NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • October / November 2007

Archives 2007: Jan• Feb • March • April • May • June • July • Aug • Sept • Oct • Nov
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

31 October 2007

Demand for GMO labels on food

Norden.org, 31 October 2007.

The Centre Group in the Nordic Council will strengthen Nordic consumer protection and demands labelling on foods which have been produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Labelling will give the consumer a greater chance to control their consumption of GMO products themselves through clear declaration of a product's contents and ingredients.

EU legislation regulates which genetically modified products have been added and how they should be labelled for the Nordic EU countries. As members of the EEA-EFTA, Norway and Iceland follow these regulations on the whole. According to the EU Directive from 2003 products which contain more than 0.9 % GMO must be labelled. However, the Centre Group feels that there are serious shortcomings with this labelling since the legislation has shown to have loopholes because the same principles do not apply for animal products which have been produced using GMO fodder.

"The consumer must know what he is eating and what production chain he is supporting. It is quite simply not acceptable that animal products made from animals fed on GMO fodder are not labelled. The Nordic countries must take action to improve consumer protection and to support research which increases an understanding of the effect of GMO on both the food chain and the eco system", said Ville Niinist– from the Centre Group in the Nordic Council.

In Sweden and Finland, for example, it has been decided to allow feeding animals with GMO. In the rest of Europe the use of GMO fodder is much more common. The risk of finding traces of GMO in imported meat is therefore high in all the Nordic countries", stressed the Centre Group.

Until further notice no GMO crops are cultivated in the Nordic countries and the Centre Group raises the notion of keeping the Nordic Region a GMO-free zone. It is difficult to control the spread of genetically modified crops, and there is a risk of no longer being able to grow crops organically because of 'GMO contamination', if cultivating GMO crops is accepted. By proclaiming the Nordic Region a GMO-free zone it should be possible to guarantee the production of pure organic and GMO-free products, which would be a competitive advantage for the Nordic countries.

The Centre Group stressed the environmental aspect but also the social side of this issue and welcomed a broad discussion on consumer rights.

The Centre Group met in Oslo during the Nordic Council Session at which gathers together a large number of politicians for several days.

UK: Internal Documents Reveal Government Collusion with Industry on GM Potato Trial Licenses
GM Freeze calls for major Shake-Up

GM Freeze press release, 31 October 2007.

GM Freeze has obtained copies of email exchanges between Defra officials and the biotech company BASF in which there is clear collusion to ensure that the conditions on a consent to trial GM potatoes in England were "agreeable to BASF". In a letter sent today to Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Hilary Benn, the group calls for a major shake-up of the GM approvals system to ensure that protecting the environment and the public takes precedence over the interests of the biotech companies.

One GM potato trial took place this year, at a research centre in Cambridge. Local opposition by farmers prevented the trial at the second site, in East Yorkshire, from going ahead [1].

GM Freeze obtained the emails under the freedom of information legislation. The exchange ran from 29th September to 14th November 2006 and clearly shows how Defra civil servants were happy to amend the conditions of the consent put forward by the GovernmentÇs advisory committee, ACRE [2], if BASF were not happy with them. The exchange ran as follows:

On 29 September 2006, Defra to BASF:

"...there is one point that I want to flag up to you regarding ACREÇs advice. ACRE has recommended the that land should be left fallow for two years following each trial, I would like to know if you think this is workable for you? I notice that other member states have specified that berries/true seeds should be removed from the trial, ACRE has not specified this because the Committee that this would be a very big job (and this is partly why the 2 fallow years has been recommended). If you thinks that that this is completely unworkable I think the Committee may be prepared to accommodate a reduction in this fallow period to one year, but there may be other conditions (eg removal of flowers and berries). In addition to this ACRE has recommended a particular tillage regime, hopefully you are able to accommodate this (I can't specify details at the moment because I need to clarify what exactly is required)."

On 6 October 2006, Defra to BASF:

"Please find attached a draft consent for your consideration. This is currently with our lawyers and is likely to be subject to some changes, however the conditions should not alter substantially and I will keep you informed of any changes before the consent is issued. Please let me know if the conditions as they stand would be agreeable to BASF or whether there any conditions that would be difficult to meet. I may need to consult with ACRE if there are problems with the consent and would appreciate if you could respond to this request by 22 October."

On 25 October 2006, BASF to Defra:

"And I would like to thank you for the very fast preparation of the draft consent and for letting us know. I discussed the probable conditions with my colleagues and believe they are agreeable for us.

"As the public consultation period is over now, we would appreciate if you could give us some comments on the public consultation.

"And we hope that the final conditions won't change too much..."

On 9 November 2006, Defra to BASF:

"As discussed, please see the consent attached, we would be very grateful if you could respond by next Monday at the latest because we need to send this to ministers for their approval.

"Please check condition 4(2) in particular does not affect your plans".

On 14 November 2006, Defra to BASF:

"Thanks for sending the agreement through. In order to transparently comply with (the redrafted) Condition 3 (see below) it would probably be best to insert the conditions of the consent into the field compliance guidelines, 5.1 b of your agreement indicates that these may be amended by BPS so a new agreement would not be necessary.

"I have redrafted condition 3(2) of the draft in response to your concerns, I have not received clearance from our legal team for the redraft but I hope this addresses the problem.

"Condition 3. Where the holder of the consent intends to enter into any agreement with a person or persons who will perform the whole or any part of the trial on the holderÇs behalf, then: (1) such an agreement shall be in writing and it shall incorporate those limitations and conditions in this Schedule (including any variation) as the Secretary of State reasonably requires; and (2) the first release of the GMO in any year of the trial shall not take place until any agreement or variation of an agreement has received the written approval of the Secretary of State.

"Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not you are content with the redraft."

When the legal consent document was finally issued on 1 December 2006, the then Secretary of State David Milliband insisted on taking the unusual step of signing the document himself [3].

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"The willingness of Defra officials to offer changes to the consent condition for this GM potato trial to suit BASF shows how dangerously close Defra has come to the biotech corporations. ACRE are also involved by putting forward the less onerous conditions to cut BASF compliance costs. This is a disgrace considering that Defra and ACRE exist to protect the environment and public health. Instead Defra offered BASF easier and cheaper options.

"Ministers need to give the GM approvals system a good shake-up, including asking whether ACRE remains impartial and is still able to carry out its role. The negotiations between DEFRA officials and the company should never have taken place à itÇs almost as if Defra and ACRE wanted the GM trial to take place in England!".

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 3410965

Notes

1. www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=323&iType=1079

2. the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

3. Note of the GM Policy Coordinating Group 29 September 2006 stated that, "the Secretary of State wished to sign the consent himself". Normally this task is delegated to a senior Civil Servant, as it was when BASF's second consent was issued in April 2007. The Secretary of State at the time was David Milliband. A copy of these notes was obtained by a Freedom of Information request by Friends of the Earth Cymru to the Welsh Assembly Government.

30 October 2007

EU: Austria step closer to lifting GM ban

Financial Times, 30 October 2007. By Laura Dixon in Brussels and Salamander Davoudi in London

Austria may be forced to lift a ban on importing genetically modified maize after EU ministers on Tuesday failed to reach an agreement on the issue.

Although 15 member states supported Austria's decision to restrict the import of GM maize, while only four supported the European Commission's proposal to force Austria to lift the ban, neither side received a qualified majority.

This proposal, which would force Austria to accept the import of two GM products for animal feed (MON810 and T25), was the third time the commission and Austria have come head-to-head on the issue.

Previous attempts by the commission to force Austria to lift its ban were defeated in 2004 and 2006 by environment ministers. Those outvoted proposals had a wider remit- attempting to lift the ban on both the growing and import of crops. The current proposal would allow Austria to keep its ban on cultivation of the product.

The failure of EU ministers to reach a decision by qualified majority voting means that the final decision will lie with the commission.

The environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said that the commission would "take note" of the strong concerns of member states.

"There are two main reasons why people supported Austria here, firstly, out of opposition to GMOs, and secondly, because of a belief that a member states' position should be respected," he said.

Their decision to oppose GM crops, she added, had a political dimension while the commission's decision on was purely scientific.

"If there are objections to our position they should be based on scientific criteria," she added.

Only four member states, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden and Estonia, supported the commission's proposal to force Austria to lift its ban. Some 15 country's voted against it.

Last year the World Trade Organization ruled that European restrictions on the introduction of GM foods violated international trade rules, and gave the 27-member bloc until November 21 this year to loosen its regime.

Now that the decision about Austria lies in the commission's hands, it could be possible to comply with the WTO deadline. Once a decision has been made, Austria would have 20 days in which to respond.

Any non-compliance on Austria's part to a commission decision could see the subject go to the European Court of Justice. Marco Contiero, a policy director on GM crops at Greenpeace said: "The commission, supported solely by four EU governments, is trying to force GMOs on to the European market."

"[This is] against the predominant positions expressed in Council and the will of the majority of EU citizens."

One of the crops, MON810, is produced by Monsanto, the US agribusiness that dominates the GM seed industry. It is the only GM product that is allowed to be cultivated in the EU and was approved by the commission in 1998.

GM products for import and cultivation face opposition in a number of member states.

MON810 is banned in Hungary and Poland, and last week the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, decided to postpone any further planting of the crop pending the results of a report due early next year.

USA: UC and BP: A Step in the Wrong Direction

The Berkeley Daily Planet, 30 October 2007. By Ignacio Chapela.

When our students look back in time, it will be easy for them to recognize this as a key moment in history. The signing of the Ñbioenergyâ agreement between British Petroleum and the University of California, Berkeley for a reported $500 million will be clearly visible then, in the future, as a very big step indeed, a decisive step in the wrong direction.

At Berkeley, the bare promise of money has dulled the capacity for critical thinking and transformed our public institution into a secretive society manipulated by special interest grouplets. I shudder to think about the further consequences that the arrival of this money, and the BP associates carrying it, will have on our campus. Before today, the chancellor would already speak of Ñweâ to refer only to those on campus who identify with his ideas, while the others, like me, are already defined as Ñthem.â

Any disagreement continues to be suppressed, dismissed as simply part of the colorful character of our campus, and the signing of the contract will directly fund the mechanisms necessary to entrench this suppression. Nevertheless, biofuels are now known to have been the wrong answer to the global warming puzzle, and the approach to biofuels into which Berkeley will be locked by signing a contract with BP is also already known to bring with it serious problems for human and environmental health. This reality is clear for anyone with eyes to see, most certainly for those unfortunate enough to live under the immediate consequences of its pursuit in places like Argentina and Indonesia. Time, wind and water will bring those consequences back home to us. With information available today, the only reason one could have to go into the biofuel program of BP and its Berkeley associates is to make personal progress, financially for sure and maybe scholarly, from the very flare of public support created by oneÇs own propagandizing.

Other core values have been sacrificed already in the process of bringing BP to our campus and the ink in the contract with BP will seal their fate. Our chancellor and all the promoters of this agreement have systematically avoided reckoning with the destructive force brought about by this contract against academic freedom and also against an unencumbered public voice for the university. By hijacking the Academic Senate through brute force and parliamentary sleight of hand last spring, BP boosters have minted a new definition of academic freedom as the freedom not to be questioned on their financial associations, no matter how damaging for the university or the public. In other times this Orwellian definition would have been rejected as a grab for unaccountable profiteering, and so it shall be recognized in the future.

But today any question relating to conflict of interest is swept under the cover of this new definition, making it possible for BP associates to carry out research, provide guidance in public policy, teach and train from the halls of our university while standing to gain most of their personal wealth from the consequences of their very research, teaching, and public opinion. The promotion of diversity and true academic freedom and the avoidance of conflict of interest are the most delicate values of our profession because once we lose them it becomes practically impossible even to see that we have: as we open our doors to BP employees and their associates, as we use the money that they bring to recruit professors and students who will by definition agree with the New Order for the university, a flood of acquiescence will drown out any memory of what a truly open and diverse campus could have achieved. In this process, society as a whole may gain a few upward ticks in the stock markets but it certainly loses irretrievably the values sown into the university as seeds for the future over many generations.

This tragic moment for the public university and for biology represents, paradoxically, the natural but unfortunate culmination of Dan KoshlandÇs dream, a dream that became by deed of KoshlandÇs fortune BerkeleyÇs and the nationÇs. Koshland can be credited more than any single individual for his obstinate dedication to transform the discipline of biology into what he defined as Big Science, just as it had been done by others for the field of physics that he so admired. In this effort, he conceived of his home, Berkeley, as the ideal place to bring that dream to reality. While this goal may have looked as desirable back in the Ç80s, by the dawn of the 21st century it is clear that it represents the sacrifice of a whole discipline, biology, in the hands of a small, monopolistic political group which has successfully captured the name of science for their own visions, including the vision of Big Money. Whether Professor Koshland was able to see the tragedy in the natural consequences of his dream will remain an interesting question for his biographers. But now without Koshland his dream forges ahead by bringing the biggest players and profiteers in the geopolitical arena to dictate what we, and by consequence, society, should do with the Big Science that we have wrought.

Koshland was wrong, however, in modelling biology after physics, and the jury is in on that judgement. While physics was able to speed from nuclear particle theory to nuclear war in the briefest three decades, biology continues to resist, half a century and many billions of dollars later, the proposals of physicists and chemical engineers. The New Biology going into the BP era at Berkeley may have new names and new faces, but it has not been able to change the fundamentals of living systems, most poignantly those in the open, public space: the loss of biological and cultural diversity, the spread of epidemics and invasive species, the emergence of new diseases for humans and their companion domesticates, all these problems continue not only unabated, but racing at increased pace.

The interventions by our BP-Berkeleyans have already shown what a staggering power they can have in furthering, not solving, all these problems. Physics as an abstraction provides necessary but not sufficient understanding to deal in real life with living individuals, species or ecosystems, and those living systems will continue to resist from their complex biological reality. Part of that biology-in-resistance shows up at Berkeley every year in the form of faculty, students and many others who want to sustain the idea that we can do much better than proposing to steer the world through engineers and lawyers. A lobby of BP boosters, half-a-billion-dollars louder, will most likely overlook to our peril the power of resistance of those living systems which they wish would fade away. But the public would do well to remember, on the day that the contract is signed in their name, that it is from that very suppressed biology that they can expect any real answers to the questions conveniently shelved away for the BP press conference.

Ignacio Chaplea is a professor of ecosystems sciences at UC Berkeley.

EU: Austria wins GM corn debate

AllAboutFeed.com, 30 October 2007.

Austria is allowed to ban two genetically modified corn varieties. At a meeting held today in Luxemburg, the proposition from the European Commission to stop the Austrian exceptional position was not backed enough by other EU ministers.

Austria is the most hesistant to use GMO crops, compared to other EU countries. The European Commission (EC) is not happy with this because the GM corn varieties are approved by EU food safety experts and already used all over the EU and US. The EC therefore tried to push Austria to start using GM corn.

Enough support

The Netherlands, Great Britain, Estonia and Sweden support the commission. According to these countries, the Austrian hesitation was based on "emotions and not on scientific facts", which was already stated by the commission last December. However, Austria received support from 14 other EU countries to keep its exceptional position in banning GM crops.

WTO conflict

Although Austria is happy with the outcome, this move will trigger a conflict at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Argentina, the US and Canada already complained about the stand points from Austria. They say that Austria is violating the international trade rules.

EU: Brussels wins final say over controversial GMO corn

EU Observer, 30 October 2007. By Renata Goldirova

BRUSSELS ‚ Following intense debate, EU governments have failed to agree whether Austria may keep in place its ban on genetically modified corn - something considered illegal by the World Trade Organisation ‚ paving the way for the thorny decision to be taken by the European Commission.

"Europe is not sending out a clear message to the world in this area, it is rather an ambiguous message with a lot of hesitation linked to it", Portuguese environment minister Francisco Nunes Correia said after environment ministers were unable to reach a clear decision on Tuesday (30 October).

Mr Nunes Correia described the ministerial discussion as "intense" and added "this is an uncomfortable situation that we're all in" - referring to the distribution of votes.

Austria's case was supported by 14 member states - Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland and Slovakia.

