op officials believe there continues to be "significant concern" on the part of consumers about rBGH.

Pacific Northwest dairies may be at the forefront in rejecting rBGH, but they're not alone. Dairies in New England, Texas, New Jersey and Montana also have stopped using the artificial hormone, North said. And rBGH is banned in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the European Union.

The artificial hormone is under attack on other fronts as well.

In January, Starbucks, which uses milk products in its coffee drinks, announced that it was asking its dairy suppliers to move toward products that were rBGH-free.

In Oregon, all the milk used at Starbucks is produced without the hormone, a spokeswoman said.

Safeway has phased out milk with rBGH from its stores in Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, Montana and Pennsylvania, spokeswoman Bridget Flanagan said. By the end of this year, all 1,800 Safeway stores will sell only rBGH-free milk, she said.

The preference for milk without rBGH comes as Americans in general are paying more attention to what they put in their mouths. For example, sales of organic foods in the United States have increased from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $12 billion in 2004 - an average increase of 29 percent a year, according to the Food Marketing Institute.

"There definitely is a trend for consumers to want healthier foods," North said.

Physicians for Social Responsibility estimates rBGH is used in 15 to 20 percent of dairy cows nationwide, and about 10 percent in Oregon.

Consumers are demanding dairy products made without artificial hormones, even though scientific evidence about whether it poses a risk to human health is inconclusive.

The FDA and Monsanto say milk produced by cows treated with rBGH is perfectly safe and indistinguishable from milk produced without the hormone. Critics such as North say there's evidence that it could cause cancer, although such evidence is inconclusive.

Lochmead Dairy never made a big deal about its decision not to use rBGH, and only started making note of it on its labels about a year ago, said Kim Gibson, the general manager.

"We decided to start labeling it because we were receiving calls almost daily requesting the information," she said. "We never thought we were special for what we don't do.

"We've focused more of our energy on producing good milk."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

India: GM body flouting law: Plan panel

The Times of India, 8 April 2007. By Nitin Sethi.

NEW DELHI: The genetic engineering approval committee or GEAC [India's apex GM regulatory body], is flagrantly disregarding the law, says a Planning Commission taskforce report submitted recently as a precursor to the 11th Five-Year Plan. The report has questioned the safety levels being used to regulate GM technology in India.

This is the second scathing report from a Planning Commission taskforce, which has created quite a stir by raking up serious concerns about the functioning of the environment ministry. The ministry, irked at the report, has written back to the Plan panel saying that it had not been consulted during the writing of the report. However, the authors of the report rebutted the accusations by presenting evidence that the ministry had chosen not to present its data before the taskforce even when directly asked to.

The report rips through the functioning of the GEAC. "The failure of the GEAC to control the situation even many years down the line does not inspire confidence in its capabilities. The fact that it authorised commercial cultivation of Monsanto's Bt cotton even when there was no state or district level committee to oversee and monitor its release and cultivation did stir several controversies," says the taskforce.

The report hit out at the capability of the committee, stating that "at present, members of the GEAC are not qualified to understand the process of bio-safety assessment, environment assessment or environmental impact assessment, which are central to their functioning."

nitin.sethi@timesgroup.com

USA: How to Confine the Plants of the Future?

New York Times, April 8 2007. By Denise Caruso.

A NEW generation of genetically engineered crops that produce drugs and chemicals is fast approaching the market - bringing with it a new wave of concerns about the safety of the global food and feed supply.

The plants produce medicinal substances like insulin, anticoagulants and blood substitutes. They produce vaccine proteins for diseases like cholera, as well as antibodies against tooth decay and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Enzymes and other chemicals from the plants can be used for a range of industrial processes.

As in past debates over genetically modified crops, biotech developers say that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that the risks are manageable. Critics question the benefits, and say the risk of a contaminated and potentially toxic food supply is untenable.

In the middle, balancing economic benefit and public safety, are our appointed arbiters of risk, the government regulators.

Controversies over biotech risk are caused by a crisis in "official scientific expertise," according to Jerome Ravetz, an associate fellow at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at the University of Oxford.

The crisis, he said, stems from the conflicting roles of government. On one side, businesses provide regulators with scientific evidence about the risk and safety of their product innovations. On the other, suspicious citizens demand that regulators challenge that evidence.

The side whose expertise is accepted as "official" calls the shots.

So far, the business sector has tipped the scales in its favor. Despite science-based concerns voiced by farmers, environmentalists and even its own researchers, the United States Department of Agriculture has approved more than 100 applications to grow so-called biopharma crops of corn, soybeans, barley, rice, safflower and tobacco in the United States.

Developers say these crops are the best way to achieve the economies of scale and cost savings that will let them meet rising demand for drugs like human insulin.

They acknowledge that growing pharmaceutical crops is riskier than making drugs in factories. They know that the plants contain potentially toxic drugs and chemicals, and because they look like ordinary crops, they can be mistaken for food, both before and after harvest.

The most important thing, then, is to keep biopharma plants, pollen and seeds confined to the fields where they are planted. Otherwise, they may contaminate other crops, wild relatives and the environment.

Developers say they have worked with the Agriculture Department to develop containment procedures for biopharma crops.

"Under our system, the degree of oversight is commensurate with the risk of the crops," said John Turner, director of the policy coordination program for the agency's Biotechnology Regulatory Services. "We take extraordinary measures to make sure these pharma and industrial crops are kept separate and confined."

To this end, some developers use plants like rice and safflower that self-pollinate, reducing the risk of contaminating nonpharma plants by wind and insect pollination.

They also provide regulators with data on the potential health and environmental effects of the special chemicals in their crops.

For example, SemBioSys, a Canadian company, has applied to the U.S.D.A. for permits to grow safflower-based human insulin. It is already field-testing safflower crops in the United States and Chile that produce carp growth hormone for aquaculture feed, to bolster the weak immune systems of farmed shrimp.

The company's chief executive, Andrew Baum, says "categorically" that the insulin derived from its plants has no biological effects while in plant form, and is activated only after processing. And the evidence his company has gathered indicates that its carp growth hormone affects only shrimp.

The new methods, Mr. Baum said, can cut capital costs by 70 percent, and "reach levels of scale easier than any other system."

But there is some scientific evidence not acknowledged in biopharma risk assessments that casts a dark cloud over this silver lining.

For starters, the "system" under discussion is nature, and despite our best efforts it always manages to elude our puny attempts at controlling it. The containment practices used by developers assume an ability to control living and propagating organisms, which scientific evidence does not support.

One scientist familiar with some of the issues raised by pharma crops is Norman C. Ellstrand, a professor in the department of genetics at the University of California, Riverside, and director of its Biotechnology Impacts Center. Professor Ellstrand is known as a fair and credible critic of various aspects of agricultural biotechnology.

He is deeply skeptical that efforts to confine biopharma genes in open fields will work.

"I don't think that engineering plants for pharma is a bad idea, with two caveats," Professor Ellstrand said. One, he says he thinks that planting should be done in greenhouses rather than in open fields. "The other issue is food," he said. "Why do we have to do this in food crops? It doesn't matter what you're squeezing the compound out of. It could be a carnation, a corn plant or a castor bean."

Professor Ellstrand also said that self-pollination does not eliminate gene flow between plants, and that cross-pollination is not the only way that pharma crops can escape confinement. Once harvested, seeds can move easily, accidentally or deliberately, across and beyond borders. As a result, valuable biopharma crops may well end up growing in fields far from the controlled environment on which developers depend for safety. And what happens from there is anyone's guess.

Once the rogue seeds are replanted, could the plants thrive in their new home and possibly overtake native varieties or wild relatives? Could the pharma trait increase in frequency and concentration, until it reaches a "dose" that causes health effects in those who consume it unwittingly? The probability for any one of these situations may be low, Professor Ellstrand said, but the scientific answer to each question is yes.

What is most worrisome is that the Agriculture Department seems to reject such reasonable, science-based public safety concerns. Agency policy allows developers to withhold data on pharma crops from the public as confidential business information, and the public is not allowed to comment on biopharma planting applications until after an official risk evaluation is completed.

Such behavior has raised the hackles of many farmers and food producers who are concerned about biopharma crops. Rice farmers, in particular, know what happens when a food crop is contaminated with unapproved genes. The U.S.D.A has presided over two such scares in less than a year, and the rice industry has suffered greatly as it tries to purge contaminants from crops.

AT the end of March, the Agriculture Department approved a permit allowing a California biotech company, Ventria Bioscience, to plant its pharmaceutical rice in open fields in Kansas.

Ventria's pharma rice is engineered to produce two of the human proteins found in breast milk and other body fluids. Once harvested, the proteins will be used in treatments for diarrhea and infections, as well as in nutritional supplements.

In a public comment demanding that the Agriculture Department withdraw the Ventria approval, the U.S.A. Rice Federation wrote: "If Ventria's pharmaceutical rice were to escape into the commercial rice supply, the financial devastation to the U.S. rice industry would likely be absolute. There is no tolerance, either regulatory or in public perception, for a human gene-based pharmaceutical to end up in the world's food supply."

So whose market is more important: the farmers' or the drug makers'? Whose health matters more: people who need drugs or people who eat food?

Scientists often dismiss the idea that people without technical knowledge can help them make risk assessments. As a result, biotech scientists and regulators have long made safety determinations from within an opaque system of their own design, using only the evidence they accept as valid.

But scientific evidence is not a constant, like the speed of light or pi. Especially in biology, where we still know so little, "evidence" is often just a small circle of light surrounded by the darkness of the unknown. Decisions about risk cannot safely be made in a private club that accepts only its members' notions of scientific evidence.

The best research on risk declares the opposite to be true: that risk evidence is particularly subject to distortion by conflicting interests, and that the best foil for such distortions is to ensure that the people whose fate is at stake participate in the analysis.