However, it was not enough under the so-called qualified majority voting scheme. Four countries - Estonia, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK - voted against Vienna's national restrictions, while the rest of the 27-nation bloc abstained.

"The majority of member states are against the commission's proposal, but the commission's proposal will prevail against the will of one particular member state", Mr Nunes Correia said, adding "that is something that has to give us pause for thought".

According to the Portuguese minister, two arguments translated into the strong support of Austria's case - either a firm opposition to GMO products as such or a belief that a member state's position should be respected.

Referring to the second reasoning, Mr Nunes Correia said "the commission and member states will have to take some steps to avoid such situations because it is a difficult one".

This was the third time that Austrian government faced pressure from the EU's executive body over the country's ban on the use of two types of genetically modified maize - MON810 and T25 - dating back to 1999.

This time, however, Brussels pressed Austria only on a ban on importing and processing into food and feed of controversial corns. The cultivation ban has not been questioned.

"It's an important point for environment and agriculture policy in Austria. We will remain free of gene-technology in cultivation", Austrian environment minister Josef Proell was cited as saying after the vote by Reuters.

The deadlock at the ministerial table effectively means that EU regulators have won the power to decide on the future of Austria's ban, with EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas saying Brussels "takes note of strong concerns expressed [by member states] against our proposal".

"The commission will now consider the situation before deciding what to do next, including an assessment of the World Trade Organisation implications", Mr Dimas, who personally is seen as a GMO opponent, added.

The EU bloc has to come to a decision by 21 November if it wants to escape sanctions from the World Trade Organisation - the body ruled in 2006 that any barriers break international trade laws.

New temporary moratorium?

However, doubts over GMO products appear to be gaining strength within the 27-nation bloc.

At the meeting, Italy suggested no new GMO products should be authorised in the EU until it is crystal clear on what scientific evidence the European Food Safety Agency bases its recommendations. The agency is used by the commission to justify its GMO decisions.

"I was surprised by the member states' interest [in the issue]", Portugal's Francisco Nunes Correia said, adding a lot of member states informally supported this call.

"The subject will be taken forward and tackled in a more formal way in the future", he concluded.

UK: Suspension of GM Crops in France Welcomed - GM Freeze

GM Freeze press release, 30 October 2007.

GM Freeze Welcomes Suspension of GM Crops in France

GM Freeze has warmly welcomed the statement by French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, that the commercial planting of GM crops in France has been suspended.

The announcement was made at a national conference on the environment held this week [1].

Previous refusals by French governments to approve commercial licenses for GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape allowed time for new evidence to emerge about the long term harm the crop would cause to farmland wildlife [2].

Yesterday, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced his intention to ban two GM maize varieties resistant to insect pest (Syngenta Bt11 maize and Pioneer's 1507 maize) because of concerns about the Bt toxins they produce harming the non target species such as butterflies [3].

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said

"The French Government has clearly listened to concerns about the uncertainty surrounding the health and environmental safety of GM crops and we warmly welcome this announcement. It is another clear message to the biotech industry that Europe will not accept poorly tested GMOs. The Sarkozy announcement should kick start a debate on whether the GM intensive farming model is the right way forward for agriculture in Europe and the rest of the world. Many people now recognize that the long term care of the land, biodiversity and natural resources and the production of high quality food is the way forward. Let's hope Number 10 and Defra are also listening."

ENDs

Call to Pete Riley 07903 3410965

Notes

1. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7062577.stm

2. In 1997 the French Government refused to sign commercial marketing consents for two GM oilseed rape varieties produced by Plant Genetics Systems (since taken over and now part of Bayer CropScience) after a qualified vote in favour in December 1996. The Farm Scale Evaluations in the UK (1999-2003) found that GM herbicide tolerant spring and winter oilseed rape both significantly reduced the amounts of weeds and weed seeds in arable fields this reducing the supply of food for farmland birds and other species.

3. See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU00606620071025

UK: Bt Crops Threaten Aquatic Ecosystems

ISIS Press Release 30/10/07

Scientists find wastes from transgenic Bt corn impair growth of common aquatic insect and call on future risk assessment to include aquatic ecosystems previously overlooked. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

In 2006, 35 percent of the 33.1 million hectares of the corn planted in the United States was transgenic, modified to express the Bt toxin Cry1Ab from Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt corn is widely planted in the Midwestern US, often next to headwater streams. Yet, no environmental impact studies have been made of Bt crop by-products on stream insects such as caddisflies (trichopterans), which are common in streams, and closely related to the lepidopterans (butterflies and moths) targeted by the Cry1Ab protein in Bt corn.

As a group, the caddisflies have diverse feeding habbits. Some are filter- feeders, others scrape bioflims off submerged surfaces, and still others feed on detritus. All these caddisflies may consume Bt corn by-products.

A team of scientists led by Emma J. Rosi-Marshall at:Loyola University Chicago in Illinois have now carried out the first study on the fate of transgenic Bt corn wastes in headwater streams next to the fields and their impact on the caddisflies [1]

In laboratory trials, leaf-shredding trichopteran Lepidostoma liba fed Bt corn litter had less than half the growth rate of controls fed non Bt corn litter; while 43 percent of Helicopsyche borealis, an algal-scraping trichopteran, died when fed high concentrations of Bt corn pollen (2 to 3 times the maximum input expected during Bt corn pollen-shed) compared with 18 percent mortality in controls fed non Bt corn pollen.

In the field, 50 percent of filtering caddisflies collected during pollen-shed had pollen grains in their gut and detritus-feeding trichopterans were found in the accumulations of decomposing corn litter in the streams after harvest.

Bt crop by-products fall into the streams as pollen and detritus, they are stored in the sediment, eaten, and transported downstream, and hence their impacts could spread widely within the aquatic ecosystem.

The researchers conclude that "widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences", and call on future assessment of potential non-target effects to be expanded to include relevant aquatic organisms such as stream insects.

They fell short of calling a halt to planting Bt corn next to streams, which would be in keeping with the evidence they have provided.

References

Rosi-Marxhall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Whiles MR, Evans-White M, Chamgers C, Griffiths NA, Pokelsek J and Stephen ML. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. PNAS 2007, 104, 16204-8.

EU Environment Ministers fail to support lifting GM food bans

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 30 October 2007

Brussels, 30 October - Austria's ban on genetically modified maize now lies in the hands of the European Commission, after 21 out of 27 EU Environment Ministers refused to force the ban to be lifted today. [1] Friends of the Earth Europe has urged the European Commission to respect member states' wariness and leave Austria's ban in place.

The Environment Council was today voting on a proposal from the European Commission to force Austria to allow import and processing of the GM maize crops. But the necessary majority was not reached to pass the proposal.

At a previous vote on these national bans [2], EU member states voted against dropping the bans because of unknown impacts on farming systems. As a result of this opposition, the European Commission took cultivation of the GM maize out of today's vote.

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

"The other member states are extremely uncomfortable about bullying Austria over its bans on genetically modified maize. The European Commission has tried to make its proposal to lift the bans as palatable as possible by focusing only on imports instead of growing, but still member states haven't supported it. The Commission must respect the right of Austria to respond to scientific uncertainty and public opinion by keeping its bans in place."

One of the GM maize banned by Austria is engineered to produce an insecticide. Last week, press reports revealed that the European Commission's DG Environment is opposed to the cultivation of similar types of maize crops because of scientific uncertainties. [3]

Also last week, France announced its decision to freeze the cultivation of GM crops because of inadequacies in risk assessment. [4]

Friends of the Earth Europe continues to highlight that genetically modified crops are not successful in Europe. Despite constant pressure from the United States and the biotechnology industry, and following 10 years of commercialisation, GM cultivation in Europe accounts for less than 2 percent of maize production - as confirmed by the biotech industry yesterday. [5]

Notes:

[1] Information so far indicates that the 21 out of 27 countries failed to support the Commission's proposal to drop Austria's national bans on import and processing of GM maize MON810 and T25.

Countries that voted against the lifting of the ban were: Austria, France, Poland, Denmark, Cyprus, Slovakia, Ireland, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Lithuania, Malta, Luxembourg, Greece
Abstentions: Belgium, Romania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal

[2] Environment Council voted to block Commission's proposal to force Austria to drop its bans, December 18th 2006. The Council issued a statement raising concerns at the impact of these crops on farming systems

[3] See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU00606620071025

[4] http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2848857,00.html

[5] Yesterday EuropaBio announced a 77% increase, which brings the amount of GM maize to less than 2 percent.

http://www.europabio.org/GBE_media/GMOfigures/PR_Industry_Biotech%20Figures_FINAL29102007.pdf

Austria defeats EU in GMO battle, may yet lose the war

Earth Times, 30 Oct 2007

Luxembourg - The EU failed Tuesday to persuade enough member states to lift an Austrian ban on two types of genetically modified (GMO) maize, leaving a final decision on the controversial issue to its executive arm, the Commission. EU environment ministers meeting in Luxembourg had been asked by Brussels to drop the ban on the import and processing in Austria of MON810 and T25, two varieties of GMO maize produced by multinationals Monsanto and Bayer.

The ban, in place since the late 1990s, contravenes rules agreed at both EU and World Trade Organization (WTO) level.

But a proposal by the Commission to end Austria's moratorium failed to gain the necessary qualified majority, with heavyweights Germany, France and Italy among the countries backing Vienna on this issue.

"(The vote) means Austrian agriculture will remain GMO-free," Austrian Environment Minister Josef Proll said.

His optimism may be misplaced, however.

Under EU rules, the Commission can take a final decision on the ban in the light of a lack of consensus among the 27 member states.

While the EU says there is no scientific evidence proving that the varieties of GMO maize banned by Austria pose a health or environmental hazard, officials in Luxembourg said the Commission would nevertheless take the outcome of Tuesday's vote into account.

"The Commission cannot ignore the strong support for Austria," one diplomat said.

This is the third time that member states have rejected EU calls for the Austrian ban to be lifted, despite the Commission amending its draft text to exclude the cultivation of the GMO products.

Ireland: Unfair comments on GM foods

Irish Independent, Letter to the editor, 30 October 2007.

It is somewhat surprising that the Irish Independent continues to print wild, unsubstantiated statements concerning GM foods and Monsanto from Dick Barton (Letters, September 20).

He derides the economic benefits of GM crops despite the fact that millions of farmers around the globe, including within the EU, are annually reaping the benefits of the technology.

Put simply: farmers don't waste money, they use GM seed because they provide vastly improved yields with much smaller inputs.

He accuses Monsanto's Roundup of being a health risk. This is totally unfounded. Roundup is extremely safe for humans, animals and birds.

As for the hoary old chestnut the "terminator gene", Dick Barton has it completely wrong again.

This gene does not exist. It is a myth. Dick Barton attacks the integrity of hte Government's chief scientist, Prof. Patrick Cunningham, because of his recent comments on GM foods.

I think we can safely deduce that it is because this eminent scientist has concluded, as so many other scientists also have, that GM crops and GM foods are safe, something which Dick Barton simply cannot accept.

Patrick O'Reilly
Monsanto Ireland
Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

Monsanto's letter is full of lies.

•

Farmers around the world have reported problems with GM crops. These include crop failures, reduced yields, contamination, GM superweeds, liability and patent infringement lawsuits, loss of ownership, and loss of market share. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/crops/

•

Many farmers use GM seeds only because the seed companies don't offer any alternative. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/vshiva.php

•

Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller (the world's most commonly used herbicide) is far more toxic than previously thought. An epidemiological study in the Ontario farming populations showed that glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortions. See http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTARW.php

A study on the toxicity and endocrine disruption potential of Roundup ("Time and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells") by the French Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), published in May 2007 states "Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact". For details see http://www.springerlink.com/content/d13171q7k863l446/fulltext.html.

A separate study of Roundup published in the June 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, reports glyphosate toxicity to human placental cells within hours of exposure, at levels ten times lower than those found in agricultural use. The researchers also tested glyphosate and Roundup at lower concentrations for effects on sexual hormones, reporting effects at very low levels. This suggests that dilution with other ingredients in Roundup may, in fact, facilitate glyphosate's hormonal impacts. For details see http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7728/7728.html

•

The terminator gene, which makes crops sterile, does exist, and in June 2007, Monsanto bought Delta & Pine Land, the US seed company which jointly holds three US patents on Terminator technology with the US Department of Agriculture. In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity recommended that governments not approve Terminator for field tests or commercial use. This created what is now recognized as an international moratorium. The top 10 largest seed companies control half the world's commercial seed market. If Terminator is commercialized, corporations will likely incorporate sterility genes into all their seeds. That's because genetic seed sterilization would secure a much stronger monopoly than patents ó instead of suing farmers for saving seed, companies are trying to make it biologically impossible for farmers to re-use harvested seed. For details see http://www.banterminator.org.

•

The chief scientist of Ireland's denial of the health risks of GM food is not surprising, because he a member of EAGLES, an initiative of the European Federation of Biotechnology lobby group designed to secure EU funding for European biotech companies to promote GM food and farming in the developing countries. For scientific evidence of GM food health risks see Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of genetically engineered foods http://www.geneticroulette.com, and http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/index.php.

European GM crop cultivation leaps 77 per cent

FoodNavigator.com, 30 October 2007. By Laura Crowley.

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in Europe has increased by 77 per cent in the past year, according to figures released yesterday by the biotech industry association EuropaBio.

This year, over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops were harvested in seven EU member states, compared to 62,000 hectares in 2006.

At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption but for animal feed.

The maize contains a gene that defends the crop against the European corn borer, an insect pest that eats the stem, present primarily in southern and middle Europe but moving northwards.

The greatest reported increase in GM crop cultivation is in France, which has quadrupled in size from 5,000 hectares in 1996 to over 21,000 hectares this year.

Cultivated acreage in biotech crops has more than doubled in the Czech Republic and Germany, while Spain, the largest cultivator, saw increases of more than 40 per cent.

The biotech industry says this proves its products are appealing to farmers and are environmentally sound.

"We are delighted to see that the uptake of biotech crops is growing despite the fact that only one product is available on the European market," said Johan Vanhemelrijck, secretary general of EuropaBio.

"The cultivation of biotech plants is legally possible in all EU countries and we strongly urge policy makers in Europe to give all farmers the right to choose the products which they think are best to protect their crops and increase their competitiveness."

However, some campaigners are concerned about the impact GM crops have on the environment, and have said the figures are not as encouraging as the biotech industry claims.

According to environmental charity Friends of the Earth, the total maize growing area in 2006 was reported to be just over six million hectares, meaning that GM maize accounts for less than 2 per cent of total production.

"This is after nine years of commercialisation of this product - not exactly impressive," Friends of the Earth campaigner Clare Oxborrow told FoodNavigator.com.

"We have done a comprehensive analysis, using industry and government figures, showing that GM crops have failed to deliver on the EU's own goals of competitiveness, compared with the thriving organic sector."

Oxborrow continued: "It is also worth pointing out that all GM maize grown in Europe goes into animal feed. Consumers in Europe have rejected GM foods, and labelling rules allow us to avoid foods with GM ingredients."

Last week, President Sarkozy announced a moriatum on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in France, pending a review of the sector. This means that no new crops can be planted until the country's biotech position is made clear.

The decision is part of a green revolution embarked upon by the French government. One of the main concerns that sparked the decision was that pollination of GM crops could cross-contaminate non-GM crops grown in the vicinity.

EuropaBio's figures were released in advance of today's Environmental Council meeting in Luxembourg, which discussed proposals on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms.

The Council also voted on Austria's safeguard measures on the import and processing into food and feed of two types of genetically modified maize, MON810 and T25.

Because 21 out of 27 EU environment ministers refused to force the import ban to be lifted, the decision now lies in the hands of the European Commission.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The total area of EU GM crop cultivation is 0.05% of arable land – a hundred times less than organic farming.

Only one variety of GM crop (Monsanto's patented MON810 maize) is authorised for commercial cultivation in the EU, but only for use as animal feed. But as of October 2007, MON810 is banned in Austria, France, Greece, Hungary and Poland; and other EU member states may ban it soon.

29 October 2007

EU environment ministers gear up for heated GMO debate

EU Observer, 29 October 2007. By Renata Goldirova

BRUSSELS ‚ EU environment ministers are gearing up for a heated debate, which should conclude on the future of a ban on two GMO-maize varieties in Austria - something with profound implications for the union's dispute on GMOs at the World Trade Organisation.

On Tuesday (30 October), the European Commission will once again propose that Austria be forced to drop its national ban on the import and processing into food and feed of two types of genetically modified maize - MON810 and T25 - in order to conform to WTO rules.

All 27 environment ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Tuesday will subsequently vote on the issue, with the so-called qualified majority of votes needed to either adopt or reject the Brussels' proposal.

The table is split fifty-fifty, however.

"There is no great majority in favour and no great majority against", one commission official said ahead of the ministerial meeting, adding that many ministers are set to make up their minds only at the last minute.

Long dispute

This is the third time that Austria finds itself in the spotlight over GMO maize, with the dispute dating back to 1999 when Vienna announced it would provisionally prohibit any use of the two controversial products.

Meanwhile, a new EU directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms entered into force and Brussels in 2004 requested Austria to reconsider its safeguard clause in light of the new legal framework.

However, a majority of EU ministers backed Vienna and swept away commission proposals to scrap the Austrian ban in 2005 and 2006, arguing the Austrian measure is justified due to specific agricultural and regional ecological characteristics.

According to Daniel Kapp from the Austrian environment ministry, the green light for cultivation of GMO products would damage GMO-free agricultural production.

"When it comes to smoking, we protect non-smokers against those who smoke", Mr Kapp told EUobserver, adding "the same concept should be applied to cultivation of GMOs".

WTO

The issue is closely linked to a landmark ruling by the World Trade Organisation in 2006.

The international trade watchdog backed the US, Canada and Argentina in their efforts to force Europe to accept genetically modified organisms, stating that Austria's moratorium on such products would break international trade laws.

In the face of continued backing for Vienna among EU member states, the European Commission has now re-drafted its proposal, limiting its requirements only to food and feed aspects of the Austrian prohibition.

The cultivation ban would be allowed to remain in place.

Should member states fail to reach a qualified majority position on Tuesday, it will be up to the commission to decide on the matter under EU rules on GMOs.

EU: Too close for comfort
The relationship between the biotech industry and the European Commission

An analysis by Friends of the Earth Europe (October 2007)

It is no secret that the EU political class has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In food and farming this translates as high-technology intensive farming with patented inputs and outputs that generate wealth for European industry. The basic aim, clearly stated in EU policy objectives such at the Lisbon Agenda, is to make Europe a leader in the global economy. This has been expressed as different policy slogans ‚ the 'Biosociety' in the 1980s, the 'knowledge-based economy' in the 1990s, and the 'Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy' (KBBE) in the current decade.

Friends of the Earth Europe prepared a report to examine one of the results of the KBBE political mindset and agenda: corporate lobby power and its access to one of the key EU institutions, the European Commission. It focuses on one of the key biotech lobby groups ‚EuropaBio - and recent examples of the very cosy relationship between the companies who stand to make considerable profits from agricultural biotechnology, and policy makers at the European Commission.

EuropaBio is one of the main and most active lobby groups on GM food and crops at the EU level, and boasts of its 'excellent working relations' with the European Commission. The group's agri-biotech lobby efforts are headed by Bayer Cropscience, DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto and Syngenta. As the GM food and crops market is dominated by these very few large corporations, EuropaBio is essentially pushing the interests of these at the European Commission and elsewhere.

You can download the report here:

http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/pdf/too_close_for_comfort.pdf

France puts the brakes on GM cultivation

FoodNavigator.com, 29 October 2007. By Jess Halliday.

France is putting in a place a moriatum on the commercial cultivation of genetically-modified crops pending a review of the sector, a decision that means no new crops can be planted until country's biotech position will be clear.

The decision comes as part of a package of measures intended to make France greener, which was announced by President Sarkozy last week.

A new expert group on the subject is to be set up in the coming weeks and the government is holding a four-month public forum on what France's environmental policy on GM should be, which is likely to be fiercely fought.

One the one hand, the anti-GM lobby in France is powerful, with some media friendly faces like farmer-activist Jose Bové at the forefront. But on the other, some of the most advanced biotech research in Europe is taking place at French research institutes such as CIRAD.

Moreover, seed producers and grain processors are said to have reacted with outrage to suggestions that GM cultivation in France be banned outright.

France's position is expected to be clear in early 2008. This would mean that, in real terms, last week's decision does not make a difference to seed planting, since planting takes place in the spring.

Following the decision, Monsanto has said it is "deeply disappointed" by Sarkozy's speech. It claims GM technology can actually help France reach its environmental goals of reducing pesticide use and economising on water.

Bové has said that he does not object to research into GM, as long as it happens behind closed laboratory doors. Indeed, Sarkozy has stressed that last week's decision does not mean a halt to research.

One of the main concerns is that pollination of GM crops could cross-contaminate non-GM crops grown in the vicinity - and that ultimately the long-term health effects of GM on humans are not known.

Indeed, a working group has suggested that co-existence of the two kinds of crops be more strictly regulated, and that ultimate responsibility for controlling their crops and preventing cross pollination should rest with the farmers.

At the moment, the only GM maize approved for cultivation in France is Monsanto's MON810, which was approved by the EU in 1998.

It is recommended that the distance between GM and non-GM crops should be twice that required for coexistence of conventional crops - that is, 50 metres.

Moreover, although the growers' association AGPM says that in the natural environment maize does not cross-pollinate with any other plant, information should be given to all maize growers whose crops may be near plots of GM maize.

The association also drew attention to the implementation of a best practice guide for coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM corn in 2004, and compliance with the prescribed limit of 0.9 per cent.

Greenpeace claimed in 2005 the European Commission gave the green light to Monsanto's MON810 maize into the EU seed catalogue, without a comprehensive monitoring plan, since the plan provided was under the old EU directive that considered only the possibility of resistance to Bt-toxin in corn borer populations. Updated directive (2001/18/EC) was said to be more thorough.

In March the Official Journal of the EU published a number of orders on the commercial production of GM crops, and the provisions of EU directive 2001/18 have been transcribed into French law.

The BCC has reported that figures to be published today will show that the area planted with GM crops in Europe has expanded by 77 per cent since last year.

It says that over 1,000 square km of GM maize was harvested this year.

Indeed, the AGPM said in March that interest in Mon 810 has been piqued by a corn borer epidemic across France in the last few years. The first big leap in land devoted to cultivation of MON810 between 2005 and 2006 - from 500 to 5200 hectares. And last year, as in 2005, 15 growers wishing to grow the crop took part in an introductory programme Programme d'Accompagnement de Cultures Issues des Biotechnologies.

In June, EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson delivered a strong exhortation to the EU to take a lead in shaping global rules on GM trade - particularly in defending objective science as a benchmark - or suffer the economic consequences.

He called biotechnology "the coal face of applied science in the 21st century", and warned that if the EU does not work through the issues raised by GM food, just as the rest of the global market is doing, it will not be working it its own best interests.

The fear, he said, is that if the EU falls behind in approving safe biotechnology, it would open itself up to economic risks.

According to Reuters, EU Commission has indicated France's case may not stand up in court if it ultimately decides to banned GM crops that are allowed by Brussels.

USA: Landless Rural Worker Shot by Security Company Hired by Multinational Syngenta
Corporate Murder in Brazil

CounterPunch, October 29 2007. By Isabella Kenfield and Roger Burbach.

In the Brazilian state of Paran·, Valmir Mota de Oliveira of Via Campesina, an international peasant organization, was shot twice in the chest at point blank range by armed gunmen on an experimental farm of Syngenta Seeds, a multinational agribusiness corporation. The cold blooded murder took place on Sunday, October 21 after Via Campesina had occupied the site because of Syngenta's illegal development of genetically modified (GM) seeds. Via Campesina and the Movement of the Landless Rural Workers (MST), the main Brazilian organization involved in Via Campesina's actions, are calling the murder an execution, declaring, "Syngenta used the services of an armed militia."

Syngenta is the world's largest producer of agrochemicals and the third largest commercial seed producer. Between 2001 and 2004, Syngenta was responsible for the largest case of genetic contamination on the planet when its GM Bt-10 corn, approved for only animal feeds, was mixed with US grain meant for human consumption. Via Campesina first occupied Syngenta's site in March 2006, after it discovered that Syngenta was illegally cultivating GM soybeans and corn. The occupation drew strong international support, and in November state governor Roberto Requi“o signed a decree of intent to expropriate the Syngenta farm, proposing to turn it into an agroecological research center that would benefit poor rural families. The decree was a huge political victory for the rural and environmental movements, challenging the power of agribusiness in Brazil.

When the MST organized a march to the Syngenta site in late November last year, its busses were halted by a blockade of tractors formed by about a hundred members of the Rural Society of the West, a group representing large landowners and commercial agricultural producers in western Paran·. It is part of a larger network known as ruralistas, which represent reactionary landed and agribusiness interests at the regional, state and national levels. Some Society members were on horseback and armed with guns. As the marchers began to cross the barricade, the Society fired shots into the air, and beat the marchers with sticks and clubs, resulting in the injury of nine people.

When asked why the organization had confronted the MST, Alessandro Meneghel, President of the Rural Society, responded: "to show that the rural producers do not peacefully accept land invasions and political provocationsAttitudes such as these, of legally questionable [land] expropriations, send a bad message to investors, chasing them away and provoking 'Brazil risk.'" Meneghel threatened: "For every invasion of land that occurs in the region, there will be a similar action by the Society. We are not going to permit the rural producers to be insulted by ideological political movements of any kind."

Syngenta, through its alliances with the Rural Society and other large landed interests, succeeded in overturning Governor Requi“o's decree. In July of this year, the Via Campesina was evicted from the site, re-locating to the MST's Olga Ben·rio settlement, located next to Syngenta. The de-occupation occurred in conjunction with a peaceful march by the movements, after Requi“o ordered the police to stop the Rural Society from confronting the marchers. Control of the property was returned to Syngenta, and it was then that the corporation hired the private NF Security company to guard the site.

A statement on Syngenta's web site claims the corporation "specifically agreed in the contract with [NF] security company not to use any force or carry weapons." Yet in late July, families at Olga Ben·rio were threatened by armed NF security guards, which entered the settlement and remained there for about 40 minutes. At night, the guards would fire shots in the air. These events were reported to the authorities.

As a result, in October the federal police raided NF Security's headquarters, where it confiscated illegal arms and ammunition. The police report concludes that the NF Security company contracts individuals, many with criminal records, to form armed militias that carry out forced land evictions, and that the Rural Society numbers among its clients.

At dawn on October 21st, about 150 members of Via Campesina reoccupied Syngenta's site, where they encountered four armed security guards, who were disarmed and left the site. At about 1 in the afternoon, Via Campesina reports, "a bus stopped in front of the entry gate and about forty armed gunmen got out, firing machine guns at the people that they saw in the encampment. They broke down the gate, then shot [Mota]. The militia attacked the encampment to assassinate the leaders and recover the illegal arms of the NF Security company."

Five MST/Via Campesina members were wounded and remain hospitalized. Security guard F·bio Ferreira, who apparently returned to the site, was also killed. The reason for his death is unclear, although one MST member believes Ferreira was murdered because he had incriminating information he might have divulged. MST members CÈlia LourenÁo and Celso Barbosa were chased and shot at, but managed to escape. It appears the two were targeted to die like Mota. Earlier this year, Meneghel of the Rural Society verbally threatened LourenÁo at a public forum, and the MST reports that on March 27th, its office in Cascavel, Paran· received an anonymous phone call advising Mota, LourenÁo and Barbosa to be careful because "a trap was being prepared for them." Mota himself registered the death threats with the local authorities. On August 28, Terra de Direitos, a human rights organization, registered the threats with the National Program of Human Rights Defenders, and requested protection for the three.

The owner of NF Security, Nerci Freitas, has admitted he gave the order for the attack on Syngenta. He has been arrested and charged with homicide and formation of gangs. No one has claimed that the Via Campesina/MST occupants were armed. The organizations are calling for the immediate arrest of Meneghel, and are demanding that Syngenta leave Brazil immediately, declaring, "Syngenta Seeds should be held responsible for what occurred."

Mota's murder exhibits an unsettling arrogance and dismissal of the law and the government by the Rural Society, NF Security and Syngenta, not unlike that being played out on a grander scale by the Blackwater security company and US corporate interests in Iraq. It also highlights the increasing number of conflicts between agribusiness and rural civil society sweeping Latin America, as the alliance between national and international agribusiness deepens from country to country. Mota's death could well signal a new era of continental violence and bloodshed as the powerful agribusiness interests come up against the progressive social movements that are shaking the Americas.

Isabella Kenfield is an associate of the Center for the Study of the America (CENSA) who has just returned from living in Brazil. She writes on agribusiness, agrarian conflicts and social movements.

Roger Burbach is director of CENSA who has written extensively on Latin America and US policy. He is currently at work on "The New Fire in the Americas."

28 October 2007

UK: Time for a fresh start on GM

The Independent on Sunday, 28 October 2007

One of Gordon Brown's many chances for a fresh start, after the high-pitched certainties of his predecessor, is the Government's policy on genetically modified food. In truth, the battle is already over. Those who urged caution, including this newspaper which launched a campaign against GM food in 1999, have won. Those who advocated a rush towards the white heat of a biotechnological future, including Tony Blair, have lost. What is required now is for Mr Brown to accept that outcome and to take the debate on to more level ground.

When we began our campaign, 60 per cent of the food on British supermarket shelves contained GM ingredients. Today there are only two products. Public opinion has spoken and the market has responded. Few people want to eat GM. They have made up their minds even though its safety is still in dispute, with little firm evidence on either side of the argument. And there are other reasons for opposing the growing of GM crops - the loss of biodiversity shown by the Government's trials and the likelihood that genes will escape to contaminate organic and conventional produce. In the absence of a compelling argument to set against these important drawbacks we think that British consumers have made the right choice. If we do not need it, why have it?

That logic has killed off GM as a commercial proposition in this country and most of the rest of Europe for the foreseeable future. When our campaign began, it was widely assumed that consultation and trials were a formality, that GM crops would soon be planted all over Britain and that protests were futile. Mr Blair was enthusiastic about the possibilities, and how Britain could take a leading role on this frontier of human knowledge. Since then, that frontier has become a less exciting place. The hype of "feeding the world", or "super-crops" that do not need weedkiller or pesticides, has given way to a more complex and prosaic reality.

Crops with higher yields have proved harder to engineer than hoped and tend to be overtaken by gains in the traditional technology of selective breeding. And instead of developing crops that might help the world, the biotech companies have concentrated on ones that benefit only their own bottom lines, for example by having to be cultivated with their own proprietary pesticides

So: people do not want it; the great predicted benefits have failed to materialise; the GM juggernaut has stalled. Campaigners for GM have not given up, however. Dick Taverne, a member of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, writes (again) in next month's Prospect about how "moralising" about GM in the West is costing millions of lives in the poor world. But his argument is unconvincing. Development charities, who know better than most how things work in the often complex Third World grassroots, oppose the technology because it increases, rather than reduces, hunger.

Yet the Blairite mission seems to be carried on by inertia, even after the former Prime Minister and David Sainsbury, his science minister and biotech cheerleader, have gone. As we report today, public funding is still skewed in favour of this one vision of the future of food. Funding for research into GM science seems to be about 20 times that devoted to organic methods. Yet people want organic not GM food, while the emphasis of policy in other parts of the Government machine is on biodiversity and environmental sustainability. (This month the Treasury even published targets for "wild breeding bird populations" and "plankton status".)

What is more, the secrecy with which the Government treats GM policy bears all the defensive hallmarks of the Blair period, when public policy was bent to promoting an unpopular cause on the quiet in the hope that opinion would turn. Geoffrey Lean, our Environment Editor, describes today how difficult it proves to obtain what ought to have been straightforward information on spending on GM research.