We need a new policy framework for scientific evidence that is built on this foundation. If developers want to sell their products, they must subject their inventions to the helpful scrutiny of people outside the club - before radical technologies like biopharma are brought to market.

Denise Caruso is executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute, which studies collaborative problem-solving. E-mail: dcaruso@nytimes.com.

7 April 2007

Korea: Gov't documents reveal trade-off on textiles, genetically modified crops
In trade negotiations with U.S., Korea accepted loosened quarantine standards in exchange for opened U.S. textile market

The South Korean government pledged to ease quarantine rules on products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under a free trade agreement with the United States struck on April 2, but while negotiations were underway on the deal, the government had denied it was discussing the topic.

In particular, the Korean government denied it linked the issue of the U.S. opening its textile market and Korea accepting U.S. GMOs, something that government documents obtained by the Hankyoreh says was indeed tied together during the talks.

In a series of talks last month on the South Korea-U.S. FTA, including the eighth round of ministerial meetings, both sides discussed GMOs, but the government explained that the issue had come up only in a separate "technical meeting" as GMOs were "not a part of the FTA agenda."

On April 5, the Hankyoreh reported, citing internal documents of the Korean delegation, that South Korea accepted the U.S. proposal that Washington would make a compromise in textile if Seoul eased quarantine regulations for GMOs.

On the same day, Kim Jong-hoon, South Korea's chief negotiator in FTA talks with the U.S., told lawmakers that, "I know well about the textile negotiations. Under any steps of the talks, the U.S. didn't present a demand over the GMO." And the following day, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy issued an official rebuttal statement to the Hankyoreh article, saying, "We did not receive a proposal from the U.S. that the U.S. would expand its textile market access on the condition we soften import rules on GMOs." The statement continues, "It's hard to imagine for the U.S., which is sensitive to textile-market opening, to pursue the interests of another industry at the cost of the textile industry."

However, according to the South Korean government internal documents from March 31, named 'South Korea-U.S. FTA extended talks first-day negotiation plan,' and obtained by the Hankyoreh, the government wrote that "Yesterday [March 30], the U.S. chief textile negotiator Scott Quesenberry expressed his stance that the U.S. could improve its textile tariff concession offer, depending on [South Korea's] position over the GMO." Regarding the GMO discussions, the documents said, "The U.S. first offered six outstanding issues [regarding GMOs] on March 12" - the final day of the eighth round of negotiations - "and delivered a revised offer on March 30 after high-level meetings [on March 21]." The documents showed South Korea and the U.S. have in fact discussed GMOs, not only at technical meetings to be held separately from FTA talks, but also at the FTA talks themselves.

In addition, the documents said that "[after the U.S. presented a revised offer], the government delivered its final position to the U.S. as of 1:00 a.m. on March 31." "On the core issue of No. 5, both sides will pursue a separate discussion on practical matters. On other issues, both sides find a common ground in principle and push to agree on specifics." The "No.5 issue" refers to the U.S. side's request to South Korea to sign a GMO deal before South Korea's regulations on GMOs go into effect.

The U.S. then requested South Korea accept five more demands, the documents reveal. In an April 1 technical meeting, South Korea agreed to accept at least three of these five demands. For example, South Korea agreed not to conduct its own safety test on GMOs imported from the U.S. that have had a certified safety check there. In addition, South Korea agreed to set up a consultation channel with the U.S. over importing GMOs.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

USA: In unusual move, biotech giant Monsanto asks for more government regulation

OpEdNews, 7 April 2007. By Martha Rosenberg

It's just not a level playing field anymore says St. Louis based biotech conglomerate Monsanto.

Through deceptive practices and misleading advertising dairies and milk processors are convincing the American public that there's something wrong with [genetically engineered] rBST produced milk and they shouldn't be drinking it.

Dairy after dairy is slapping "rBST-free" and "no artificial growth hormones" on their milk--and it's working!

The public is asking for rBST-free milk--an "artificial demand" says Monsanto, no pun intended--and milk processors are starting to penalize dairies still using rBST.

Even Starbucks has seen the sales figures on the wall and renounced the controversial supplement; Chipotle vows to be next.

But it's not fair, says Monsanto in letters to the FDA and FTC asking the agencies to regulate their competitors.

Not only is there no difference between the two kinds of milk--if you disregard articles like the one linking rBST to ovarian hyperstimulation in the May 2006 Journal of Reproductive Medicine--consumers "pay higher prices for milk and get nothing in return" when they buy rBST-free milk says Monsanto.

Farmers will have a hard time trying to "operate profitably" without the drug and supplies themselves may start dwindling as milk processors and co-ops favor rBST-free producers.

Just look at some of the things Monsanto competitors are saying.

"By not using rBST, we protect the health of our cows, their milk and our customers," proclaims Dean Foods owned Alta Dena Dairy on its web site.

"Since 1857, Borden has taken a lot of pride in providing customers with premium, great tasting dairy products. That's why we work exclusively with farmers that supply 100% of our milk from cows that haven't been treated with artificial hormones."

"We treat our cows with love not rBGH [rBST]," says Kleinpeter Dairy in Louisiana on its milk cartons. "Many people believe that rBGH causes premature puberty in children. We want you to know that Kleinpeter Dairy is concerned about your children's healthy growth and wellbeing. Let our family comfort yours in this regard because our kids drink Kleinpeter milk, too!"

One dairy even has a web site where milk drinkers are "congratulated" for making "the decision to go rBGH free."

Is that fair?

Created by combining cow DNA with E coli, (yes, that E coli) Monsanto's genetically modified recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST, was fast tracked--two FDA staffers were formerly with Monsanto--into the US food supply, unlabeled, in 1994.

It was never approved in the EU, Canada, Japan and most of the industrialized world.

But some never drank the milk shake.

Canadian scientists say Monsanto buried incriminating rat toxicity studies which demonstrated thyroid cysts and prostate concentrations.

Veterinarians report mastitis and lameness in treated cows--whose trip to the slaughterhouse comes quicker, often as downers, thanks to rBST--leading to pus and antibiotics in the milk.

Others contend the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) found in rBST has fueled the breast, colon and prostate epidemics witnessed in the US in the last decade.

Now Monsanto wants to kill the messenger.

In February, its Chief Counsel, Brian Robert Lowry, asked Sheldon Bradshaw, the Food and Drug administration's Chief Counsel, to issue warning letters to marketers bashing rBST.

Their "deceptive milk labeling practices have misled consumers about the quality, safety or value of milk and milk products supplemented with recombinant bovine somatropin," he wrote.

Of course a biotech multinational seeking more government intervention seems unusual.

Especially with Monsanto's reputation for trying to corner world food markets and flooding the food supply with unlabeled genetically modified products with undisclosed risks.

But at least Monsanto is playing fair.

It didn't, after all, create a doomsday mechanism for cows not treated with rBST to make them die so they can't reproduce.

At least not yet.

India: And meanwhile in Vidharbha

The Hindu, April 7 2007. By P. Sainath.

There have been some 250 farm suicides in just the first three months of this year. Things could be a lot worse after June. And, as always, the farm suicides are a symptom of the crisis, not its cause.

FARM SUICIDES in Maharashtra rose by over 354 per cent between 1995 and 2003. That's if the data of the National Crime Records Bureau are anything to go by. Strictly speaking they are not, being gross under-estimates. They draw from local machinery, which from region to region leaves out thousands from the lists of farm suicides. Yet, they still present a clear trend - a painful one. Even these twisted numbers show that farm suicides went up from 1,083 in 1995 to 3,836 eight years later.

For one thing, these figures are for all of Maharashtra. Which means if we were looking at just Vidharbha or Marathwada, the rise would be more horrendous. For another, these regions saw their greatest spurt in farm suicides after 2003 - where the last available NCRB data stops. The government of Maharashtra admits to 1,447 farm suicides in 2006 alone. And that's in only six districts of Vidharbha. So just these six districts saw far more suicides in 2006 than the whole State did in 1995. That's if we give credence to official readings of the data.

Events on the ground confirm the trend, if not the accuracy of the data. Nine women turned widows on International Women's Day in Vidharbha. That's how many farmers took their lives on March 8. The highest on a single day in the region's recent history. Till two weeks later, when it happened again. There have been some 250 farm suicides in just the first three months of this year. Things could be a lot worse after June. And, as always, the farm suicides are a symptom of the crisis, not its cause. They are its outcome, not its engine.

Just months from now, Vidharbha could see its first 100 per cent Bt cotton season. Bt cotton accounted for over 60 per cent of acreage last season. As acreage under it rises, so do the risks taken by the farmer. The Maharashtra government admits Bt cotton has fared very poorly in rain-fed regions. And it's clear that the seed companies might market much less of hybrid varieties in the coming season, if they do that at all. Why sell hybrid when there's more money to be made in Bt cotton? So even as many, including the National Commission on Farmers, call for making Vidharbha "an organic farming zone," the reverse process is in full swing. Even apart from its report, the NCF chairperson, Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, pressed the government of Maharashtra on the notion of an organic zone. But the State's own seed corporation is a major distributor for Bt cotton.

This gets more worrying when you look at the record of the last few years. The government began the last season's harvest with boasts of a "record" 350 lakh quintal "bumper crop." The claim was made by the State's Minister of Marketing, Harshvardhan Patil. And this grand success was swiftly credited to Bt cotton in some media reports. As the run of events punctured these claims, the figure was scaled down more than once. This is further confirmed by how little of cotton the official agencies have procured. For all of them together, the figure has not crossed 70 lakh quintals. And private traders are believed to have picked up around 110 lakh quintals.

In short, less than 180 lakh quintals. And this in a time of distress when the numbers should have been much higher, when farmers would have been desperate to sell. It means production could not have topped 220 lakh quintals, and could well have been less. Consider that in the `non-Bt cotton year' of 2003, procurement alone was over 210 lakh quintals. Production was far higher, at close to 250 lakh quintals.

This equation shows how high the risks are in the coming season. Vidharbha did better in a 'non-Bt cotton year' than during one in which more than 60 per cent of the acreage was under Bt cotton. The State government's own report informs us that in preceding seasons too, "In rain-fed conditions, Bt cotton has not paid good returns." And 97 per cent of cotton grown in Maharashtra is unirrigated. Here's the nub: a poor monsoon could make the earlier crisis seasons look like the good old times.

Read the rest of the article at: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=66&ItemID=12517

USA: What's In Your Milk?

Authored by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

An Expose of Industry and Government Cover-Up on the DANGERS of the Genetically Engineered (rBGH) Milk You're Drinking

Introduction by Ben Cohen, Co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Foreword by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the bestseller Seeds of Deception

A powerful expose of the dangers of Monsanto's genetically engineered (rBGH) milk, and its no-holds-barred conspiracy to suppress this information.

rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone) is a genetically engineered, potent variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows. Manufactured by Monsanto, it is sold to dairy farmers under the trade name POSILAC. Injection of this hormone forces cows to increase their milk production by about 10%.

Monsanto, supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), insists that rBGH milk is indistinguishable from natural milk, and that it is safe for consumers. This is blatantly false:

* rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic effects, including mastitis, on its POSILAC label.

* rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to the mastitis commonly induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.

* rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk.

* rBGH milk is contaminated with rBGH, traces of which are absorbed through the gut.

* rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.

* Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as a cause of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.

* IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.

* rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms.

* rBGH enriches Monsanto, while posing dangers, without any benefits, to consumers, especially in view of the current national surplus of milk.

The risks of cancer to consumers and particularly their children, especially those enrolled in the Public School Lunch Program, are undisputable.

The book is a unique resource on rBGH milk. It presents Dr. Epstein's trailblazing scientific publications since 1989, which have played a major role in influencing other nations, including all of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to ban rBGH milk. The book also presents: the author's editorials and letters to major newspapers, and correspondence with the FDA, Congressman John Conyers, and other key members of Congress and the Senate.

Epstein also details evidence of interlocking conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the White House, regulatory agencies, and the American Medical Association and American Cancer Society. He also details evidence of Monsanto's white collar crime; the suppression and manipulation of information on the veterinary and public health dangers of rBGH milk; and evidence of Monsanto's "Hit Squad," which attempted to stifle and discredit him.

Of compelling interest is the story behind Fox Television's firing of Jane Akre, a veteran journalist, following her in-depth interview on rBGH with Dr. Epstein, his subsequent day-long deposition by Monsanto on her behalf, her subsequent litigation against Fox, and Fox's successful counter suit.

Monsanto's corporate recklessness, compounded by FDA's complicity and refusal to require labeling of rBGH milk, more than justify the rejection of any assurances of its safety. Of further interest is the critical relevance of this information to the ongoing growing concerns and debate on genetically engineered foods, including irrefutable evidence discrediting the "trust us" safety assurances of Monsanto, and other industries.

The book also presents resource materials, including listings of national and international anti-biotech, public health, veterinary and animal rights activist groups. Also listed are rBGH-free U.S. dairy producers, such as Horizon Organic, and Swiss Valley Farms.

http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/F_eatured_P_roducts_47/040604042007_Book_news_What_s_In_Your_Milk.shtml

About the author:

Dr. Epstein is professor emeritus of environmental medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Chairman of the international Cancer Prevention Coalition.

He is the author of 270 scientific publications, and author or co-author of 12 books. These include the prize winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer, the 1995 The Safe Shopper's Bible , and the 2005 Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War. He is recipient of multiple awards, including the 1998 Right Livelihood Award (the Alternative Nobel Prize) for "incomparable contributions to cancer prevention, and for his leadership role in warning of the dangers of rBGH milk;" the 2000 Project Censored Award (the Alternative Pulitzer Prize); and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal "for Humanitarianism, and International Contributions to Cancer Prevention."

Editor's note: Those who are concerned about the safety of the milk from hormone-injected cows may consider using organic milk.

To learn more about the details, visit http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

USA: Take action on loss of honeybees!
The Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee is asking for the science!

Contact Senator Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3254 Phone
(202) 224-9369 Fax

Talking points

Dear Senator Tom Harkin,

One out of every three bites of food that we consume is due to the work of honeybees, serving as crucial pollinators. Yet food production may be severely impacted by the recently reported Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Beekeepers are reporting estimates as high as 80% loss of their honey bee colonies.

There's a link that's not being investigated. Highly respected scientists believe that exposure to genetically engineered crops and their plant-produced pesticides merit serious consideration as either the cause or a contributory factor to the development and spread of CCD.

This past decade we are seeing releases into the environment that we have never before seen on this planet. Genetic engineering involves the artificial transfer of genes from one organism into another, bypassing the protective barrier between species. Scientists admit that unintended consequences may occur due to the lack of precision and specificity in the DNA sites on different plant chromosomes where the inserted genes randomly end up. According to the prominent biologist Dr. Barry Commoner, "Genetically engineered crops represent a huge uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic."

** Senator Harkin, as Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, you are in a key position to initiate investigations to determine if exposure to genetically engineered crops or corn syrup is the missing link. Emergency funding for research needs to be available for scientists who are independent of commercial influence.

Considering that loss of honeybee pollinators can leave a huge void in the kitchens of the American people and an estimated loss of 14 billion dollars to farmers, it would be prudent to use caution. If genetically engineered crops are killing honeybees, a moratorium on their planting should be strongly considered.

I support Sierra Club's 3/21/07 correspondence to you. See: http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2007-03-21.asp

Most sincerely,

XX

Russia: Russia joins the battle over GM products

FreshPlaza, March 07, 2007

Moscow - On July 1, the city of Moscow will introduce a voluntary system of food labels indicating that a product does not contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients.

Europe has recently been engaged in a battle with the World Trade Organization (WTO), which, taking its cue from the US, Canada and Argentina, considers the European Union's moratorium on GM products illegal.

Meanwhile, Europeans have been collecting signatures and protesting against GM foods. In the US, a lawsuit was filed against the Department of Agriculture after it legalised the commercial production of GM alfalfa sprouts. The court found the agency's actions illegal.

In 2000, 828 scientists from 84 countries signed an open letter to the world's governments warning them of the hazards of GM foods. Environmental organisations demanded that the UN declare a moratorium on GM products. Arguments in favour of GM foods - high crop yields, resistance to diseases, insects and harsh weather, and their low price (they tend to cost 20-30 percent less than traditional foods) - have also been widely challenged, though without hard evidence.

Environmentalists say that GM foods will not solve the problem of world hunger, but they will bankrupt small farmers.

Some biologists believe that GM foods can have a negative effect on the gene pool and reduce biological diversity. Vladimir Kuznetsov, head of the Institute of Plant Physiology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that GM foods are dangerous because they are unpredictable. 'Scientists do not know what effect they will have on the human body in the long term,' he said.

Research is being conducted on GM foods' effects on human health, particularly those that may trigger allergic reactions, but not all of the results have been made public. There is much debate but few facts. One thing is certain: the GM industry will continue to grow. But how much?

In January, at the Council on Human Rights Policy in the Kremlin, Natalya Olefirenko, a Greenpeace Russia representative, said that in most Russian regions GM products account for 10-20 percent of the market. In some cities without sufficient controls in place, the figure is 50 percent.

In recent years, imports of GM foods (Russia does not produce them) have increased by more than 100 times. The main GM crops are soy beans, potatoes, corn, sugar beets and oilseed rape. By law, products that contain more than 0.9 percent GM ingredients must be labelled, but in practice this rule is often ignored.

Meanwhile, according to an All-Russia Public Opinion Research Center poll, 95 percent of Russians who have heard of GM foods would not buy them if the products were labelled as such. Consumers, however, are still not able to exercise their right to choose.

Russian bio-engineers, among them Konstantin Skryabin, director of the Bio-Engineering Center at the Russian Academy of Sciences, believe that GM foods 'won't get out of the laboratory until they are thoroughly tested.

Meanwhile, Russia, with its non-competitive agricultural market, has to move faster to grow and popularise GM crops.' He added that the GM issue has more to do with business than with science.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin holds a different view. 'With our entry into the WTO, certain issues have to be addressed,' he said in January. 'American and Canadian products, which are, as a rule, genetically modified, are competing on the world agricultural market.' He added that 'we can use Europe's experience' and 'we must inform people about the hazards of GM products.' Putin proposed to set up a council to regulate GM food.

Europe uses diverse methods to combat GM products, including the destruction of genetically modified crop fields in France, passing laws that limit the possibilities of growing GM crops in Germany, banning GM versions of local and protected crops in Bulgaria, or banning all GM products in Poland. The end result of all this is the creation of GM-free zones.

Russia is following Europe's example. The city of Moscow and the Belgorod Region are leaders in this process. The idea of creating GM-free zones is being discussed in the Volgograd, Kostroma, Murmansk, Ryazan, Sverdlovsk and Ulyanovsk regions.

Moscow's law stipulates that all agricultural raw materials or food that is brought to the city through an organised supply system must contain information about their GM ingredients. It is illegal to use budgetary funds to buy GM children's food.

Following an inspection of their food, producers will have the right, valid for one year, to put the label 'This product does not contain genetically modified ingredients' on any kind of product. As much as 50 million rubles ($1.9 million) will be set aside to purchase special equipment. The media will inform the public about producers that sell GM products but do not tell consumers.

So while bio-engineers complain about a campaign to discredit GM foods, their opponents are demanding a moratorium to give researchers time to study their medical and biological effects. In the meantime, consumers are trying to make sense of all that is being said about GM foods.

India: India's farming crisis

New Agriculturalist, March 2007. By Krishan Bir Chaudhary.