Mr Brown has the chance to be more open; to balance policy so that, at the very least, it is more even-handed between GM and organic. And he has the chance to move the debate about the future of biotechnology on to a sounder footing. We are not opposed to genetic manipulation on principle. We do not share Prince Charles's view that it is interfering in matters that are the province of God. If GM technology was really designed to help to feed the world, or produce drought-resistant or salt-resistant crops to help humankind adapt to global warming, then there would be reason to welcome it.

But this has to be subject to transparent assessment of all the environmental impacts, including on human health, without the Government seeking to pick winners and advocating any particular technological fix - especially one that the people of the country reject so overwhelmingly.

UK: The Secret Files

The Independent on Sunday, 28 October 2007

Ministers are funding genetically modified crop projects with scores of millions of pounds every year and are colluding with a biotech company to ease its GM tests, the IoS can reveal. Geoffrey Lean on a murky tale that Whitehall tried to hide

Ministers are secretly easing the way for GM crops in Britain, while professing to be impartial on the technology, startling internal documents reveal.

The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, show that the Government colluded with a biotech company in setting conditions for testing GM potatoes, and gives tens of millions of pounds a year to boost research into modified crops and foods.

The information on funding proved extraordinarily difficult to get, requiring three months of investigation by an environmental pressure group, a series of parliamentary questions, and three applications for the information.

Friends of the Earth finally obtained still partial information last week which shows that the Government provides at least GBP50m a year for research into agricultural biotechnology, largely GM crops and food. This generosity contrasts with the GBP1.6m given last year for research into organic agriculture, in spite of repeated promises to promote environmentally friendly, "sustainable" farming.

Publicly ministers claim to be neutral over GM. Four years ago, at the height of controversy about plans to introduce modified crops to Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that the Government was "neither for nor against" them. The then Environment minister, Elliot Morley, added: "There is an open and transparent process for their assessment and all relevant material will be put in the public domain." Last month the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, reiterated: "There is no change in the Government's position."

But the documents show that ministers have been far from even-handed. One set, obtained by the campaigning group GM Freeze, clearly demonstrate that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) allowed the biotech giant BASF to help to set the conditions for field trials it has conducted on modified potatoes. On 1 December last year the company was given permission to plant 450,000 modified potatoes in British fields over the next five years, in a series of 10 trials. The set of emails and letters between Defra and the company reveal that officials repeatedly went to remarkable lengths to make sure the trial conditions, supposed to protect the environment and farmers, were "agreeable" to BASF.

On 29 September a department official emailed BASF to inform it of a recommendation by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (Acre), its official advisers on risks to health and the environment from GM, that "the land should be left fallow for two years following each trial" and added "I would like to know whether you think that this is workable for you". The official pointed out that other EU countries had specified that "berries/true seed should be removed from the trial" but that Acre had "not specified this because the committee believes that this would be a very big job". The email went on: "If you think this is completely unworkable, I think the committee may be prepared to accommodate a reduction of this fallow period to one year but there may be other conditions (eg removal of flowers/berries)."

The writer added: "In addition to this, Acre has recommended a particular tillage regime, hopefully you are able to accommodate this."

On 6 October Defra sent BASF a draft of the consent to the trials, adding: "Please let me know whether or not the conditions as they stand would be agreeable to BASF or whether there are any conditions that would be difficult to meet."

BASF replied on 26 October that it believed that the "probable conditions" were "very agreeable to us", adding: "We hope that the final conditions will not change too much."

On 9 November Defra again emailed BASF to check that one of the conditions "does not affect your plans", and five days later was in touch again to say that it had "redrafted" another "in response to your concerns".

Yet the department insisted in a written statement last week: "There is no truth in any allegation that Defra was in any way influenced by BASF in relation to the terms under which BASF could conduct trials on GM potatoes in the UK."

Pete Riley, the campaign director of GM Freeze, said: "That is simply not correct. The documents clearly show that Defra colluded with BASF to ensure that Acre's conditions for growing their GM crop were to their liking. Its role is to protect the environment and public health. It is supposed to be a watchdog, but the documents reveal it to be the industry's lapdog."

Peter Ainsworth, the Conservative environment spokesman, added: "This is a government department that claims to be objective and science-based in its approach to biotechnology, but clearly it has bent over backwards to model its conditions on the requirements of BASF."

A spokesman for BASF said: "I do not think that they granted us any concessions that would not normally have been granted."

The funding disclosure came when the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - which is funded by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills - revealed that it gave GBP39.3m to its seven sponsored institutes for research on "agricultural biotechnology" in 2006-07.

The sum has more than doubled, from GBP15.5m, since 1997, even though the prospects for GM crops in Britain have been declining in this period, with ministers admitting three years ago that none would be grown commercially "for the foreseeable future".

Besides this "core strategic grant", the BBSRC also gives tens of millions of pounds a year for similar research to universities and other institutes.

In 2003-04 this sum totalled GBP27.1m. The BBSRC told Friends of the Earth that it could not provide it with up-to-date information until January, unless it paid a fee of GBP750, because this "would take considerable effort, beyond the appropriate limit" to assemble. But the figure is believed not to have fallen over the past three years. On top of the BBSRC funding, Defra provided GBP12.6m for agricultural biotechnology research in 2005-06, the last year for which figures are available.

Nor is it clear how much money goes to genetic modification, since the BBSRC defines agricultural biotechnology as "the application of molecular genetic and other modern biological techniques to crops, livestock and disease-causing organisms".

It says it is not yet able to provide information on the proportion that has recently been devoted to GM, as opposed to other techniques. But figures on its website show that in 2000-01 about half of its core strategic grant to the seven institutes was spent on the technology.

In contrast, Defra spent GBP1.6m on research "relating to organic farming", while BBSRC refuses to provide any funds at all, saying it "does not fund applied work on entire farming systems".

It justifies spending so much taxpayers' money on GM before, as it admits, "there is any clear evidence that the public wants them" by saying that research must retain "the flexibility to remain competitive and to respond to changing global situations and changes in consumer demand".

Yet when the Government officially asked the public, four years ago, about their preferences, 86 per cent said they would not be happy to eat GM foods. By contrast, sales of organic produce rose by 22 per cent last year to break through the GBP2bn barrier. More than half of Britons now buy it, at least from time to time.

The BBSRC says that its funding for the research on GM crops would continue even if there was "a Europe-wide ban" on growing them commercially.

Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Friends of the Earth's food campaigner, said: "The Government's support for GM crops and foods is out of all proportion to its non-existent benefits, let alone the public's non-existent desire to consume them.

"Despite continually promising to support sustainable agriculture, it is spending tens of millions on a technology that has fallen flat on its face while starving organic farming, which is producing food that people want to buy.

"It is also staggering that there is no clear information in the public domain on exactly how much money is going into GM research, and that it has proved so hard to get even partial figures out into the light of day."

UK: A farmer's story: 'It's all about control of food production'

The Independent on Sunday, 28 October 2007. By Jonathan Owen.

The spectre of GM contamination has cost John Turner dear. A succession of trials near his 250 acre farm in Little Bytham, South Lincolnshire, between 2000 and 2002 forced him to stop growing certain crops - suffering heavy financial losses as a result.

"It was a nightmare and we just felt absolutely powerless to do anything over it at all," he recalled. "Without any real protection against contamination, we were forced to stop growing crops like maize that could be vulnerable to cross-pollination. It wasn't easy but it was preferable to the damage that could have been done if our crops were no longer GM-free. We feel that we are in remission at the moment, but every few months there seems to be a new PR push from the GM lobby."

The facts are being twisted to fit a commercial agenda, according to Mr Turner: "There is no sound science behind the push for GM crops. It's all about money and control of not only the seeds but also food production from one end to the other. The more I find out about it the less I understand why there has been this impetus to force this technology on farming. It has been hugely over-hyped by those trying to promote it. There are plenty of ways of improving crops that don't involve swapping genes around.

"But farmers could sleepwalk into using GM crops and by the time they realise the proposed benefits just aren't there they will not be in a position to go back to a GM-free style of agriculture - that's the danger and that's been the experience of farmers in other parts of the world."

UK: Official: organic really is better

The Sunday Times, October 28 2007. Jon Ungoed-Thomas.

THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.

The evidence from the GBP12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.

The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.

Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.

This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers and the agency have said there are no significant differences between organic and ordinary produce.

Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in milk from conventional herds.

As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables, they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce coronary heart disease. Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said.

UK: Eat your words, all who scoff at organic food

The Sunday Times, October 28 2007. Jon Ungoed-Thomas.

ITS unassuming location belies its importance. Sandwiched between Hadrian's Wall and the busy A69 road to Newcastle upon Tyne is a 725-acre farm that will help to determine the nationÇs future eating habits.

In a unique experiment, its rolling pastures and ploughed fields have been split into two so that conventional and organic produce can be grown side by side. It has enabled scientists to test the alternative foods rigorously and answer a question that most shoppers ask themselves on a regular basis: is buying organic better for you?

Findings from the GBP12m European Union-funded project, the biggest of its kind and the first to investigate systematically the physiology of produce from the different farming techniques, will be peer reviewed and published over the next 12 months.

But already one conclusion is clear: organically produced crops and dairy milk usually contain more "beneficial compounds" - such as vitamins and antioxidants believed to help to combat disease.

"We have a general trend in the data that says there are more good things in organic food," said Professor Carlo Leifert, leader of the QualityLowInput-Food (QLIF) project. "We are now trying to identify the agricultural practices that are responsible for this."

The research has shown up to 40% more beneficial compounds in vegetable crops and up to 90% more in milk. It has also found high levels of minerals such as iron and zinc in organic produce.

The findings from the farm, which is part of Newcastle University, appear to conflict with the official government advice that buying organic food is a lifestyle choice and there is no clear evidence that it is "more nutritious than other food".

The new research comes after a seven-year stand-off between the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the organic sector over the nutritional benefits of organic food. Lord Krebs, the FSA's first chairman, even said that organic food may not be good value for consumers.

The organic market has boomed in recent years, growing by 25% annually on average, and is now worth nearly GBP2 billion a year. Organic produce is typically about 30% more expensive, although for products such as cherry tomatoes and carrots it is almost double the price. Supermarket organic milk is 18% more expensive.

The FSA has recently offered a more conciliatory approach to organic groups such as the Soil Association. One internal e-mail, sent on August 1, 2006 and obtained under freedom of information laws, states: "[There is] a perception among a range of stakeholders that the agency is antiorganic. Part of the action to address this is to change the tone of our statements."

However, the agency has not changed its scientific advice. As David Miliband, then the environment secretary, told The Sunday Times last January: "It's a lifestyle choice that people can make. There isn't any conclusive evidence either way."

However, the evidence of the nutritional differences has been mounting. Last summer a 10-year study by the University of California comparing organic tomatoes with those grown conventionally found double the level of flavonoids - a type of antioxidant thought to reduce the risk of heart disease. Other studies show milk having higher levels of omega3 fatty acids, thought to boost health.

Over the past four years, the QLIF project, involving 33 academic centres across Europe and led by Newcastle University, has analysed the 725-acre farm's produce for compounds believed to boost health and combat disease.

Like other studies, the results show significant variations, with some conventional crops having larger quantities of some vitamins than organic crops. But researchers confirm that the overall trend is that organic fruit, vegetables and milk are more likely to have beneficial compounds. According to Leifert, the compounds which have been found in greater quantities in organic produce include vitamin C, trace elements such as iron, copper and zinc, and secondary metabolites which are thought to help to combat cancer and heart disease.

Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, said the research could help to contribute to a "seismic" change in the food industry: "If you know there are significant nutritional differences in these foods, any sensible citizen would conclude it must have health implications."

Andrew Wadge, the FSA's chief scientist, said the agency had ordered a review of evidence on the nutritional content of organic and conventional produce. He said that even if the review found significant differences, the government would still need to assess any possible impact on health.

He added that the debate over the relative benefits of organic food should not blur the key message on diet and health. "The organic brand has been hugely successful," he said. "But the most important issue is not whether people are eating organic or not, but whether they are eating a healthy balanced diet."

27 October 2007

Germany: French Skepticism of GMO Crops Signals Policy Shift

Deutsche Welle, 27 October 2007

France is the latest EU country reluctant to use genetically-modified crops with President Sarkozy suspending their cultivation. The issue remains a subject of heated debate in the EU's largest agricultural producer.

France lags behind its European neighbours on environmental issues such as recycling and using renewable sources of energy. But this week environmentalists were full of praise for French President Nicolas Sarkozy for saying no GMO crops would be planted in France until the government had received the results of an evaluation by a new authority on GMOs set to be launched later this year.

Green campaigners have long warned of the dangers of GMO crops, saying they are potentially toxic since the seeds have been genetically modified to resist pests and weeds.

"Instead of spraying pesticides and herbicides, the toxins are produced in all of the plant's cells," said Geert Ritsema, a Greenpeace International anti-GMO campaigner in Amsterdam, who attended a high-profile environmental submit convened by Sarkozy.

The conference, attended by former US vice president and Nobel laureate Al Gore and head of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, was in keeping with Sarkozy's election pledge to put green matters at the top of the French government's agenda.

Sarkozy stopped short of an outright ban on all GMOs, which would have contravened EU agricultural rules, and stressed that his move does not call for halting biotech research.

Critics say GMOs unsafe and toxic

The future of GMOs has long been the subject of heated debate in France with powerful farming lobbies and environmentalists at loggerheads over the safety and viability of using GMO crops.

In the EU, the MON810 corn variety, which is produced by US-based biotech firm Monsanto, is the only GMO maize that has been approved for cultivation.

Although the GMO share of total maize production in France, the EU's largest agricultural producing country, is barely 1.5 percent this year, maize growing increased fivefold from only 0.3 percent in 2006. Some farmers have urged greater use of GMO crops to boost yields.

Green lobbyists say GMOs contaminate conventional crops and create imbalances in the ecosystem where wildlife has to coexist with farming.

"You have a built-in insecticide that is part of the plant's genetic make-up, which not only kills pests," said Adrian Bebb, a GM food expert at the Munich-based Friends of the Earth Europe. "Pollen from maize falls into streams and impacts on ecologically useful or harmless insects, such as butterflies," he explained.

Greenpeace says that even though GMO maize is primarily used as animal feed in Europe, the toxicity of such crops could have unforeseen longer term health implications for humans. When one type of maize was fed to rats in a laboratory study at the University of Caen, their immune system was weakened.

Agricultural lobby pooh-poohs claims

Still, GMO soya, corn and oil seeds have been widely planted by farmers all over the world in the last decade or so, with more than 90 percent of the global supply coming from the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina.

Multi-national companies that supply the seeds argue that health risks have not been scientifically proven and biotechnological processes are kinder to the environment since they reduce the need for fertilizer and chemical killers.

Pascal Ferey, vice-president of SNSEA, a union which represents big industry agriculture interests in France said that environmental groups are using scare tactics by misrepresenting the hazards of GMO crops to the public, which are unfounded in his view.

"We consume GMO traces everyday in our meat, cheese, mayonnaise and ketchup without even knowing about it. How many shoppers truly read the labels down to the last detail when they buy groceries?" he asked.

Maiz Europ, an association of French maize growers was also critical of how ecological groups have manipulated public opinion and health studies to support their views.

"Do you think Brussels would have authorized GMO seeds if they were so dangerous?" asked spokesman Pascal Hurbault, who pointed out that gene techniques have been the best defense against two particularly voracious rootworms that have ravaged maize crops in southwest France.

European GMO skepticism in stark contrast to US

France becomes the latest European country to voice doubts over the use of GMOs. Several European Union countries have dug in their heels on whether their farmers may grow MON 810 maize.

Hungary, one of the EU-27's biggest grain producers, banned the planting of MON 810 seed in January 2005. Germany earlier this year decided that maize produced from MON 810 seeds could only be sold if there was an accompanying monitoring plan to research its effects on the environment.

Austria too could face an attempt by European Union regulators to force it to lift bans on two GMO maize types.

This past Wednesday, the European Commission authorized three more corn varieties and a sugar beet to enter the market, but the GMO crop seeds will be imported, not grown in Europe.

The raging debate over the future of GMOs in Europe is in sharp contrast to the United States, where GMO technology is much more widely accepted.