Krishan Bir Chaudhary is executive chairman of Bharat Krishak Samaj, India's largest farmer organisation. He is a farmer and leader, known for his anti-GM and anti-globalisation views, and for speaking out about the losses incurred by local farmers in the light of agricultural globalisation and liberalisation.

The distress of farmers in India can be traced back to the introduction of technology-led, capital intensive farming in the heyday of the Green Revolution. With the advent of 'economic liberalisation' and the globalisation of trade, this distress has been aggravated. Unfair rules of the multilateral global trading regime have depressed global and domestic prices, and denied Indian farmers adequate remunerative prices. The poor farmer is squeezed between high input costs and low returns. Credit obtained from formal or informal banking systems is unable to bail him out of this precarious situation. Caught in a vicious debt trap, many farmers have resorted to suicide.

BT cotton and the debt trap

Misled and misguided, the changeover to Bt cotton proved to be a total failure, causing severe losses for our cotton growers. The enormous loss and the resultant debt trap forced thousands of cotton growers to commit suicide. Bt cotton proved to be a total fiasco. Thousands and thousands of farmers have already committed suicide, and there seems to be no end to this tragic situation. Trends in suicide remain unabated even now, especially among cotton growers.

Significantly, farmer suicide is reported mainly from the high-tech agriculture belts, such as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Punjab. All these states have embraced capital intensive and 'cutting edge' technology in the name of boosting production. In areas where traditional agricultural practices and organic farming are prevalent, such as Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, suicide is unheard of.

The ripple effect

As far as agriculture is concerned, it is alarming that India is moving towards a point of no return. From being a self-reliant nation of food surplus, the country is becoming a net importer of food. In this context, policies to promote contract and corporate farming, the use of genetically modified seeds such as Bt cotton, and genetic synthesis in aquaculture and industrial poultry farming, threaten to undermine food security and the livelihoods of poor farmers.

There are authenticated reports that alarmingly high numbers of cattle have died from grazing on Bt cotton residues in fodder. And, the Government of India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), under the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, is baffled at the news of sheep mortality, on account of grazing in the Bt cotton fields in Warangal district in Andhra Pradesh. The GEAC has already admitted that toxicity studies on Bt cotton leaves have not yet been conducted, and although it has now asked the department of biotechnology to conduct studies, the lukewarm attitude of GEAC to ascertain the level of Bt toxin responsible for killing livestock is highly questionable.

Whose trade organisation?

The production of transgenes through genetic manipulation is bad science, unethical, and totally against the natural order that is responsible for the evolution and sustainability of life. It is fraught with the danger of genetic pollution and contamination, the destruction of ecosystems, environmental degradation and DNA deviations. The regimes of the WTO promote technology-driven, high-cost farming, and encourage the corporate monopolisation of the sector. This mainly serves to promote the interests of agri-business multinationals at the expense of small and marginal farmers in developing countries. With the interests of agri-business pre-eminent, all efforts to reduce agricultural subsidies in developed countries are being stonewalled.

The link with trade liberalisation

The impact of liberalisation on agriculture is best illustrated by India's experience in the oil seed sector. The liberalisation of heavily subsidised edible oil imports led to the decline in oil seed prices in India, financially ruining oil seed growers in the country. This totally negated previous efforts to make India almost self sufficient in the oil seed sector by 1998. Now, almost 50 per cent of edible oil is imported, resulting in annual spending of $1,800 million in foreign exchange.

Inept, amateurish and mediocre handling of our priorities is to blame for this ugly situation. The Government is playing a faulty game of cash crops over food crops, and promotion of corporate farming at the cost of traditional agro-rural systems, especially in the dry and arid zones of the country. Such policies will further add to displacement and migration to urban areas. Blind trade liberalisation and a market driven economy will throw the country into a cobweb of trans-national corporations. Importing oil seed is only the tip of the iceberg; it is a prelude to the beginning of the end of Indian agro-systems and their ultimate take-over by multinational corporations.

Distorting, or not distorting...

Heavy subsidies given to the farming sector in developing countries are basically responsible for dismantling India's agro-system, making it economically unrewarding. Some 'trade experts' and negotiators in the developed world try to justify their misdeeds by putting subsidies into categories: "trade-distorting" and "non trade-distorting." But all subsidies are distorting, and India needs to be emphatic about their removal in developed countries, where commitments to reduce subsidies have not been fulfilled. Instead, subsidies have been increasing, making it more difficult for developing countries to compete in the world market.

The World Bank and the IMF have become instruments in pressurising developing countries to open up their markets. The core motive of the WTO is to promote the interest of agri-business and multinationals at the expense of small, marginal and family farms across the world. It is imperative that developing countries are given the option to apply quantitative restrictions on imports, whenever needed, to protect the livelihoods of poor farmers and agricultural workers. India should not tolerate the obstinate and irrational attitude of developed countries, which caused the collapse of WTO negotiations. Government should remain determined in all future negotiations to focus primarily on the interests of small and marginal farmers. Agriculture is not only for trade; it is a way of life.

6 April 2007

Philippines: IRRI told to get out of Asia!
Week of Rice Action culminated in street protests

By Ilang-Ilang D. Quijano

Laguna, Philippines --- "IRRI out of Asia!" This was the resounding call of more than 1,000 Filipino farmers that trooped in front of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) headquarters on April 3 to protest its 47th anniversary and to culminate the highly successful Asia-wide Week of Rice Action (WORA) led by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP).

Simultaneously, WORA culmination rallies by hundreds of farmers and several international participants were held in front of the Department of Agriculture (DA) office in Quezon City and the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) office in the province of Nueva Ecija.

Farmers, farm workers, fisherfolk, and other rural peoples expressed collective anger over what they called imperialist control of agriculture, particularly rice. Rice is the staple food and source of livelihood for millions of farmers in Asia.

Men, women, and children alike exposed to the world the poverty, health and environmental destruction, cultural degradation, and over-all social exploitation wrought by chemical-dependent rice farming and genetically engineered rice. They blamed their increasingly desolate plight on the cruel collusion of agro-chemical transnational corporations (TNCs), subservient governments, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and imperialist-driven research institutions led by IRRI.

Carrying flags, placards, and rice winnowers painted with their various statements and demands such as "Our lands are not for sale!" "IRRI out of Asia!" "No to GE rice!" "Junk WTO!" and "Resist Agro-chemical TNCs!," farmers affiliated with the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) or Peasant Movement of the Philippines marched for more than five kilometers to reach the gates of IRRI.

Upon arriving, they held a noise barrage to symbolize the growing worldwide campaign to stop pseudo-rice research that is not based on sound science but on the corporate agenda to milk profits from millions of already impoverished farmers.

Sarojeni Rengam, PAN AP executive director, explained how IRRI, a U.S-created research institution, promoted the Green Revolution and started the cycle of pesticide poisoning and indebtedness among rice farmers around the world.

She also told of IRRI's ties with agro-chemical TNCs that are now introducing GE rice at the risk of uncontrolled health and environmental effects and guaranteed seed dependency.

"We are telling IRRI to get lost, to get out and be with farmers and not TNCs like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer. We don't want GE crops, especially rice. Rice is so important, it is our own livelihood and food. It is based on our culture and common heritage. We can't allow IRRI to take over," said Rengam.

She also denounced bio-piracy or the TNCs' attempt to claim as their own rice varieties that farmers have collectively developed for centuries, such as jasmine rice. "IRRI, shame on you!!!" she said, to the cheers and applause of farmers.

Rengam said that the WORA is part of PAN AP's long-standing efforts to support and link the people's fight for food sovereignty all over the world. "It is only through the people's resistance that we are able to stop this injustice," she enjoined the farmers.

Meanwhile, Jun Layosa, an ex-IRRI worker and president of BISSIG (Brotherhood of IRRI Support Services Group), related how Filipino farmers were duped and harassed into selling their lands to IRRI, only to become pesticides applicators that were later illegally retrenched.

"In the 1960s, before IRRI came, all farmers were able to plant what they wanted, and were able to use the seeds that their ancestors worked for. Now, everyone is completely dependent on costly and hazardous pesticides, and is fast becoming in danger of being reliant on GE seeds," Layosa said.

He also hailed the martyrdom of his fellow ex-IRRI workers who have died "exposing the anti-farmer agenda of IRRI." Seven of them have already succumbed to illnesses related to the long period of working with pesticides used by the research institute.

Aurelio "Ka Ure" Mercado, who worked at IRRI for 23 years, was also present at the rally despite liver and lung ailments that have weakened him. In a relatively better condition since his hospital confinement last year, the 62-year old Ka Ure said that he was happy to be able to participate in the WORA.

"Knowing that people are resisting IRRI all over the world strengthens my conviction that we will one day achieve justice," said Ka Ure.

Farmer leaders that hailed from the Southern Tagalog provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Quezon, Romblon, and Batangas also shared rice farming problems brought about by the Green Revolution, bio-piracy, genetic engineering, and neo-liberal globalization policies.

Fred Torres of Pagkakaisa at Lakas ng Magbubukid-Timog Katagalugan (PALAY-TK) or Unity and Strength of Farmers-Southern Tagalog said that rice farmers are up to their necks in debt because they cannot plant without buying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. He urged his fellow farmers not to buy these "IRRI products" that only allow capitalists and landlords to wallow in riches while they sink deeper into poverty.

Ato Belen of Samahan ng Magbubukid sa Batangas (SAMBAT) or Association of Batangas Farmers said that rice farmers are being forced to buy expensive inputs but their products are being bought cheaply by traders and being defeated at the market by cheap imports from developed countries such as the U.S. He complained that the WTO has made the Philippines, from a major rice exporter in the 1960s, into a major rice importer today.

"It is no wonder that rice farmers have not tasted an ounce of prosperity that were promised to us by the government," Belen said.

Meanwhile, Ka Tatcio of Pagkakaisa at Ugnayan ng Magbubukid sa Laguna (PUMALAG) or Unity and Solidarity of Laguna Farmers said that it was only IRRI and its cohorts that are being kept alive by misleading and even fraudulent scientific researches that only serve to keep corporate control over agriculture, while the majority of peoples are barely able to survive.