Genetically modified ingredients have found their way onto supermarket shelves in the form of cooking oils and processed foods, said Bebb of Friend of the Earth Europe.

"Since GMO labeling is not required in the US, consumers don't know what is in their food," he said.

Campaigners agree that there is more awareness in European nations about the dangers of genetically-modified food partly due to the fact that food producers are required by the EU to label products containing GMO ingredients. Various opinion polls show that at least 80 percent of the French public are against GMO foods, which are viewed as unnatural and unhealthy.

Despite the strong passions evoked by GM crops among both advocates and critics, most have welcomed Sarkozy's push for a leadership role on environmental issues that has long been neglected by his predecessors at the Elysée Palace.

Some point out that France's policy shift on GMOs will also have implications for the rest of the EU. "Earlier the government was under pressure from industry groups to be pro-GMO," said Bebb. "So the precautionary shift now in Sarkozy's tone is a seismic one."

---

"Je veux revenir sur le dossier des OGM : la vérité est que nous avons des doutes sur l'intérét actuel des OGM pesticides ; la vérité est que nous avons des doutes sur le contrôle de la dissémination des OGM ; la vérité est que nous avons des doutes sur les bénéfices sanitaires et environnementaux des OGM." - President Nicolas Sarkozy

26 October 2007

USA: James Watson's Legacy: Promoting a New Eugenics

Genetic Crossroads: newsletter of the Center for Genetics and Society, 26 October 2007.

Dr James Watson's apology and resignation in disgrace from his post at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory lay to rest his troubling legacy? The world now knows about the blatant racism of the twentieth century's most famous geneticist. Those tracking the story have also learned of Watson's other assorted bigotries - his denigration of "ugly girls," "stupid" children, and "fat people"; his endorsement of paying rich people to have more children and aborting affected fetuses when tests for a "gay gene" are developed.

But that's not all. Though neither media nor blogosphere have emphasized it so far, Watson - and a small but disturbing number of other prominent figures - have over the past decade been actively promoting a renewed program of eugenics, this time using twenty-first century reproductive and genetic technologies.

The new eugenics crowd is hardly coy Various among them have explicitly endorsed "seizing control of our [human] evolutionary future" and "engineering the human germline." Back in 1998 they held a high-profile conference - covered on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post - to plan how to make this high-tech eugenics "acceptable" to the American public.

At that event, Watson called for "mak[ing] better human beings" by "add[ing] genes." A few years later, he wrote that "Hitler's use of the term Master Race" should not make us "feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today."

We've accumulated an impressive number of other revealing Watsonisms [SEE BELOW]. Please send us more; weÇll add them to our collection.

USA: James Watson's Legacy

Posted by Center for Genetics and Society on October 22nd 2007.

Over the past half century, millions have known James Watson for his Nobel Prize and double-helix fame. Only last week did most learn about James Watson, bigot and eugenics enthusiast.

Watson now says, "That is not what I meant." But take a look at these statements by him, stretching back years. And he's not the only one; some of his colleagues have joined him in advocating for a new high-tech eugenics.

Do you have a Watson quote we've missed? Post it as a comment below, and we'll add it to the list. Please be sure to include citation.

On race and intelligence

"[A]ll our social policies are based on the fact that [Africans'] intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not reallyğ [P]eople who have to deal with black employees find [equality] is not true."

Interview with The Times of London, October 14, 2007

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science (2007)

On "stupid" kids, ugly girls, and enhanced children

"If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease.... The lower 10 percent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 percent...."

"It seems unfair that some people donÇt get the same opportunity. Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it. It would be stupid not to use it because someone else will. Those parents who enhance their children, then their children are going to be the ones who dominate the world..."

"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great...."

"I think it's irresponsible not to try and direct evolution to produce a human being who will be an asset to the world."

DNA, British documentary, March 2003

"Then I am a eugenicist"

"My view is that, despite the risks, we should give serious consideration to germ-line gene therapy. I only hope that the many biologists who share my opinion will stand tall in the debates to come and not be intimidated by the inevitable criticism ... If such work be called eugenics, then I am a eugenicist."

DNA: The Secret of Life, 2003

On sex and discriminating against overweight people

Watson proposed that skin color and sex drive are linked. "That's why you have Latin lovers. You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

Watson proposed that thinness and ambition are linked, and thus thin people are better hires. "When you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them."

"The Pursuit of Happiness: Lessons from pom-C," Watson's lecture at University of California, Berkeley, October 2000

Let's play God

"If scientists don't play God, who will?"

Addressing members of the British Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, May 2000

Embracing the Master Race

"Here we must not fall into the absurd trap of being against everything Hitler was for.... Because of Hitler's use of the term Master Race, we should not feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today."

A Passion for DNA: Genes, Genomes, and Society, 2000

On inheritable human genetic modification

"I'm afraid of asking people what they think. Don't ask Congress to approve it. Just ask them for the money to help their constituents. That's what they want.... Frankly, they would care much more about having their relatives not sick than they do about ethics and principles. We can talk principles forever, but what the public actually wants is not to be sick. And if we help them not be sick, they'll be on our side....

"If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we? What's wrong with it?ğ Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity?"

Engineering the Human Germline, symposium at University of California Los Angeles, March 20, 1998

Aborting fetuses with a "gay gene"

"If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."

The Telegraph, February 16, 1997

On the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications program of the Human Genome Project

"I wanted a group that would talk and talk and never get anything done," Andrews quotes Watson as telling a meeting. "And if they did do something, I wanted them to get it wrong. I wanted as its head Shirley Temple Black."

Quoted by Lori Andrews in The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology

More on Hitler

The time has come to "put Hitler behind us," Watson said, urging Germany to put more resources into genetic research.

Keynote speech to a conference on molecular medicine in Berlin, May 1997

France suspends planting of GMO crops

Reuters, 26 October 2007. By Sybille de La Hamaide

PARIS (Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Thursday he would suspend the planting of genetically modified (GMO) pest-resistant crops until the results of an appraisal of the issue later this year or early in 2008.

Unveiling the country's new environment policy, Sarkozy said no GMO crops would be planted in France until the government had received the results of an evaluation by a new authority on GMOs set to be launched later this year.

"I don't want to be in contradiction with EU laws, but I have to make a choice. In line of the precautionary principle, I wish that the commercial cultivation of genetically modified pesticide GMOs be suspended," he said.

The only GMO crop grown in the European Union is a maize using the so-called MON 810 technology developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, which is designed to resist the European corn borer, a pest that attacks maize stalks and thrives in warmer climates in southern EU countries.

Monsanto says the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife.

Just 22,000 hectares -- 1.5 percent of France's cultivated maize land -- have been sown with GMO maize this year but some farmers have urged greater use of GMO crops to boost yields.

During a visit to Paris on Wednesday, European Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said a full ban on GMO crops would clearly go against the rules and that France would lose in court if it implemented such a ban.

Research to continue

The future of GMOs has long been the subject of heated debate in France and its reluctance, along with other European countries, to use GMO crops compares starkly with the United States, which has a far higher take-up of GMO technology.

A ban on GMO maize growing for the coming months would not affect maize production in France because sowings do not take place until spring.

Sarkozy stressed that his move did not mean a halt to GMO research.

"This suspension of commercial cultivation of pesticide GMOs does not mean -- I want to be clear on this -- that we must condemn all GMOs, notably future GMOs," he said.

During his election campaign last year, Sarkozy said he had "doubts and reservations" about the commercial use of GMO products which for him "had little interest", but he stressed that he had wanted research to continue.

Several European Union countries have dug in their heels on whether their farmers may grow MON 810 maize, one of Europe's oldest GMO crops.

Hungary, one of the EU-27's biggest grain producers, outlawed the planting of MON 810 seed in January 2005.

Germany earlier this year decided that maize produced from MON 810 seeds could only be sold if there was an accompanying monitoring plan to research its effects on the environment.

And Austria may soon face a third attempt by EU regulators to force it to lift bans on two GMO maize types, including Monsanto's MON 810 and T25 maize made by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer.

25 October 2007

Australians Viewing Developing Technology With Mixed Feelings

Medindia.net, October 25 2007

Research from Australia's Swinburne University shows that the majority of Australians are more comfortable with the idea of wind farms than with the Internet or nuclear power.

The reports were part of the annual study of how people feel about technological change. The National Technology and Society Monitor also found most people are still not comfortable with genetically modified plants and animals for food, despite a government report to the contrary.

Every year, the nationwide survey is carried out by a team of researchers at the Australian Center for Emerging Technologies and Society. The reports largely reflect views of the overall population.

For the first time in 2007, the question of wind farms was raised. The Monitor found 81 percent of respondents had some level of comfort with them, and surprisingly, the overall 'comfort rating' was higher than the rating for the Internet.

According to Director of the Center, Professor Michael Gilding, most people now are quite comfortable with the Internet but the results do also reflect the fact that some people have been left behind, and these lot are not comfortable with it. "What is striking is this high level of comfort with wind farms. However, for most people itÇs an abstract kind of support because they don't live near wind farms and don't have much to do with them," Gilding explained.

Gilding added that even though the same could be said for nuclear plants, there is still widespread discomfort with them. "In the last twelve months weÇve seen the issue come back onto the public agenda, but the mood of the public hasn't shifted and people remain highly concerned about the technology."

The survey also found gender to influence ratings of comfort about nuclear power. Also, Liberal voters were found to be more comfortable with nuclear power than Labor voters.

Another interesting finding in the Monitor report, according to Gilding, is people's reactions to genetically modified food and animals. The survey found just over half of those questioned were uncomfortable with GM plants, while two thirds felt the same way about GM animals for food. "In this country, governments are in fact moving towards a more permissive position on genetically modified plants, and earlier this year, a government report suggested landmark shifts in attitudes," expresses Gilding. "But in the Monitor, there wasn't any change in reaction to genetically modified plants and overall most people remain uncomfortable with GM agriculture. There's certainly no evidence for a major sea change on that score", he observes.

Other findings were that most people were quite comfortable with the rate of change in the world today, with men being significantly more comfortable than women, and young people more comfortable than older people.

According to Professor Gilding, Australians are on the whole optimistic about technology. The annual survey shows that Australians believe science and technology are continually improving the quality of life, he adds. However, Gilding points out that this optimism should not be taken for granted as it depends heavily upon confidence in public and scientific institutions.

EU: Dimas calls for GM maize ban in Europe

Friends of the Earth Europe / Greenpeace press release Thursday 25th October 2007

Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace have today welcomed the news that EU Environment Commissioner Dimas is for the first time proposing to ban two types of genetically modified (GM) maize because of the risks they pose to the environment. The green groups urge the whole of the European Commission to put environmental safety first and support the proposed ban.[1]

The two GM maize varieties (Syngenta's Bt11 and Pioneer/Dow's 1507) are engineered to produce a toxin (commonly called Bt) that is poisonous to certain insect pests. However, scientific studies show that these GM maize are toxic to certain butterfly species and may also affect other beneficial insects and have long term negative effects on soil health.

The proposal is apparently based on clear scientific evidence proving that the cultivation of these two GM crops has the potential to cause environmental harm. Commissioners Mandelson (Trade), Verheugen (Industry) and Fischer Boel (Agriculture) are among a small group of Commissioners that are expected to oppose the proposal and the application of the precautionary principle to this case.

Several scientists have recently published studies showing that the effects of GM Bt maize are far from predictable and that their potential risk is greater then previously thought. These studies demonstrate that the current EU risk assessment procedure is not able to evaluate the risks posed by GM Bt crops.[2]

An announcement is expected shortly as to whether France will also ban a Bt maize on similar environmental grounds.

In addition, during the World Trade Organisation dispute over GM products, the EU had already argued that Bt crops should not be currently grown because of the incomplete knowledge about their long-term environmental impact. [3]

Friends of the Earth Europe's GMO campaigner, Adrian Bebb said:

"This is a major blow to the GM industry. For the first time there is a European Commission proposal that GM crops should not be approved in Europe - and crucially this relates to two maize varieties for commercial growing. The Commission has raised serious concerns about the environmental impact of growing these crops."

Greenpeace GMO Policy Director, Marco Contiero said:

"The Commission has no other option than to reject the authorisation of these GM crops if it intends to comply with EU provisions on risk assessment and the precautionary principle. If, on the other hand, it authorises the cultivation of these crops, caving in to pressure from Commissioners with a pro-GMO agenda, it would be bluntly violating EU law and new scientific findings."

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb: Friends of the Earth +49 8025 99 91 51 mobile +49 1609 490 1163

Marco Contiero: Greenpeace EU Unit, Policy Director - GMOs +32 2 274 1906 mobile +32477777034

NOTES

[1] See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU00606620071025

[2] For example:

•

Recent research shows that GM crops producing Bt toxins could seriously affect aquatic ecosystems, since pollen and agricultural wastes from Bt maize enter streams where they may become toxic to aquatic life. This toxicity pathway for Bt toxins has not been considered previously

•

The level of Bt toxin produced by one of these GM varieties varies strongly between different locations and between plants on the same field. The reasons for these differences are not known. This raises serious questions about the current capacity to assess the impact of Bt toxins on the environment.

•

Unexpectedly, another recent study found that one type of GM Bt maize has significant higher amino acid levels compared to its non-GM counterpart, which made it much more susceptible to aphid infestation. Again this is another demonstration that Bt maize is subject to unexpected and unpredictable negative effects.

(All references to the studies are available from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace)

[3] European Communities - Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products (DS291, DS292, DS293). Comments by the European Communities on the scientific and technical advice to the panel. 28 January 2005. See Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace summary: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/hidden_uncertainties.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:İ +32 2 537 5596
rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org http://www.foeeurope.org

For the people, for the planet, for the future

Irish Times slammed for bias on GM issues

Irresponsible journalism stifles informed debate
Conflict of interest with biotech lobby group

GM-free Ireland press release, 25 October 2007.

DUBLIN -- The Irish Times, regarded as the country's journal of record, systematically represents the interests of the biotech industry lobby group EAGLES [1], whose Co-ordinator Prof. David McConnell of TCD is also the Chairman of the Irish Times Trust which owns the paper.

In Debating GM: An analysis of GM coverage in the Irish Times and the Irish Farmers Journal from March 2004 to February 2006, a Dublin Institute of Technology thesis by journalism student Emma Somers made a quantitative analysis of the sources, and a qualitative analysis of GM coverage in these two papers.

The study revealed significant bias towards the biotech industry. Of the 48 articles published in the Irish Times, 65% quoted official sources, 13% quoted biotech industry sources, 10% quoted farming sources, and 6 % quoted biotech industry lobby groups. Only 21% quoted NGOs (which have the most expertise on the subject) and 10% quoted farming sources (which are most affect by GM policies). Most articles framed the issue as scientists versus Luddites.

Disinformation

Consider the short article "GM feed imports are inevitable" by Marie O'Halloran, in yesterday's edition [2]. The article has just three sentences.

The first sentence begins by creating the false impression that GM animal feed will be introduced at some time in the future. In reality most Irish meat, poultry and dairy produce has come from livestock fed on GM ingredients for the past 11 years. This sentence continues with a claim that the use of GM animal feed is "inevitable", despite the fact that certified non-GMO animal feed is both available and affordable [3].

The second sentence refers to a statement by Agriculture Minister Mary Coughlan that "new legislation" has been put in place in response to consumer concerns about GM food. No such new legislation exists. The EC's mandatory labelling law for food and feed containing GM ingredients came in to effect over three years ago, in 2004 [4]. The second sentence also signally fails to mention the loophole which enables meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients to be sold without a label, as well as the historic petition, signed by one million EU citizens and delivered to EU Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner Markos Kyprianou on 5 February, which calls for mandatory labelling of such produce, based on the citizens right to know what's in our food [5].

The third sentence uncritically quotes the Minister for Agriculture's claim that this so-called "new legislation" embodies the "highest possible standards" to protect citizens. But nothing could be further from the truth:

•

65 different GM health risks have been identified in the book "Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of genetically engineered food" [6] which was launched at the Briefing on Food Safety and GMOs held at the European Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June, in the presence of Irish Times Trust chairman Prof. McConnell and a journalist from that paper. A leaked European Commission document submitted to the World Trade Organisation admits "there is no unique, absolute, scientific cut-off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not" [7]. No long-term health studies prove that GM food and feed are safe.