"U.S. imperialism is today's no. 1 killer!!! It is our very lives that are at stake in the TNCs drive to own rice. This happening not only here in the Philippines but all over the world. We must unite and fight at all levels!" he said.

More than 100 farmers, led by Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid sa Gitnang Luzon (AMGL) or Alliance of Farmers in Central Luzon, had similar sentiments and pushed for the dismantling or abolition of PhilRice, IRRI's local arm in the Philippines.

As a result of the mass action, a PhilRice representative came out and invited the farmers to schedule a dialogue to further discuss their concerns with the rice research institute.

Meanwhile, more than 200 farmers of KMP held a protest action in front of the DA, primarily to pressure the agency to stop the commercialization of GE rice in the Philippines.

Last week, the network Resistance and Solidarity Against Agro-chemical TNCs (RESIST) held a dialogue with agriculture officials, wherein they were promised that the importation of the genetically-contaminated rice Liberty Link 601, found in several supermarkets last year, has been discontinued.

In solidarity, international WORA participants from Cambodia, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, U.S., Indonesia and Thailand joined the street protests that marked the campaign's culmination.

Philippines: Asian peasants and scientists:
NO to Genetically-engineered Rice; YES to Genuine Land Reform!

By Ilang-Ilang D. Quijano

Manila, Philippines--- Peasants and scientists celebrated Asia's most treasured rice culture by issuing a strong statement that they hoped would reverberate among peoples for the challenging years to come: NO to genetic engineering; YES to genuine land reform.

In culmination of the Week of Rice Action (WORA) led by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), more than 300 participants attended a forum on genetic engineering (GE) and rice in Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines last April 3.

The event also became a local highlight when a prominent Filipino activist and lawmaker, newly released from political detention, visited to extend solidarity to WORA participants.

Scientist-peasant partnership

In her welcoming remarks, Dr. Angelina Briones, board member of Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) or Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Inc. said that scientists are one with farmers in celebrating the rice culture of Asia, one "that preserves traditional rice varieties, knowledge and practices."

She recounts that as a chemist, she used to conduct scientific researches that were estranged from the real plight of Filipino farmers, until the NGO community made her aware of the destructive effects of the Green Revolution.

"In my barrio, the farmers used to have decent living, they had seed granaries and plenty of food for the people. After I finished my studies, I came back and saw little huts and farmers no longer have plenty of food," she said.

Dr. Giovanni Tapang, chairperson of AGHAM or Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, gave participants an overview of the threats of GE rice, the movement against it, and the objectives of the WORA. "This is not only about protesting GE and transnational corporations (TNCs), but also about celebrating the commonalities of the people in Asia," he said.

GE threats and TNC control

Sarojeni Rengam, executive director of PAN AP, made a presentation on "GE and TNC control in agriculture". She explained the consolidation of power of seeds and agro-chemical TNCs, only three of which will control the market in 5 years. These TNCs, led by Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta, reap around $21 billion in profits per year.

She warned that because of collusion between U.S. and other governments in the world, GE seeds are gaining market share, even wit the lack of public acceptance.

Rengam told of how Monsanto controls most of GE soybeans, maize, cotton, and canola, and how these seeds are linked with particular herbicides that Monsanto also produces. She told of the recent contamination of U.S. rice stocks with Liberty Link 601 GE rice, the way the U.S. Department of Agriculture rushed to help Bayer by deregulating it, and how Bayer refuses to pay compensation for affected farmers. She also said that health and safety questions have not been addressed by Bt rice and Golden Rice.

She cited a study by Charles M. Benbrook that shows that GE crops did not lessen but instead increased the use of pesticides, contrary to the claims of TNCs. According to the study of GM crops in U.S. from 1993 to 2004, pesticide use has increased by 4.1%.

Rengam also talked about the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, which is a TNC endeavour to own the rice genome that rightfully belongs to everybody.

"To stop the destruction of our rice culture, the spirit of WORA has to continue throughout the years," she said.

Meanwhile, Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumer Policy Institute in the U.S. talked of the potential problems associated with each step of the GE process, the possible health and environmental issues associated with GE rice, and the economic impact caused by GE contamination.

Dr. Hansen cited a household survey of 481 farming families in 5 provinces in China, which showed that farmers of Bt cotton spent 40% more on pesticides for secondary pest outbreaks. "GE is acting like a classic pesticide-a silver bullet that fails in the long term," he said.

He presented studies which show that GE crops non-target organisms like pollinators and earthworms. Studies that prove GE's high allergenicity potentials on consumers and adverse health among farmworkers was also shown.

He told Filipino farmers that the Philippine government will be a fool to approve Bayer's 2006 application to import LL 62, because no other country has accepted the GE product. He said that there are already 41 major rice-producing countries in the world which has declared a "no-GE rice" policy.

Resounding resistance

Afterwards, WORA participants from Cambodia, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, U.S., Indonesia, and Thailand gave solidarity messages and an account of highly successful WORA activities in their own countries.

"We will go home with hope and confidence that we are doing the right and good thing," said Montawadee Krutmechai of the Foundation of Reclaiming Rural Agriculture and Food Sovereignty Action (RRAFA).

Yi Kim Than of the Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC) said that 1,700 farmers joined in their WORA activities. Aside from strengthening the network against GE rice, Cambodian farmers also shared their experiences in seed collection and seed preservation, he said.

Haekyung Woo of Consumers Korea said that the WORA campaign in South Korea, mainly of symposia and petition campaigns, were a triumph.

Keisuke Amagasa of the NO! GMO Campaign in Japan said that they were able to stop the field tests of GE crops. He acknowledged that the Japanese government is one of the leading supporters of the International Rice Research Institute and had to be stopped.

Muhammad Asim Lasin of the Lok Sanjh Foundation in Pakistan denounced their government's approval of Bt cotton and said that their farmers do not have the capacity to implement "biosafety measures" put into place.

"I congratulate all the farmers who participated in the WORA, especially Filipino farmers-you have made the leap and for that I salute you!" he also said.

Frederick Fajardo of Gita Pertiwi in Indonesia told of the promising sustainable agriculture efforts in their country and said that the WORA activities raised public awareness on GE rice.

Afterwards, Dr. Gene Nisperos, chairperson of the Health Alliance for Democracy, presented on basic issues and concerns on health and GE rice. He said that while GE rice has mainly been promoted as a solution to hunger, illness, and malnutrition, it will achieve the opposite.

Dr. Nisperos stressed the unmonitored consequences of GE rice such as diseases, and cited several studies to prove his point. He scored the lax government regulation on GE rice. "We are eating it without computing how much of those fortifications stay in our body and how it will exit," he said of the so-called Vitamin A rice. He also said that GE rice for oral rehydration is an "unnecessary distraction" from existing solutions such as providing access to safe water and improved sanitation.

Finally, Danilo Ramos, secretary general of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) or Peasant Movement of the Philippines, said that imperialist globalization, through the World Trade Organization, is the driving force behind the promotion of pesticides and GE.

Yet he said that the campaign against GE and TNCs is getting stronger in the grassroots level, with the farmers protecting their community through various means, such as direct uprooting of Bt crops, mass protests, lobbying and policy advocacy, and adopting sustainable agriculture.

According to Ramos, the primary solution to ending hunger and exploitation of rice farmers in Asia is genuine land reform, especially in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country like the Philippines where the vast majority of land is controlled by local landlords and foreign agri-businesses.

"The struggle for land reform can only be won by strengthening the mass movement in Asia," he said.

Peasant leader and congressman Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) party-list delivered the closing remarks, saying that the "resounding voice of resistance" heard throughout the WORA gave much hope to millions of rice farmers and other rural peoples.

Afterwards, a solidarity dinner of various Philippine rice cakes and vegetables were served. An invigorating cultural performance was also held, wherein participants sang, danced, and recited poetry to celebrate rice culture and the people's struggle.

From Jail to WORA

In an unexpected but much welcome visit, newly released congressman Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna (People First) party-list took time out to express support of the WORA campaign. Ocampo, only that morning, was granted bail by the Supreme Court after finding a murder suit filed against him by the Arroyo government highly dubious and ill-motivated.

Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, and other progressive party-lists have consistently upheld the struggle against feudal and imperialist domination of Third World agriculture. With a membership deeply rooted in the Philippine mass movement, they have been victims of intense political repression, even extra-judicial killings.

"We are one with your campaign to liberate farmers from all forms of exploitation. Long live international solidarity!" said Ocampo.

With everyone in high spirits, a toast of local rice wine served in bamboo cups formally ended the event.

The Week of Rice Action (WORA) 2007 brings together farmers, rural communities, and other sectors of society to celebrate and protect rice culture. To be officially launched on March 13 in Bangladesh, the main WORA events will take place in 13 countries across Asia from March 29 to April 4. Culminating in India and the Philippines, WORA will be an unprecedented mobilization of Asians "Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture"! A key feature of WORA will be its one-million signature campaign calling on policy-makers to take immediate steps to save the rice of Asia.

WORA is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net

Contact at PAN AP:

Ms Anne Haslam, PAN AP at wora2007@panap.net
PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (PAN AP)
P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia.
Tel: 604-6570271 or 604-6560381 Fax: 604-6583960
E-mail: panap@panap.net Home Page: www.panap.net

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global network working to eliminate the human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and to promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture. PAN Asia and the Pacific is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasant and indigenous farmers. We are dedicated to protect the safety and health of people, and the environment from pesticide use and genetic engineering. We believe in a people-centered, pro-women development through food sovereignty, ecological agriculture and sustainable lifestyles.

5 April 2007

USA: Consumers Want Hormone-Free Milk Labels, New Poll Shows

CommonDreams.org, 5 April 2007.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Eighty percent of consumers want milk produced without the hormone rBGH to be labeled as such, according to a poll released today by Food & Water Watch.