•

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) does not conduct health risk assessments, but relies entirely on dubious claims made by the European Food Safety Authority [8], which are themselves based on data provided to it by the applicant biotech companies.

FSAI's position - that "GM feed and food are as safe as their conventional counterparts" - is not surprising in view of the conflict of interest resulting from the fact that FSAI CEO John O'Brien is a former boardmember of the International Life Sciences Institute [9], which is funded by biotech giants Monsanto, Bayer AG, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta and other companies. This biotech industry lobby group has been widely criticised for posing as a Non Governmental Organisation and infiltrating the World Health Organisation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in order to lower international food safety standards [10].

•

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also does not conduct health risk assessments [11]. Although EFSA was set up in 2002, long after GM ingredients entered our food chain, its GMO Panel still refuses to conduct scientifically valid health risk assessments on GM food and feed. It has consistently dismissed the concerns of other scientists working for national Governments. It continues to rely on extremely questionable safety claims made by the applicant companies, thus showing that its much-vaunted "independence" is a smokescreen used by the biotech industry and the EC to force GM feed and food into the European market. The GMO Panel disregards statistically significant differences between GM and their non-GM counterparts, instead agreeing with the industry that the results of such tests are not biologically relevant or treatment related. In addition the Panel ignores EU requirements to identify the level of uncertainty in its assumptions, and fails to take in legal requirements that regard is given to the long term effects of eating or growing GM foods. Despite a call for EFSA reform in November 2004, which was repeated by Markos Kyprianou in 2005, EFSA has failed to do so. At a meeting of the EU Environment Ministers on 30 October, the Italian Environment Minister will call for EFSA to stop all further GMO approvals until it complies with the required reforms.

The fourth sentence quotes Fine Gael's new pro-GMO agriculture spokesperson, Michael Creed, complaining about "the abuse of labelling laws". In reality, it is the EU law which is abusive because it not only allows meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients to be sold to consumers without a label, but also makes it perfectly legal for any Irish food producer to label a product such as bacon made in Ireland from pig meat imported from a foreign country like Brazil to be legally sold as "Irish".

This sentence also implies that Fine Gael came up with the "Green Ireland" brand concept, and that it would apply to GM food. In reality, Fine Gael adopted the idea late last year following the Green Ireland conference on branding for food, farming and eco-tourism organised by the GM-free Ireland Network in June 2006, where international experts urged Ireland to protect our reputation as Ireland - the Food Island by declaring the whole island off-limits to GM crops [12].

Speaking at that event, Brody Sweeney, the CEO of O'Briens Sandwich Bars who subsequently ran as a Fine Gael candidate in the 2007 General Election, gave a presentation called "Project Green" in which he said "There is no one country that said, 'We are the absolute top quality food producers for Europe. We are going to be the guys with the GMO-free environment, where we're going to have more organic, where our food is going to be traceable, where we are really going to care and believe in what we say about our food.' ...Nobody has done it yet. I think it's just a fantastic opportunity for Ireland to be that country" [13].

The Irish Times' biased coverage of GM food and farming issues - and the conflict of interest between Prof. McConnell's dual roles as Chairman of the Irish Times Trust and Co-ordinator of the EAGLES biotech lobby group - are not acceptable for the newspaper of record in Ireland's "knowledge-based economy".

Disinformation of this kind clearly violates the core object of the Trust's Memoranda and Articles of Association, "to publish an independent newspaper primarily concerned with serious issues for the benefit of the community throughout the whole of Ireland, free from any form of personal or of party political, commercial, religious or other sectional control."

Notes for editors:

1.

The Chairman of the Irish Times Trust, Prof. David McConnell of Trinity College Dublin Smurfit School of Genetics, is the Co-ordinator and Co-Vice Chairman of EAGLES - European Action on Global Life Sciences (http://www.efb-central.org/eagles). EAGLES is an initiative of the European Federation of Biotechnology lobby group, designed to secure EU funding for European biotech companies to promote GM food and farming in the developing countries.

Ireland's newly appointed Chief Scientific Officer, Prof. Paddy Cunningham is also a member of EAGLES. He recently told delegates at the Agriculture Science Association's National Conference that "Scientific evidence has overwhelmingly shown that food derived from GM crops or from animals fed on GM feed is safe" (Herculex to be approved by default shortly, Irish Farmers Journal, 22 September 2007)!

2.

The full article reads as follows:

Ireland: GM feed imports are 'inevitable'

The Irish Times, 24 October 2007. By Marie O'Halloran.

It is practically inevitable that genetically modified (GM) crops are going to form a significant part of Irish feed material imports, the D·il has been told.

Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan said concerns expressed by consumers about the safety of GM resulted in the introduction of new legislation.

"The new legislation, which is considered to be among the most stringent in the world, governs the assessment and approval procedures for GM crops, food, and feed and ensures that the highest possible standards are in place to protect citizens", she said.

Fine Gael spokesman Michael Creed criticised ambiguous food labelling and said "the abuse of labelling laws can hoodwink consumers who are actively trying to buy Irish produce. Fine Gael has called for a single, easily recognisable food label - Green Ireland - which would instantly brand Irish food.

3.

Certified non-GMO feed is available for a small premium, (around € 0.01 (1 cent) per kg for soya meal and around 10 - 15% for GM-free maize gluten) aBové the cost of GM feed. Irish farmers who use GM-free feed are recouping the cost from premia offered by leading retailers in the UK, France, Italy, Switzerland and Germany which have either (a) already banned meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients from their supermarket shelves or (b) created their own quality brands which specifically exclude such contaminated produce. Ireland's leading beef exporter, Kepak, also requires non-GMO certification for its top-of-the-range K Club beef brand.

Concerned policy makers in the political parties, government agencies, food and farm sectors should participate in the following events:

Conference on Non-GM Feedstuff, Quality Production and European Agriculture Strategy
Co-hosted by the EU Committee of the Regions and the European GMO-free Regions Network
5 - 6 December 2007
Committee of the Regions Office
Brussels
Registration: http://www.gmofree-euregions.net

World Summit on GMO-Free Diversity
12-16 May 2008
Bonn (Germany)
Registration: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/planetdiversity.html

4.

The EU Regulations on Genetically Modified Food and Feed (Regulation (EC) N 1829/2003) and Traceability/Labelling (Regulation (EC) N 1830/2003) were published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 October 2003, and entered into force on 18 April 2004.

5.

One million citizens call for labelling of GM foods, EU Observer, 5 February 2007: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/EUpetition.php

6.

"Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of genetically engineered food", by Jeffrey M. Smith, with an introduction by Michael Meacher, MP. Yes! Books; hardcover; 336 pages; € 23; on sale at the Cultivate Centre, 15-19 Essex St. West, Temple Bar, Dublin 8, tel (01) 674 5733. Also available by mailorder from http://www.geneticroulette.com.

Of the 65 health risks identified in the scientific studies covered in this book, the first 20 risks are adverse findings linked to GM products, including thousands of toxic and allergic-type reactions, thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals. The other 45 health risks are theoretical ones based on current scientific understanding.

7.

See "Hidden uncertainties - What the European Commission doesn't want us to know about the risks of GMOs", briefing from Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace, April 2006 http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/hidden_uncertainties.pdf.

8.

FSAI admitted this at a hearing of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Local Government on 24 November 2004, when FSAI Chief Biotechnology Specialist Dr. Pat O'Mahony said "We are a law enforcement agency so we do not carry out research", and FSAI Director of Food Science and Standards and Deputy CEO, Alan Reilly, admitted "We rely on scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority." For full transcript, see Irish Parliamentary Debate, Vol. No. 38, Scrutiny of EU Proposals, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMO-24november2004.pdf

See also "First live GMO animal feed legalised in the EU", GM-free Ireland press release, 2 September 2005. http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI21.pdf.

9.

The International Life Sciences Institute (http://wwww.ilsi.org) is a Washington-D.C. based lobby group funded by food, chemical and drug companies including biotech giants Monsanto, Bayer AG, Dow Chemical, DuPont, and Novartis (now Syngenta). It acts primarily it acts on behalf of the global food manufacturing industry, but also includes operations involved with agriculture and genetic modification; pesticides and pharmaceuticals; confectionary; and tobacco. According to its own material, the public agenda of the ILSI "is directed towards its concern for public health issues, such as human nutrition, questions of food ingredient and additive safety, the provision of clean water and air, research into food-related allergies, and general problems of chemical and environmental safety." However, its private agenda has often been designed to thwart attempts to regulate or reduce public exposure to many dangerous or environmentally-damaging substances. Its private interests are focussed on the financial benefits of its major backers ‚ the larger food companies and their trade associations. This imbalance led, eventually, to the World Health Organization banning the organisation from direct involvement in WHO (and related agencies) activities (see note 9 below).

10.

"WHO 'infiltrated by food industry", The Guardian, 9 January 2003: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,871228,00.html.

The World Health Organisation executive board ruled in January 2006 that ILSI "can no longer take part in WHO activities setting microbiological or chemical standards for food and water, following formal complaints from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, United Steelworkers of America and a coalition of other groups. The WTO ruling demoted ILSI's status from participating NGO down to that of a mere observer at WHO meetings.

11.

"The EFSA stakeholders challenge - working with civil society", briefing paper by Friends of the Earth Europe, EPHA, Euro Coop, EEB and Greenpeace: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf

See also "Throwing Caution to the Wind: A review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops", briefing paper by Friends of the Earth Europe, November 2004: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf.

12.

Proceedings of the Green Ireland Conference: http://wwww.gmfreeireland.org/conference/.

13.

Speech by Brody Sweeney: http://wwww.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/bsweeney.php.

EU: Brussels okays four GMO products

EU Observer, 25 October 2007. By Helena Spongenberg

BRUSSELS - The European Commission has authorised four genetically modified products for the European market after EU member states failed to decide either for or against the biotech crops.

The GMOs ‚ three types of maize and a sugar beet ‚ are authorised for the next ten years and will be imported for use in food and animal feed, the European Commission confirmed on Wednesday (24 October).

EU member states in September failed to agree by majority on whether or not to authorise the GMOs proposed by the commission for the EU market.

According to EU rules, in that case the commission is empowered to take the final decision on the basis of an assessment from the European Food and Safety Agency (EFSA).

The commission has authorised the GMOs in all such cases so far. "The commission normally stands by its original proposal," a commission spokesman said on Wednesday.

"All of the GMOs received positive safety assessments from EFSA and underwent the full authorisation procedure set out under EU legislation...[and] will be subject to the EU's strict labelling and traceability rules," the commission said in a statement.

There are currently 15 authorised GMO products in the 27-member bloc - including the latest four biotech products- while an authorisation for a genetically modified potato is pending.

European farmers, industrial food and chemical producers have been complaining that the EU's stringent position against GMOs created a disadvantage for them against their foreign competitors.

On the other hand, recent surveys have shown that around 70 percent of Europeans are against GMOs which are seen as unnatural, with some people arguing the effects of genetically modified organisms are not fully known yet.

The EU had a moratorium on allowing GMOs on its market from 2000 to 2004. In 2006, the World Trade Organization ruled that the EU was unfairly blocking GMOs from entering its markets.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

This undemocratic decision by the EC retroactively rubberstamps the placing on the market of the GM maize variety 59122 Herculex RW patented by Pioneer / Dow, which GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace discovered was illegally entering the EU through Ireland in April (see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac).

Since then, Ireland twice abstained from voting to legalise Herculex - leading to the lack of Qualified Majority Votes at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, and at the Council of Ministers. This, in turn, triggered biotech industry fury and a disinformation campaign in the Irish media which deceived farmers into believing that the EC's slowness in legalising Herculex and other GM maize varieties approved in the USA is the principal cause of rising animal feed prices that will put Irish farmers out of business.

Yesterday's EC decision also authorises 2 other GM maize constructs (1507xNK603 and NK603 x MON810).

All three GMOs are now approved for feed and food use and for import and processing. In addition, a GM sugar beet (H7-1) for use as food and feed produced from it was also authorised.

24 October 2007

USA: Modified forests could severely impact natural land

Oregon Daily Emerald, 24 October 2007. By Josh Grenzsund, Columnist.

Oregon has a growing self-perception, and reputation, as being a leader in the local and natural food craze. While "local" may be easy to define, it is harder to define what we mean when we say "natural."

A lot of the anxiety behind consumers' demands for "natural" foods comes from fear of the unknown. Will genetically engineered organisms spread their modified genes to their formerly "wild" counterparts and irrevocably alter the "natural" world? Maybe it's already happened. According to an article from Capital Press, "The West's Agricultural Web Site," there are as many as four million genetically improved Douglas Fir "super trees" growing in about 790 test plots in Washington and Oregon.

While that may sound like a lot of pollen blowing unchecked under the summer sun, one has to choose how to interpret the information. One could side with the official line, pushed by forest products companies like Weyerhaeuser that focus on the benefits that could be had by faster reforestation after clear cutting or fire. Or one could side with the anti-modification advocates who not only push a more sensational story, but in the past have backed up their views with vandalism and arson. One such case in 2001 actually helped U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken give Stanislas Meyerhoff a 13-year prison sentence, and qualified him as a terrorist.

In contrast to the dramatic measures used by some modification opponents, the corporate story, at least according to Weyerhaeuser, says that what is occurring in Oregon's forests is quite natural and nothing to pay much mind to. Weyerhaeuser will tell the press that their trees that display remarkable disease resistance, rapid growth, and straight trunks are not actually "genetically modified," but rather are just "genetic families" that have been bred for their desirable qualities. This is reassuring. As a discerning public we have generally acknowledged that breeding is acceptable, and a slightly controlled choice of which little fir tree gets to push its straight trunk into genetic futurity is just good business. Corporations will claim that breeding better, more disease-resistant organisms will also help with humanitarian problems, from hunger to global warming. It is, in short, inevitable, desirable progress.

The problem, however, begins to develop when Weyerhaeuser markets these same straight little trees as "genetically improved" stock for when "things are too important to be left to chance." Just a little looking will reveal some of the steps that they have taken in order to assure high survivability and growth rates.

When the Tree Biosafety and Genomics Research Cooperative at Oregon State University was still known as The Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative, they publicized their work with "RoundupÆ resistant" trees. Aside from the obvious involvement of Monsanto on this project, Weyerhaeuser also helps fund the tree lab at OSU.

The old TGERC Web site still has information posted about their hundreds of lines of transgenic trees that "have demonstrated high levels of tolerance and no detectable growth loss after multiple Roundup® applications... [and others]...that contain a synthetic gene from the cry3a strain of Bacillus thuringiensis...showed strong resistance to the cottonwood leaf beetle...and enhanced growth rate." Here is where forest products companies end their tale and the anti-modification advocates pick it up.

While the most inflammatory propaganda from this camp will go on about "frankenforests" of genetically modified trees that will devastate native forests and change the entire notion of what the natural world is, there are more reasoned arguments that intelligently refute the economic and humanitarian claims of corporations. The coherent core of these counter-claims takes a step back and looks not only at the trees and how they fall into the saws and pulps of our economic cycles, but how they stand as organisms within a larger cycle of plant and animal organisms in the places we call our forests.

In their publication, "Genetically Modified Trees: The ultimate threat to forests," the Friends of the Earth argue that the reason we should not genetically modify our trees, and thus our forests, is because we are not the only creatures who value trees. Insects, birds, and animals do not acknowledge property and national forest boundaries. They will eat or use whatever tree they happen to encounter and, for example, a tree with insecticide properties could pollinate across boundary lines, impact insect populations and disrupt an entire food chain.

This possibility of broad pollination raises a darker part of the issue: property. If, in two or three generations, forest life contains modified genes through cross-pollination, will the companies give up their ownership of that modified gene, or will we, the people, have to give up the trees that make up our forests?