"Hormone-free and rBGH-free labeling is the way milk producers can communicate information that consumers need to make informed choices for themselves and their families," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "The federal government should not limit information that eight of ten Americans want just to protect Monsanto's bottom line."

The U.S. government approved the use of rBGH in milk production in 1994. In response to increased consumer demand for rBGH-free milk, Monsanto recently asked the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to restrict rBGH-free labeling.

The survey, conducted by Lake Research Partners for Food & Water Watch, was conducted among 1000 adults living in private households in the continental United States from February 28 through March 5, 2007

Survey participants were asked:

Some milk comes from cows that have been treated with an artificial growth hormone called rBGH to increase their milk production. Other milk comes from cows that have NOT been treated with the hormone rBGH. Some people want to label dairy products according to whether or not they are from cows that have been treated with rBGH. What do you think? Should milk from cows that have NOT been treated with the hormone rBGH be allowed to be labeled as "rBGH free," or should that not be allowed?

Allowed to be labeled rBGH-free - 80 percent
NOT allowed to be labeled rBGH-free - 15 percent
Don't know - 5 percent

For more information, contact Patty Lovera (202) 797-6557 or plovera@fwwatch.org or download a 1-page results summary at
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/dairy/bovine-growth-hormone/FWWrBGHpol l.pdf/view?.

Consumers can find companies that sell rBGH free dairy products in their state at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/dairy/rbgh-free-guide.

Additional background on rBGH-free milk labels can be found at
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/dairy/bovine-growth-hormone/full-story -rbgh-free-labels.

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer rights group based in Washington, D.C. that challenges the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources. Visit www.foodandwaterwatch.org CONTACT: Food and Water Watch
Jen Mueller - (202) 797-6553
Email: jmueller@fwwatch.org

Croatia: Agriculture as a Dead Letter

Javno.com, 5 April 2007.

The attitude of the former and current governments towards agriculture can most easily be seen on the example of the sale of Dukat to Lactalis and the stimulation of GMO imports. The case of sale of Dukat to Lactalis shows all the misery, distress, omissions and inconsistency of our politics and opens the process of introducing our agriculture into a vassal relation with global food producers.

Necessary law on the protection of strategic agricultural production

The HSP has for six years been drawing the attention of the leadership to the necessity of passing a law on the protection of strategic agricultural production, which will prevent the sale of strategic agricultural producers to foreign companies and protect domestic food producers.

Imagine if world concerns started buying oil factories, agricultural cooperates, for reasons only they know as thus they can destroy domestic agricultural production overnight. This example clearly indicates what the political programmes of political parties HDZ, SDP, HSS and HSLS are because they are the most responsible for today's difficult situation in agriculture.

GM products by the back door

The second example shows how GM products are introduced in Croatia by the back door under the guise of harmonising our legislature to the acquis communautaire of the EU with a new bill on food, whose adoption we prevented in parliament.

In the transitional and final provisions of the bill on food, there is a suspension of provisions of the GMO law which was the only obstacle to the uncontrolled spreading of such products. Although the EU recommends to all members to restrict the spreading of GMO as much as possible, Croatia is starting to liberalise the import and use of GMO.

If we allow the import of GMO seeds of cereals, Croatia's agriculture will be a dead letter.

Pero Kovacevic, HSP

USA: Syngenta urged to reconsider biotech corn seed sales

USAgNet, April 5 2007.

The nation's two leading trade associations representing the grain, feed and grain processing industries joined in urging Syngenta Seeds Inc. to reconsider and reverse its plan to commercialize its Agrisure RW biotechnology-enhanced corn seed for planting this year because it has not obtained regulatory approval for food and feed use in Japan and other U.S. export markets.

The National Grain and Feed Association and North American Export Grain Association said that what they termed Syngenta's 'ill-conceived' plan risks endangering U.S. corn and corn product exports. Further, the NGFA and NAEGA said, Syngenta's action could set a dangerous precedent concerning the future introduction of biotechnology-enhanced traits before they are approved in countries, like Japan, that have a fully functioning, science-based regulatory-approval process for such products.

"We already are aware that Japanese buyers are developing contingency plans to purchase corn and corn products from non-U.S. origins if Syngenta releases this seed for planting and Japanese government approval is not forthcoming prior to harvest," said NGFA President Kendell W. Keith and NAEGA President and Chief Executive Officer Gary C. Martin.

"Given the painful lessons learned in the past, we urge Syngenta to join with us in protecting the marketability of U.S. corn and corn products by delaying the introduction of Agrisure RW corn seed until it receives full regulatory approval in Japan and other important U.S. corn export markets."

Syngenta announced its intent to begin selling its new Agrisure RW corn seed immediately after the March 16 decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to deregulate the product after finding no adverse plant health or environmental concerns.

The biotechnology-enhanced trait, which contains modified protein MIR604 to control corn rootworm insects, previously received authorizations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Guatemala: Guatemala Rejects US Ethanol Plan

Prensa Latina, 5 April 2007.

The US-promoted plan of using agricultural products to produce ethanol would bring a world food catastrophe, Guatemala's popular leaders and farmers stated on Thursday.

Orlando Blanco, leader of the Social Organizations Group (COS), told Prensa Latina that to use great quantity of corn and other cereals to extract a gallon of ethanol is really an offense to people who are starving.

"In the case of Guatemala," said Blanco, "this project would cause a devastating crisis because it would wipe out production of basic grains in a country where 50 percent of population live on agriculture."

He warned that since the Free Trade Agreement with United States came into force, there is a latent risk here on the idea of sowing transgenic corn, sugarcane and African palm to produce fuel.

Blanco denounced that the US does not use its own territory for this purpose, but it tries to impose these technologies on Latin America to turn it into a captive market.

This policy was condemned in a recent world forum on food sovereignty held in Mali, because it could generate more hunger and poverty, stated Aparicio Perez, from the National Rural Organizations Coordinator.

4 April 2007

Lithuania: German group denied permit to grow GM rapeseed in Lithuania

RIA Novosti, April 4 2007

Lithuanian authorities reaffirmed their opposition to the spread of genetically modified crops Wednesday by rejecting an application from a German company seeking to grow GM rapeseed in Lithuania for research purposes.

The Environment Ministry said in a press release that it had taken public opinion into account when making the decision, as well as the views of the scientific community.

According to a survey conducted by the Fonitel agency, 63% of Lithuanians are opposed to the cultivation of genetically modified crops in their country.

Last year, Lithuania rejected a similar application for growing GM potatoes.

UK: Chile, the US and are Canada hosting safflower trials

Hugh Levinson, BBC News, April 4, 2007,

GM insulin crops Insulin produced by genetically modified plants - with a human gene added - could be on the market in three years, a Canadian company has claimed.

Sembiosys said it has made scientific breakthroughs and found a short cut through current drug regulations.

The firm's CEO Andrew Baum said his company could become one of the first to sell a plant-based pharmaceutical.

However, critics believe that these products pose greater environmental and health risks than GM food crops.

Most insulin is now produced by genetically modified bacteria, inside sealed tanks. The new technique uses GM plants grown out in the open.

The company is growing insulin in the seeds of safflower, a relatively little-used seed oil plant. The safflower is being grown on a trial basis in fields in Chile, the US and Canada.

Their crop is grown counter-seasonally to reduce the risks of the insulin-producing genes crossing to other plants.

Mr Baum said: "Sembiosys believes it will be one of the first - or the first - company to get a plant-based pharmaceutical on the market."

Sembiosys has predicted an "explosion" in demand for insulin because of a growing number of diabetics. Moreover, new methods of delivering the drug, like inhalation, require more insulin per dose than injections.

Mr Baum said that one large North American farm growing his safflower could meet the global demand for insulin - and that the price of the drug could be cut significantly.

If the firm can demonstrate that the plant-based insulin is identical with human insulin, it won't have to go through all the long and costly stages of full clinical trials.

Mr Baum said he saw his product as part of a new wave of GM plants which could help change public opinion - particularly in Europe - in favour of the technology.

He said: "While the first wave of products were really focussed on the farmer and improving agricultural economics, there's an increasing emphasis now in the industry on products that address more direct consumer benefits and consumer needs."

There are also more projects under way to develop many other pharmaceutical crops.

Professor Ed Rybicki of the University of Cape Town has modified tobacco so it produces a vaccine for cervical cancer. He said the aim was to help women in the developing world.

Furthermore, there are plans to produce spider silk from potatoes and to make non-polluting engine lubricants in seed oil plants.

A Danish company is even trying to create plants that will help clear minefields. The flowers of the modified thale cress would change from white to red if their roots absorb traces of explosives - showing where the landmines had been laid.

However Clare Oxborrow, of Friends of the Earth, said the risks of contamination from pharmaceutical plants was actually greater than from food crops.

She said there had already been contamination incidents with experimental pharmaceutical plants.

One American company, Prodigene, was heavily fined for its mistakes in 2002. Similar problems have occurred recently with GM food crops.

Pollution fears

She said: "It's worrying enough when it's a crop intended for human consumption.

"But when it might be a pharmaceutical crop in the future that contaminates the food chain, that raises serious worries and questions about the risks involved for human health."

Ms Oxborrow said the promised benefits would not be great enough to shift public opinion.

She pointed to many other factors influencing public views - like the impact on the environment, potential health concerns and corporate control of the food chain.

However Mr Baum insisted: "The goodness of what we're doing is so clear - people who are dying of diabetes in the developing world will eventually get insulin - that I think people can understand it."

USA: Monsanto Wants Feds to Silence Dairies
No Need to Eliminate Growth Hormones, Chemical Giant Argues

Consumer Affairs, April 4 2007

Monsanto, the giant chemical company, wants Big Brother to protect it from those bullies that hang around the dairy barns.