We should not allow for that possibility. We should resist technological determinism when discussing whether or not we should modify organisms' genes, because giving in to its apparent inevitability will allow the genetic composition and fate of our world, and eventually our bodies, to be established by corporations' economic concerns. This local and worldwide issue is one in which you don't want to miss the forest for all the trees.

jgrenzsund@dailyemerald.com

Ukraine: GMO Products as a Condition for Ukraine to Enter WTO?

Ukrayinska Pravda, 24.10.2007, translated by Anna Ivanchenko

On October 25 in Geneva final round of negotiations on Ukraine joining World Trade Organization will take place; however, the issue of obligatory marking of products containing genetically modified organisms remains unsolved.

Liga website published an article ÑGene Engineering May Obstruct UkraineÇs Way to WTOâ drawing the readersÇ attention to this problem.

The author of the article reminds that the Cabinet of Ministers decided to introduce an obligation of marking genetically modified foodstuffs starting from November 1, 2007.

"However, the American side of WTO holds a firm stand against such actions," runs the article.

"It is common knowledge that the USA is among the biggest exporters of this kind of foodstuffs. That is why their actions can perhaps be interpreted as unwillingness to lose markets for their products," notes the author.

Genetically modified organisms are those organisms the genetic material of which changed not as a consequence of replication and/or natural recombination but because of a modified gene or a gene of other biological species or kind added.

According to Kateryna Kartava, Ph.D., doctors don't know which diseases a person can face after consuming gene engineering products.

After consuming such products the anti-gene composition of body tissues will be changing; as a result the immune system will start to destroy its own organism, notes the expert.

The author cites the Minister of Economy Anatoliy Kinakh according to whom the issue of GMO products should be dealt with by prioritizing health of Ukrainian citizens and strictly controlling the quality of foodstuffs imported into Ukraine nowadays.

Meanwhile State Commission of Consumption Standards of Ukraine insists on compulsory marking of at least children's food. As Mr. Kinakh noted, it is an obligatory norm in all EU countries.

According to the data of All-Ukrainian Ecological League, 90 per cent of Ukrainian foodstuffs do not contain genetically modified organisms, notes the author.

Ireland: GM feed imports are 'inevitable'

The Irish Times, 24 October 2007. By Marie O'Halloran.

It is practically inevitable that genetically modified (GM) crops are going to form a significant part of Irish feed material imports, the Dáil has been told.

Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan said concerns expressed by consumers about the safety of GM resulted in the introduction of new leglislation.

"The new legislation, which is considered to be among the most stringent in the world, governs the assessment and approval procedures for GM crops, food, and feed and ensures that the highest possible standards are in place to protect citizens", she said.

Fine Gael spokesman Michael Creed criticised ambiguous food labelling and said "the abuse of labelling laws can hoodwink consumers who are actively trying to buy Irish produce. Fine Gael has called for a single, easily recognisable food label - Green Ireland - whch would instantly brand Irish food.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

See our press release of 25 October aBové, "Irish Times slammed for bias on GM issues".

France may ban Monsanto GMO maize - minister

Reuters, 24 October 2007.

PARIS, Oct 24 (Reuters) - France is considering banning the use of the sole genetically modified crop grown in the European Union, a maize produced by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier said on Wednesday.

President Nicolas Sarkozy will unveil on Thursday a new environment policy based on a series of meetings bringing together government, environmentalists, scientists and business leaders.

One of the remaining uncertainties at this stage is whether Sarkozy will allow GMO crops to continue to be grown for commercial use in France or if he will decide to ban them.

Only one GMO crop is grown and sold in the European Union, the so-called MON-810 maize, but Monsanto must request a renewal of its licence early in 2008.

"The question is, since this authorisation will fall due in April, in a few months, whether it will be suspended and for how long. It will be the President who will decide," Barnier said on France Info radio.

Speaking to Reuters during a visit to Paris, European Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said that any such move by France would clearly go against the rules.

"That would not be legal," she said. "We've seen in Upper Austria where they banned it as well and it has ended up in a court case and they lost. So France will lose if they ban it."

Farmers could choose to use or not use GMO seeds on a voluntary basis, she added.

Austria is one of the 27-nation bloc's more sceptical countries when it comes to GMO foods and may soon face a third attempt by EU regulators to force it to lift bans on two GMO maize types.

Countries worried about GMO seeds contaminating traditional or organic crops could protect themselves by implementing strict and clear legislation to prevent such a phenomenon, she said.

Just 22,000 hectares -- 1.5 percent of France's cultivated land -- have been sown with Monsanto's GMO maize this year but some farmers have urged greater use of GMO crops to boost yields.

Only the European Union has the power to authorise commercial sales of GMOs in the bloc but a member state may ban a crop in its own country, using a "safeguard clause". It then has to notify and justify its move to the European Commission.

Barnier also said that the measures put forward in the environment package would allow open-field tests to continue, despite fierce opposition by anti-GMO groups, in a bid to support research.

"We absolutely need research, including open-field research, with all the required precautions, not to be dependent, in 10 or 15 years, on Chinese or U.S. research," he said.

"It's a question of sovereignty, for Europe and for France."

Australia: PM out of touch with Australian consumers and farmers

Media release from WA Minister for Agriculture, 24 October 2007

Western Australian Agriculture and Food Minister Kim Chance has accused the Prime Minister of being out of touch with Australian consumers and farmers with his recent comments on Genetically Modified (GM) food crops.

Mr Chance said Australian farmers currently produced healthy food of the highest quality for local consumption and export to a range of overseas markets.

"We are heavily reliant on our export markets and yet the Prime Minister wants us to switch to GM foods that are rejected by discerning consumers worldwide," he said.

"This will damage Australia's international reputation as a source of reliable, safe quality food."

Mr Chance said the annual survey from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne published yesterday revealed only 30 percent of Australians were comfortable with GM plants for food, while only 19 percent reported some level of comfort with GM animals for food.*

Another recent survey from Rural Press found that only 27.6 percent of farmers wanted to see GM grain crops introduced into Australia.**

"These survey results are consistent with my own observations that an overwhelming majority of consumers and farmers in and around WA favour either the retention or the extension of the moratorium," Mr Chance said.

"Unless consumers tell us otherwise, the WA Government will not be changing its policy on GM food."

On Monday, Mr Chance met with a Japanese delegation that presented him with a petition signed by more than 150 companies, representing almost three million Japanese consumers, urging the State Government to continue its moratorium on the commercial production of GM crops.

The delegation brought with them statistics from a survey showing that more than 80 percent of Japanese consumers are anxious about GM foods.

"So, just as our farmers are starting to make some serious headway in the international marketplace, the Prime Minister wants to throw this all away with a misguided and damaging GM policy.

"Australia's agriculture is principally export-oriented and in order to maximise returns for growers, Australia needs to be producing clean and green products which are now shown to be highly sought after in the world's most discriminating markets of Europe, Japan and China.

"The WA Government remains committed to the well-being of this State's farmers and has no intention of removing a policy which is providing economic benefits to farmers and the wider international and local communities, who clearly remain concerned about consuming GM foods."

Media contact: Alicia Miriklis 9213 6700, 0428 911 240.

* SOURCE: Swinburne National Technology and Society Monitor 2007.

** SOURCE: Rural Press National News Service, Parliament House, Canberra.

New Zealand: Strong Public Support for Zero Tolerance to GM Contamination

SustainabilityNZ media statement, August 17 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other low cost priorities for reform include:

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

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

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

DigiPoll Survey Questions

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

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

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

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

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

EU: Herculex is finally approved

UK Grain and Feed Trade Association, 24 October 2007.

Today, 24th October, the European Commission announced the adoption of Decisions authorising 3 GM maize (1507xNK603; NK603 x MON810; and 59122 Herculex RW) for feed and food use and for import and processing. See previous circular AM200766 for further details.

In addition, a GM sugar beet (H7-1) for use as food and feed produced from it was also authorised.

All of the GMOs received positive safety assessments from EFSA and underwent the full authorisation procedure set out under EU legislation. As Member States failed to return a qualified majority decision for or against these authorisations in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, and then in the Council, the dossiers were sent back to the Commission for decision. The authorisations are valid for 10 years, and any products produced from these GMOs will be subject to the EU's strict labelling and traceability rules.

UK: GMO modify their approach

Ecosoundings, The Guardian, Oct 24 2007. By David Adam.

Astute observers may have noticed an increase in activity from the GMO industry recently, but why? The answer lies inside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and on the desk of new minister Joan Ruddock. One of Ruddock's responsibilities is deciding how an EU directive on environmental liabilities should be translated into UK law. And beneath the radar of the green groups, the GMO industry is quietly terrified that a severe interpretation could send it packing, with ramifications in the rest of Europe. The expense account of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council - a front group for the industry's big players - is battling on their behalf (see today's Comment [BELOW]).

Note from GM Watch:

Check out Becky Price's article on the liability issue: "If biotech companies have confidence in their industry, are happy with current safety assessments, and are keen to win over a distrustful public, why are they so reluctant to take responsibility for environmental damage?" (GM industry should put its money where its mouth is) http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,2176837,00.html

UK: The gains of GM crops won't be felt with over-regulation

The Guardian, October 24 2007. By Julian Little.

[Julian Little is chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council]

There are more than 6.5 billion people in the world - a number set to increase dramatically in the next 25 years - and the amount of agricultural land available to feed each person recently dipped below 0.3 of a hectare for the first time. So how can we produce enough food for a growing population, while reducing carbon emissions?

There is no silver bullet. Among the steps that should be taken are reducing energy use and increasing the amount of food, feed, fibre and fuel we get out of arable land. We have to look at a variety of tools for farmers - including the safe and responsible use of GMO technology. Countries worldwide, including the UK, can't ignore innovations that could help us achieve sustainable food production.

Chris Pollock, chairman of the government's independent advisory committee on releases to the environment, said recently: "The future sustainability of British farming would be in grave jeopardy if farmers were not permitted to adopt new technologies that were proven to increase yields or have other benefits." He added that "if we are serious about sustainable agriculture, we have to be open to new technologies".

In terms of environmental protection, profitability and effectiveness, regulation needs to be fair, proportionate and enforceable. Legislation must not be a barrier to innovation in a sector that needs to adapt swiftly to changing climatic patterns and economic demands, such as the need to produce fuels and raw materials from crops, increasing animal feed prices, and the spectre of food price rises.

The government is currently deciding how to incorporate into law the environmental liability directive (ELD) introduced by the EU in 2004. Our industry supports the objectives of protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and the government's science-based approach to the ELD, but we want to ensure that unnecessary "gold-plating" of generic legislation does not occur.

The truth is that GM crops are the most rigorously tested of all crops and have been successfully grown by farmers across the globe for more than 10 years. More than 200bn meals containing GM ingredients have been consumed in the last decade, without a single, substantiated health incident. Today, GM crops are used by 10 million farmers in 22 countries across the world, including six EU member states. The benefits include increased yields, reduced costs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and a reduced environmental footprint.

The ELD, rightly, aims to follow the "polluter pays" principle, but is a blunt instrument that risks becoming discriminatory. Current regulation makes case-by-case assessments of potential risks to the environment long before any crop can be commercialised - and the fear is that an additional, unnecessary layer of regulation may prevent the development of this technology and deny enormous benefits to UK farmers.

Email your comments to society@guardian.co.uk. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication"

Comment from GM Watch on the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC)

In 2002 Monsanto along with Bayer CropScience, BASF, Dow Agrosciences, Dupont and Syngenta set up the UK lobby group, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC).

The ABC is part of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (ABE) which also represents industry lobbies in Belgium, Denmark, France, Spain, and Sweden. Other openly industry-backed lobby groups in Europe include EuropaBio and the UK-based CropGen, which operates with the assistance of the same PR agency (Lexington Communications) as the ABC.

The first chairman of the ABC was the former Head of Syngenta Seeds UK, Stephen Smith. Its next chairman was Paul Rylott, who was followed by Julian Little.

Initially, the ABC was represented by Weber Shandwick, one of the world's largest PR companies. However, in November 2002 it changed to Lexington Communications, run by Mike Craven, a former aide to the UK's Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott. Prior to Lexington, Craven was the Labour Party's chief media spokesperson and before that a lobbyist with Market Access. While Craven was Managing Director of Market Access it faced accusations of a 'massive disinformation campaign' in lobbying for the European 'patents on life' directive, which was approved despite strong public opposition.

More on Craven: http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=139

USA: When science attacks
Killer scandals

San Francisco Bay Guardian, October 24 2007. By Annalee Newitz.

TECHSPLOITATION Two scandals rocked the sci-tech world last week. Not to put too fine a point on it, they reminded us that bad research and implementation can kill.

In South Africa, a widely used antiaircraft cannon called the Oerlikon GDF-005 suffered from what many observers believe was a computer malfunction, which killed 9 soldiers and maimed 15 in a training exercise. Its computer-controlled sighting mechanism went haywire, and the gun automatically turned its barrel to face the trainees next to it, spraying bullets from magazines that it automatically reloaded until it was out of ammunition. Many compared the incident to science fiction fare like Robocop or Terminator, in which military bots turn on their masters.

In the United States, James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for helping to discover the double-helix shape of DNA, was suspended from his administrative duties at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory over comments he made to the London Times about how blacks are genetically hardwired with lower intelligence than that of other races.

Watson has made comments like this about blacks (and women) throughout his career, but apparently this was the last straw. Reporter Charlotte Hunt-Grabbe, who says she has Watson's comments on tape, quoted him saying he's "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours ò-whereas all the testing says not really." He told Hunt-Grabbe his "hope is that everyone is equal" but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

Nobody compared Watson's racism to science fiction, though one could bring up Gattaca, Brave New World, or any other genetic dystopia where DNA warlords like Watson - whose employer controls millions in research money - have created a world where genes are destiny.

These two very different incidents demonstrate the fallibility of science and, more important, how the arrogance of scientists can be horrifically destructive. The tragedy in South Africa could have been avoided if the engineers who designed that cannon had simply refused to computerize its sight. With a big gun, computer error can be far worse than human error. Any decent engineer would have known that failure in computer systems is inevitable and come to the conclusion that weapons should not be programmed to function autonomously.

Watson's remarks are another form of scientific arrogance that leads to gross and fatal mistakes. After all, Watson is hardly the first person to use genetics as a way to create false hierarchies of human beings based on "evidence" that some races and sexes are "naturally" superior to others.

The history of biology as a discipline is riddled with racism and sexism. Eighteenth-century scientist Carolus Linnaeus, who invented the taxonomy of species we still use today, originally divided the species Homo sapiens into four racial subclasses: Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus, and Europeanus. While Europeanus was "inventive," Africanus was "negligent." Even in the 20th century many geneticists endorsed the eugenics movement as a way to keep the species strong by preventing "dysgenic," racially mixed babies from being born.

Today leaders in the field of evolutionary biology like Steven Pinker and E.O. Wilson routinely say that people are hardwired to behave in certain ways based on their genetic heritage, which is often linked to their racial background or sex. "Scientific" studies on the genetic inferiority of female intelligence are what motivated former Harvard president Lawrence Summers to claim that there are so few women in science because they just aren't smart enough.

So should a computerized gun run amok and a racist geneticist undermine our faith in science? Yes. People who build autonomous weapons systems know their work might kill people, but they do it anyway. And people like Watson derail brilliant research by bringing sex and race bias into the lab. Science is nothing more than the sum of what scientists do. Without ethics, science is no better than Christianity during the Crusades, a dogma that kills out of arrogance and prejudice.

* Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who knows that Rosalind Franklin discovered the structure of DNA. [James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize for their determination of the molecular structure of DNA. But Watson and Crick had received crucial unpublished data from Rosalind Franklin's lab, perhaps without her knowledge.]

annalee@techsploitation.com

23 October 2007

Greenpeace forces Carrefour to withdraw genetically modified soy bread in Romania

Hot News, Oct 23 2007

Carrefour Romania [has] withdrawn from its shelves all Snack Attacks products on Monday, reasoning that its bread contains genetically modified soy bread. The action comes after Greenpeace protesters argued with proof that the white bread does not contain any GMO labelling for consumers.

The bread was provided by Snack Attack, a well known fast food chain.

State authorities were taken aback by the decision but said that they would meet with both Greenpeace officials and Snack Attack representatives on Tuesday to analyze the situation.