The problem, to hear Monsanto tell it, is that dairies such as New England's Hood and California's Alta Dena are making a big deal about how their milk comes from cows that haven't been treated with an artificial growth hormone made by Monsanto.

The hormone -- recombinant bovine somatotropin -- or rBST -- was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993. But many parents fear the substance can cause cancer, premature development or other conditions in children. Some European countries prohibit using the chemical.

Farmers like the chemical additive because it causes cows to produce about ten percent more milk.

Some major dairies made the move to rBST-free cows last year to compete more effectively against organic milk and Monsanto argues the dairies have been making health claims that aren't true, causing consumers to spend more for "natural" milk while in fact getting nothing in return.

Monsanto has complained to the FDA and also to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), claiming the ads amount to false advertising.

Monsanto beefed that, on its Web site, Alta Dena says, "By not using rBST, we protect the health of our cows, their milk and our customers." But Monsanto says a study it commissioned looked at 98 brands of milk in 48 states and found no differences in the milk, regardless of whether it was rBST-free or rBST-fed cows.

Hood and another new England dairy, Garelick, make no health claims but their milk bottles carry labels saying their farmers have pledged not to use artificial growth hormones. Monsanto says that implies that artificial growth hormones are unhealthful. 5

Chile: Monsanto's transgenic soya comes to Chile
Failure To Legislate Leaves Door Open To GM Products

The Santiago Times, April 4 2007. By Beatrice Karol Burks.

Monsanto, one of the world's leading transgenic seed producers, announced plans to cultivate Chile's first genetically modified (GM) soya bean at the Expoagro 2007 show in Argentina last week. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the Chilean farming industry represents another step backwards from President Michelle Bachelet's 2005 election campaign pledge "to not open the country to commercial transgenic crops."

Monsanto's general director for Chile, Alfredo Villaseca, alongside Chile's Minister of Agriculture Alvaro Rojas, announced plans to introduce 20,000 hectares of GM high-yield soya into Chile by 2010. An initial trial area of 5,000 hectares will be in place by October 2007.

Despite Bachelet's election pledge, there is no law to explicitly prohibit the growing of GM crops in Chile and the country refrained from signing the international Protocol of Biosecurity which monitors biosafety issues regarding GM organisms. According to internal rules of Chile's Department of Agriculture and Livestock Services (SAG), transgenic crops cannot be grown for human consumption. Scientific and experimental research, however, is permitted and many businesses within Chile develop GM seeds for export.

While home-grown GM products cannot be purchased by Chilean consumers, imports containing GM products are freely available on Chile's supermarket shelves.

The umbrella organization The Network for a Transgenic-Free Chile ‚ which includes enviro-heavyweights such as Greenpeace and Consumers International ‚ "energetically" rejected the move by Monsanto and Chile's government.

"If President Bachelet promised not to open the country to transgenic crops, it's impossible to understand why the Ministry of Agriculture has given this the go-ahead," said Samuel Leiva from Greenpeace Chile. "On what basis was this decision made?"

"We also want to know whether Monsanto will have completed an environmental impact study before spring 2007 when they hope to introduce the GM soya into our country," he told the Santiago Times. "We just don't know what impact cultivating this crop will have on Chile's biodiversity."

As part of her election pledge, Bachelet also promised to require environmental impact studies for projects involving GMO's that were already underway.

The environmentalists' worries stem from the fact that without clear legislation, the introduction of GM crops could jeopardize Chile's reputation as a prominent organic producer. Cross-pollination could easily affect crops with organic or non-GM status.

Carlos Fernandez, head of the Strategic Development Unit for the Foundation of Agrarian Innovation, a strong supporter of GM technology, said Chile's producers are let-down by the SAG law, which prevents them from gaining competitive edge on the international market. He argued it is possible to grow both GM and organic products within the same country.

"To prevent cross-pollination between species you have to carefully organize production," he told Bioquimica.cl. "Our country already has a good history of supporting both organic crops and plants producing GM seeds, which of course, are later exported."

Fernandez is also a strong supporter of GM organisms to aid the production of bio-combustible fuel. Producing bio-combustible fuel is a costly process, but it can be made more profitable by using crops that have been genetically modified to produce high quantities of ethanol. If Chile wants to compete with bio-fuel leaders like Brazil, this may be the road the government will need to follow (ST Jan. 24).

GMOs have been legal and available in some countries, notably the United States, for nearly 10 years. Former president Ricardo Lagos started Chile's GM ball rolling when he announced a five-year biotechnology expansion plan. Despite Bachelet's promise, it appears the pro-GMO initiative has gained momentum. Specialists at Chile's Universidad Catolica have headed research into GM grapes and pine trees ‚ the staple crops of two of Chile's most important industries: wine and cellulose ‚ and are eager to get them to Chile's producers.

The Network for a Transgenic-Free Chile also expressed concern that Chile's small producers could be swept into the shadows by a multinational company like Monsanto, with its US$7 billion turnover. According to the network, Monstanto's entry into Chile "ignores the interests of small-scale farmers who aren't familiar with Monsanto's way of operating. The company grows patented seeds which require the company's own pesticides."

The anti-GM group will take their concerns to Chile's newly-inaugurated Environmental Ministry in coming weeks.

Malaysia: Indigenous Communities Pledge to Protect Rice in Sabah!

4 April 2007. By Jennifer Mourin

They are the four last known remaining 'Bobohizan' or Rice Priestesses actually practicing rice rituals and rice related spiritual activities in the Penampang District in Sabah. Dressed in the traditional black of the Kadazan Dusun people, the Priestesses perform the sacred 'Monogit' ceremony of thanksgiving for the previous rice harvest and put forward prayers for good harvest for the coming year. Besides being the last guardians of the rice rituals, these women-Inai Livani, Inai Gusiti, Inai Luvining and Inai Silip-are truly precious treasures because they also have the distinction of being the only people left in the community with the ability to speak the special and distinct language related to the Rice Rituals. Once they are gone, it is not only the rituals that will die with them, the language of the 'Bobohizan' rice rituals and traditions will be gone forever. Participants and curious visitors to the WORA event in Penampang State Library, last 31st March, got a rare glimpse at the Bobohizans performing the Monogit in the 'Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture' photo exhibition that greeted one and all as they made their way into the WORA Meeting Hall.

The threats facing the 'Bobohizan' epitomize the threats facing rice farming in the Penampang district, and Sabah as a whole, as massive land development projects for housing, industrial sites, tourism and plantations (namely palm oil) have literally eaten up acres and acres of rice lands.

"To us, Indigenous Peoples, rice is very important. A lot of our culture and beliefs are centred around rice tradition", states Anne Lasimbang, Executive Director of PACOS (Partners of Community Organisations), host for the WORA event in East Malaysia. "Issues on land are also related to rice, because land is needed to plant rice for survival and if land is taken away the question of survival is at stake. So at many times when communities fight for their land, it is because they need it for their survival, for planting rice and other food crops".

The impacts of urbanization and influences of globalisation which have drastically affected the social and cultural lives of indigenous peoples has meant that many young people are no longer interested in the adat (traditions) and culture of their communities, least of all in rice culture and cultivation.

"Our mother tongue is also very much tied up with rice cultivation and rice culture, therefore if we give up the rice culture many of our words in our language will be lost with it. One of PACOS main work is environment and biodiversity, this is one reason why we wanted to take part in WORA. These issues need to be highlighted and addressed!" asserts Anne.

Participants to the 'One Day Farmers' Seminar in conjunction with WORA', in Penampang, consisted of over 100 local farmers, representatives from the Agriculture Department, the Fisheries Department, Consumers and Environmental NGOs, and the general public. The event was organised to promote biodiversity-based ecological agriculture, as a basis for people centred economic development and independence of farming communities; and to educate the public and create a broad awareness of pesticides problems; as well as GE crops in general and GE Rice in particular-targeting farmers, women, consumers and other relevant sectors.

While presenting an overview on the regional WORA events, Jennifer Mourin of the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Asia and the Pacific, highlighted concerns of how the Malaysian government aimed to remedy its 13 billion Ringgit Malaysia food import expenditure by re-focusing attention on agriculture and food production, and aimed to overturn the food deficit by 2010 to make Malaysia a net exporter of food. She also noted how, fuelled with this new focus, the government's 9th Malaysian Plan aimed to develop 'New Agriculture' programmes by "giving focus on enhancing the value chain, cultivating high value added agricultural activities and large-scale commercial farming, utilising ICT as well as exploiting the full potential of biotechnology".

She questioned such a development that prioritised so-called "high-value" cash crops, such as palm oil, for export markets instead of prioritising local food self sufficiency. She also pointed out that promotion of large scale commercial agriculture would mean taking over large areas of land for the intensive cultivation of such commercial and export crops. Finally she asserted that such commercial oriented agriculture would require large amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers; mechanization, and valuable resources such as water-the kind of agriculture known to badly affect human health, pollute the environment, and deplete valuable natural resources. Following this session, Jennifer was invited to provide an orientation on pesticides and their hazards. During the question and answer session she strongly challenged the government officials present to promote organic agriculture and alternatives to chemical pesticides.

Providing the participants with an in dept orientation of Genetic Engineering (GE), Wilhemina 'Didit' Peregrina the Executive Director of SEARICE (Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment) debunked the myths and propaganda of the so called benefits of GE being promoted [by] the GE industry and pro-GE scientists. She pointed that they have claimed that GE will ensure food security and will save the world from hunger; and GE will improve the nutrient quality of crops. "In reality GE crops have been in the market since 1996 but hunger and malnutrition persist" she noted. About 35 per cent of GE crops in the market are soyabeans, 20 per cent corn), 10 per cent cotton and 5 per cent canola-all key export crops of industrialized countries, not food crops. "Most of the soya and corn traded worldwide are not meant as food, but as animal feeds," she pointed out ironically. Furthermore, 50 per cent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) had been developed for herbicide tolerance. Didit also ran through the gamut of known evidence of health and environmental hazards of GE, as well as the consumer and ethical concerns over GE food products.

She really shocked participants with the section on GE rice development, in which she shared on 'Biopharmaceutical Rice', where she noted that "rice is being developed as a drug factory, to produce human lactoferin and lysozyme (bacteria fighting compounds in breastmilk and saliva) for commercialisation in the U.S." She explained how this, "GE rice or 'mothers' milk rice is being developed for children with diarhhoea (extracted for oral rehydration and other uses), and Ventria Bioscience application to USDA has gotten the preliminary green light for commercial release in Kansas, even though USFDA refused approval of recombinant pharmaceutical!"

Other disturbing GE rice development noted by Didit included: transgenic hay fever rice due to be commercialised by 2007 in Japan; and rice with human insulin like growth factor (hIGF) which researchers claim will be useful to treat growth deficiencies for children, osteoporosis and even AIDS, while significantly not discussing the cancer promoting qualities of hIGF. She also noted the controversial Liberty Link Rice which faced huge resistance in the European Union but was only, "one signature away for approved importation in the Philippines". Produced by Bayer Cropsience, LL62 is genetically-modified to resist the herbicide glufosinate, which is meant to be used in conjunction with the genetically modified crop. "There are fears that with LL62, glufosinate use by farmers will increase", she noted. Glufosinate has been observed to cause adverse health effects in animals, causing nervous system and numerous birth defects.

She concluded by citing yet more worrying GE developments, including GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) namely the now infamous 'terminator seeds' (sterile) and trait restriction; and the spectre of 'Nano rice' using nanotechnology in rice breeding being developed at Chiang Mai University); and a slew of other examples that included tungro resistant transgenic rice, Bt rice (for yellow stem borer, striped stem borer, and rice leafhoppers), rice with E. coli for starch biosynthesis; nitrogen fixing rice, Beta carotene rice (for indica) or 'Golden Rice' and saline tolerant rice.

The WORA event ended with a workshop session to discuss follow up activities. Participants came up with a range of activities to protect rice, including requests for more information and workshops to share on the issues highlighted at the WORA event and to take these to a wider audience in the villages; village level rice seed conservation projects; community campaigns to resist GE rice; promotion of alternatives to pesticides and ecological/organic agricultural practices.

The Week of Rice Action (WORA) is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net

Contact at PAN AP:

Ms Anne Haslam, PAN AP at wora2007@panap.net
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP)
P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia.
Tel: 604-6570271 or 604-6560381 Fax: 604-6583960
E-mail: panap@panap.net Home Page: www.panap.net

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global network working to eliminate the human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and to promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture. PAN Asia and the Pacific is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasant and indigenous farmers. We are dedicated to protect the safety and health of people, and the environment from pesticide use and genetic engineering. We believe in a people-centered, pro-women development through food sovereignty, ecological agriculture and sustainable lifestyles.

India: South India culminates WORA!

Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. 4 April 2007. By Clare Westwood

Bhubaneswar, India - The Week of Rice Action 2007 culminated over a three-day stretch from 2 to 4 April 2007 in two states in India.

Delegates from PAN AP and WORA anchor organizations in Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka joined Indian delegates to culminate WORA in West Bengal and Orissa.

The West Bengal event was a seminar entitled "Protecting Rice as Our Identity", held in the village of Atghara with almost 400 farmers, villagers and several prominent speakers including Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher from the UK and two ministers from the state ‚ Mr. Naren Dey, Minister for Agriculture and Dr. Murtaja Hussain, Minister for Agriculture Marketing and Relief. Organic rice farmers were recognized in a formal ceremony at the same event. The highlight was the people's pledge at the end: "We will not grow GE rice in our villages! We will grow traditional rice varieties only! We will not give up our rice lands for commercial development!" The event was jointly organized by Thanal, SEVA (Society for Equitable Voluntary Action) and PAN AP.

On the 4th of April, 65 people's organizations culminated WORA in Bhubaneswar, capital of Orissa at the National Workshop on Rice organized by Living Farms, Thanal and PAN AP.

"There couldn't be a more appropriate location to culminate WORA as Orissa is recognized as the place of the origin of rice in India. Also 1,727 villages have been declared GM free here," said Devinder Sharma, activist stalwart in the lead session. "Rather than China, it is most likely to be India where GE rice will be approved for commercialization. Therefore, India should be the focus of regional concern in the fight against GE."

Other notable speakers such as Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher (Econexus, UK), Farhad Mazhar (UBINIG, Bangladesh), and Ardhendu S. Chatterjee (DRSC, West Bengal) spoke on the threats of GE rice and threats to biodiversity-based ecological agriculture and rice ecosystems. Leading activists from various states such as Andhra Pradesh, TamilNadu, Chhatisgarh, Karnataka, West Bengal, Kerala and Orissa also presented on the status of rice cultivation in their states.

"West Bengal is relevant because of the recent Singur and Nandigram issues where thousands of rice farming communities have been abused and displaced because their lands have been grabbed for industrialisation," explained Usha S. of Thanal, "Orissa is also facing the loss of fertile rice lands to mining, rapid industrialization and special economic zones."

Devinder Sharma adds, "The focus of India today is the takeover of village rice lands and moving people out of agriculture. By the year 2015, it is estimated that 400 million rural people (worldwide) will quit agriculture. We are going to witness a massive displacement of people."

The participants of the workshop collectively dialogued on the issues of rice land takeover and GE rice in the country and in the region, and came up with concrete strategies to save rice and small rice farmers starting with Orissa. For example, there were immediate commitments by 13 organizations to create GE-free villages within the next three months. "This workshop is very important in bringing together so many NGOs working with the grassroots. The participants are already raving about the seminar which gave them a good understanding of not just the political situation, but also the scientific aspect of genetic engineering. This information, sharing and strategizing is invaluable to our struggle. Everyone is simply motivated!" says Debjeet Sarangi of Living Farms, a farmers' network in Orissa who also laments the loss of 30,000 traditional rice varieties from the state.

"Unite for Rice, Unite for Asia!" called Clare Westwood of PAN AP, the lead organizer of WORA 2007 to all the NGOs present. "WORA is not an end unto itself; it is a Beginning ‚ Asia must band together to win this war. We must persevere; we must never give up."

She also announced that to date, about 650,000 signatures had been collected for the People's Statement on Saving the Rice of Asia by all the 13 WORA countries. Delegates from Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India proudly presented their signature banners at the close of the workshop to the delight of all present.

Did Asia need WORA? "Yes," says Farhad Mazhar without hesitation. "WORA has been effective in raising public consciousness all over Asia about the threats to rice, rice farmers and rice culture as well as strengthening the people's movement; the people's power. We can no longer rely on governments to protect us ‚ it is time we, the people, took responsibility to save agriculture and the rice of Asia."

All culmination events have been extensively covered by the local press in West Bengal and Orissa.

The Week of Rice Action (WORA) 2007 brings together farmers, rural communities, and other sectors of society to celebrate and protect rice culture. To be officially launched on March 13 in Bangladesh, the main WORA events will take place in 13 countries across Asia from March 29 to April 4. Culminating in India and the Philippines, WORA will be an unprecedented mobilization of Asians "Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture"! A key feature of WORA will be its one-million signature campaign calling on policy-makers to take immediate steps to save the rice of Asia.

WORA is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net

Contact at PAN AP:

Ms Anne Haslam, PAN AP at wora2007@panap.net
PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (PAN AP)
P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia.
Tel: 604-6570271 or 604-6560381 Fax: 604-6583960
E-mail: panap@panap.net
Home Page: www.panap.net

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global network working to eliminate the human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and to promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture. PAN Asia and the Pacific is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasant and indigenous farmers. We are dedicated to protect the safety and health of people, and the environment from pesticide use and genetic engineering. We believe in a people-centered, pro-women development through food sovereignty, ecological agriculture and sustainable lifestyles.

USA: GMO taro pits Hawaiians against some scientists

The Honolulu Advertiser, 4 April 2007.

Both scientists and Native Hawaiians want to save the ancient taro plant from an uncertain future, but they strongly disagree on whether genetic modification is the answer.

Hawaiians believe the taro, revered as an ancestor of the Hawaiian people, should not be altered. Taro, tall and broad-leafed, rises from paddy-like patches around the Islands. Its roots are ground into purplish poi, a glutinous substance avoided by some but an essential ingredient at Hawaiian lu'au.

Researchers say the only way to protect traditional taro from widespread modern plant diseases is to insert resistant genes from rice, wheat and grape crops, altering the basic structure of the plant.

State lawmakers have stalled a bill sought by many Hawaiians that would have placed a statewide moratorium on genetic modification of taro for 10 years.

"How bad do things have to get before those who are anti-genetic modification will admit that taro needs help?" asked Susan Miyasaka, a researcher at the University of Hawai'i-Hilo, who has been testing Chinese taro breeds. "The taro farmers are having trouble making ends meet."

About 50 protesters who gathered at a rally at the state Capitol on Friday said they don't want the so-called help that scientists say they can provide.

They question whether genetic modification will be any more effective than traditional crossbreeding techniques, and they worry that genetically modified crops could contaminate the traditional Hawaiian taro breeds.

For some of the demonstrators, the issue is about preserving the purity of the taro rather than the scientific merits of genetic modification.

"What we're really angry about is that the biotech industry has turned this into a genetic modification issue," said Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte. "This is about us protecting our family member."

According to Hawaiian legend, the cosmic first couple gave birth to a stillborn child, Haloa, from whose gnarled body sprang the broad-leafed plant whose roots are made into poi. The Hawaiian people, it is believed, came from a second brother, making the plant part of their common ancestry.

Since ancient Hawaiian times, taro yields have dropped from 48,000 pounds per acre to 11,000 pounds per acre, Miyasaka said. Her research with preliminary tests has shown that he