Greenpeace argues that the bread exceeds the legal level of 0.9% of allowed GMOs.

Carrefour's Marketing Manager Andreea Mihai admitted for Cotidianul that they did not even check the information before withdrawing the bread.

Also on Monday, Carrefour decided to withdraw all Snack Attack products even if Greenpeace attacked only its white bread product.

Andreea Mihai told HotNews.ro that the decision is meant to protect the consumer. Moreover, she added that the products will be back on the market once state authorities rule so.

Anti-GMOs campaign coordinator of the National Federation of Ecological Agriculture, Dan Craioveanu says that the costs for determining the level of GMOs in a product are often very high and the procedure complex.

22 October 2007

UK: Scientists have a new way to reshape nature, but none can predict the cost
Synthetic biologists say their technology could tackle climate change and feed the hungry, but its dangers are terrifying

The Guardian, October 22 2007. By Madeleine Bunting.

If you've never heard of synbio, you will hear plenty in the next decade. Synthetic biology now occupies roughly the same space on the public's radar that computing might have done in the 1960s or genetic modification in the 1970s - it's largely unheard of by anyone except the scientific community and its geeky observers. But as the pace of breakthrough in this area quickens, the sense of being on the edge of an extraordinary technological revolution is giving even the scientists involved vertigo.

Part of the reason why synbio has had so little attention in the British media is that most of the running is being made in America. There, a few key players are jockeying for position in a race that promises to make them wealthy in the way that computers did Bill Gates. With the arrival in the UK this week of one of those players, Craig Venter, for a string of public talks, the huge implications of synbio might finally begin to impinge on public consciousness here.

We didn't much like genetic modification (GM) by the time it reached trials in the UK in the 1990s, but that could come to look like a storm in a teacup compared to synbio. While GM was about adding or knocking out the odd gene, synbio is about using nature as a giant Meccano set, building entirely new organisms from bits of DNA called BioBricks in what's known as the bottom-up approach. Alternatively, there's Venter's method of stripping out DNA to find the simplest life form and then using that - like a car chassis - to add bits to achieve a bespoke design: this is the breakthrough he says he is on the point of achieving. In this brave new world, they talk of a future in which synthetic biologists will work much like graphic designers, building new organisms on their laptops and emailing them off to the gene foundry for construction.

The best guess is that we are a year or two away from the first commercial application becoming clear, but already huge money is being ploughed in. Venter and his colleagues are plastering every step of their research with sweepingly broad patent applications; it's a gold rush. By 2015 it's estimated that a fifth of the chemical industry (worth $1.8 trillion) could be dependent on synbio. But if that is to happen, the public have to be kept on side and persuaded that the risks with synbio - and it is a frightening science - are worth taking.

What leading synthetic biologists don't want is a public backlash and heavy-handed government interference. They talk of self-regulation - last week the J Craig Venter Institute in Maryland put out another set of proposals - while pushing their research so far ahead of the public debate that by the time we've all cottoned on to what they're up to, it will be too late to do much about it.

So beware of how we are being sold this scientific revolution with pledges to help Africa's poor and ease global warming. The poster child for synbio is the production of a cheap anti-malarial drug. There is a worldwide shortage of natural artemisinin, the most effective anti-malarial extracted from the wormwood tree, but synthetic biologists are on the verge of finding a way to insert the gene responsible for artemisinin into a strain of yeast which could then "manufacture" it in cheap, vast quantities. Further from development but equally plausible are bacteria that could mop up oil spills or extract heavy metal contamination from soil. The most tantalising possibilities might offer help with climate change: bacteria that could break down cellulose to produce ethanol, and even bacteria that could soak up carbon dioxide. Fuel from vast slurry pits of bacteria (they could always lob in a gene to make the smell palatable): the future is an industrialisation of nature.

Some of these promises will be much like the "golden rice" that was used to promote GM, with claims that it would alleviate chronic vitamin A deficiency across Asia, but which has yet to materialise. However, no one doubts that there will be dramatic and benign applications of synbio. The problem is that no one can predict what their price tag might be. How synbio could go wrong keeps even dedicated synthetic biologists awake at night; one, Drew Endy, at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, has said: "I expect this technology will be misapplied... and it would be irresponsible to have a conversation about the technology without acknowledging that fact." Sir Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, talks of bioterror or "bioerror" - a mistake - that could lead to a million casualties in a single event by 2020.

The most frightening aspect of synbio lies in two dimensions of the science. First, after the upfront research costs, synbio has the potential to be a highly accessible technology much like electronics. Unlike nuclear technology, for example, it won't require expensive resources or unusual expertise. In a decade, thousands of laboratories and science graduates are likely to be able to practise synbio, making the task of regulating its use extremely difficult.

Second, creating fantastic bacteria in a contained laboratory is one thing, but what happens when they get out and cross with their wild cousins, mutating into organisms we had never foreseen? The whole point of this science is the development of large-scale use outside a lab, but can we predict what consequences releasing these new organisms could have? The answer is a resounding no. We know about less than 1% of existing bacteria, and have very little understanding of how they mutate. But what we do know is that bacteria survive almost anything - if some malevolent bacteria developed, they would be hard to kill off.

This is scary stuff, but no one is seriously suggesting we can stop here. Even the most nervous synthetic biologists recognise that if they don't keep ploughing ahead, others without their scruples will: we need responsible scientists to alert us to the possibilities of this science. Besides, the promise of huge riches will keep driving development - Venter claims that if he pulls off his organism, it could be worth billions or even trillions of dollars in licensing deals.

Imagine if the engineers of 18th-century Britain could have foreseen the consequences of industrialisation. If they had been warned that it would bring untold wealth and comfort to millions, but would also disrupt human communities, lead to a terrible escalation of war and huge environmental degradation, how then would they have weighed the massive and momentous consequences? And how are we going to? In a couple of decades we could have a nature to organise entirely as we like - the scientist Freeman Dyson suggested black-leaved forests for more efficient use of sunlight in an article on synbio in a recent New York Review of Books. We could be busy creating our own biodiversity to replace the one we will have lost. We might have a "new, improved nature" which is more efficient in meeting our needs and ensuring the survival of future generations: is that a threat or a promise of salvation? And who are we going to trust to make that judgment call?

m.bunting@guardian.co.uk

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

See related article published by the ETC Group on 17 October (below) "Syns of Omission: Civil Society Organizations Respond to Report on Synthetic Biology Governance from the J. Craig Venter Institute and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation".

Canadian agriculture "probably the least profitable in the world"
Interview with Darrin Qualman

Seedling, October 2007.

Extracts only. For full text see: http://grain.org/seedling/?id=509

Darrin Qualman is director of research for Canada's National Farmers Union, where he has worked for 12 years. Before that, he farmed near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Darrin is the author of several reports, including The Farm Crisis, Bigger Farms, and the Myths of Competition and Efficiency and, with Nettie Wiebe, The Structural Adjustment of Canadian Agriculture.

GRAIN: Many farmers in the developing world think of farmers in the North as prosperous, but that isn't the experience of Canadian farmers since the mid-1980s, is it?

Qualman: No, it isn't. The 1960s and 1970s were pretty good for Canadian farmers. The crash in farm income came in 1985 concurrently with the rise of corporate concentration and the spread of massive input dependence. Canada adopted a model of high-output, high-tech, high-input, high-energy-use, high-cost farming...

Canada now spends about US$4 billion per year on farm support payments... On top of these publicly-funded payments, farmers also support their farm losses by working off-farm - one spouse or both take jobs in local towns or cities to earn money to support the farm. Farmers also have utilised increased debt as a way of keeping their farms afloat; debt today is triple its mid-1980s level. On a per-acre basis, debt now stands at US$675 per acre - more than land sells for in many areas. In order to stave off insolvency, as well as using subsidies, off-farm income and debt, farmers have also begun to draw down their equity - not replacing machinery or fixing buildings. And many have borrowed against their farms' intergenerational future - using for living expenses money that would otherwise be used to finance the entry of the next generation of farmers.

...Big-acreage, big-input farming goes with big subsidies. The former seems to require the latter, contrary to rhetoric about "efficiency."

Getting back to Canada, on a rough, per-acre basis, crop producers here are probably losing about $50 to $100 on every acre - as reflected in subsidy and debt levels. Canada's high-input, high-tech, high-cost food production model is probably the least profitable in the world.

GRAIN: You say that Canadian farmers are consistently losing money, but we know that the whole industrial food system generates billions of dollars. Who is making the profits?

Qualman: ...The year 2004 was one of the three worst in history for Canadian farmers in terms of the net incomes they were able to earn from the markets - losses were more than $2 billion. But 2004 was the most profitable year to date for the agribusiness corporations that make up the rest of the agri-food chain. The vast majority of the firms posted record or near-record profits (see The Farm Crisis and Corporate Profits). When we look at the agri-food chain, we see record losses for family farmers at the same time as record profits for the transnationals that dominate the rest of the chain...

What is your position on GMOs? Aren't a lot of farmers growing GMOs in areas where the NFU is active?

Genetically modified (GM) seeds are a key part of the maximum-production, max-technology, max-input, max-energy-use, max-cost system outlined aBové. Canadian net farm income over the past 20 years has been falling. Today, it stands at its lowest level ever. Were it not for massive taxpayer-funded support programmes, off-farm income, access to credit, etc., farming in Canada would have to cease. The transnationals that dominate the rest of the chain - energy, chemicals, seeds, processing, retailing - have managed to set themselves up to reap 110 per cent of the profits that would normally remain on our farms. Let me explain it this way. The price of wheat is now about $5. LetÇs say the cost of production is $7. If the selling price were to rise to $7, the input suppliers would use their market power to increase input prices to capture all the profit from that $7 wheat. Thus, the cost of production would rise to $8 or $9. If the world price rose to those levels, we'd see another round of input price increases. This is not true for all price levels - Monsanto et al. could not raise input prices high enough to capture all the profits from, say, $20 wheat. But the situation holds for nearly every price level we can reasonably expect. There is a structural aspect to the current system wherein it becomes nearly impossible for farmers to meet costs of production because companies can use market power to ensure that costs rise with prices. So, as technology use has gone up, profitability has gone down.

The preceding paragraph seems at odds with the reality that many, many farmers are adopting GM seeds. Let's look at that. First, the data clearly shows that GM seeds do not increase yields or profitability (see, for instance, GM Crops: Not Needed on the Island). If there is any correlation between farmers' expenditures on high-tech seeds and profitability (net farm income), it is an inverse one - over the past 20 years, as farmers' seed purchases have tripled their incomes have crashed. GM seeds do not increase profitability. They do not increase yield. They do not decrease costs.

So why do farmers use them? GM seeds allow you to farm massive acreage. Direct seeding and rapid application of weed-control chemicals allows farmers to cover thousands of acres where previously they could only cover hundreds. So one of the primary effects of GM seeds and the type of farming they facilitate is to reduce dramatically the number of farmers. And farmers have to increase their acreage to survive. As input suppliers raise the price of their products such that per-acre profits drop from $100 to $50 to $5, these same companies, conveniently, provide the technology to allow individual farmers to farm 10 or 20 times the acreage. Per-acre profit drops. Per-farmer profit can be maintained only by farming many more acres. And even then, profitability is elusive, witness the massive subsidies, rising debt, and the growing necessity of off-farm income, mentioned aBové.

2 Dead in Brazil Clash at Biotech Farm

Associated Press, 22 October 2007. By Alan Clendenning.

SAO PAULO, Brazil - Activists trying to invade a Swiss-owned biotech seed farm clashed with guards and at least two people were shot dead, authorities and the company said Monday.

One activist opposed to the farm's work with genetically modified seeds died and a security guard was also killed in the clash Sunday at the 304-acre farm owned by Syngenta AG.

Syngenta spokesman Medard Schoenmaeckers said the invasion led to "a quite dramatic and violent confrontation where we understand that indeed there were some deadly injuries."

The state government of Parana, where the farm is located, said in a statement that seven security guards were taken into custody and face accusations of homicide and gang formation.

Four activists and four security guards were injured by the gunfire, according to Agencia Brasil, the country's official news agency.

Brazil's Landless Workers Movement, a close ally of Via Campesina, said the invaders shot off fireworks in retaking the farm and that a bus arrived later with gunmen who opened fire.

Authorities did not immediately comment on that report, but Schoenmaeckers said the Syngenta's contract with a security company stated that the guards would be unarmed.

Three hundred Via Campesina activists first invaded the farm in March 2006, breaking down the gates and setting up tents to publicize their claim that research there into genetically modified soy and corn is illegal.

Syngenta won a court order in July to expel them. The company, Schoenmaeckers said, "never did anything wrong or illegal in Brazil."

Parana's state government has also tried to confiscate the farm, saying Syngenta's research is illegal and that the property should be transformed into an educational center for environment-friendly agriculture.

Brazil allows research into genetically modified seeds and the use of the seeds for some crops, but their use is opposed by groups like Via Campesina and some government officials, particularly those in Parana, which borders Argentina and Paraguay.

The state government there recently banned the use of genetically modified corn seeds by farmers.

Syngenta is one of Brazil's top agrochemical retailers, and a leading researcher into genetically modified crops.

Note:

See related Via Campesina press release under 21 Cctober below.

USA: Biotech foods are still hard to swallow

LA Times, October 22 2007. By Elena Conis.

OPPONENTS call them Frankenfoods, man-made aberrations that should be banished from our grocery stores or at least clearly labeled so consumers know what they're eating.

Supporters have long cast genetically modified foods in a different light: as answers to human problems. They would, the dream went, make crops that didn't rot, spoil or succumb to frost. They would boost harvests, feed the hungry and fortify the malnourished.

Several decades later, very few of those goals have been realized. Yet today, largely unbeknownst to most consumers, more than 70% of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered or biotech ingredients.

For the most part (with the exception of a virus-resistant papaya from Hawaii) you won't find these genetically modified foods (or GMOs) in the produce aisle, but you will find them pretty much everywhere else -- in flours, cereals, margarines, oils, salad dressings, pies, chips, cookies, fried foods and candy coatings. The main sources: oil, flour, sweetener and lecithin. The ingredients come from just three crops -- corn, soy and canola -- and are engineered to do two things: withstand sprayings of herbicides and resist pests.

Biotech companies and public sector labs are working on the next wave of products, including hypoallergenic, heart-healthy, and vitamin-, nutrient- and even pharmaceutical-packed varieties of engineered crops. But this next wave faces significant challenges.

For one thing, biotech products have proven technically difficult and costly to develop. It takes about $100 million and an average of 10 years to bring a new biotech product to the market, says David Stark, vice president for consumer traits at the St. Louis-based agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto.

The foods also face obstacles from consumers. Compared with other parts of the world (notably Europe), GMO foods have met far less opposition in the U.S. But that ready acceptance may be changing.

Over the last few years a growing number of towns and counties (mostly in California) have voted to declare themselves GMO-free, concerned that the food isn't adequately tested and can't be proven safe for the environment and consumers. The towns of Arcata, Santa Cruz and Point Arena and the counties of Marin, Mendocino and Trinity have banned GMOs. You also can't grow GMOs in Montville, Maine, or on city land in Boulder, Colo.

Fueled by consumer demand, organic foods, which by law contain no genetically engineered ingredients, now make up the fastest growing segment of the food industry.

Such opposition may slow the introduction of new products with more consumer-focused goals. Peggy Lemaux, a professor of plant and microbial biology at UC Berkeley, spent six years developing a variety of wheat that could be safely eaten by people who have wheat allergies. But when she and a colleague took the engineered wheat to food manufacturers in 2001, "basically, nobody would touch it," she says.

"They were so nervous about what the public perception would be of something that was genetically engineered."

The modifying process

Farmers and scientists have been genetically modifying crops for centuries via conventional breeding -- for instance, mating insect-resistant or fast-growing individuals of a species together to create more resistant or fast-growing offspring.

But genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding in that it allows scientists (not farmers) to achieve results faster and take genes from one species and insert them into the genome of a completely unrelated species.

An oft-cited example: In 1991, scientists extracted a gene for cold-tolerance from a flounder and stuck it into the DNA of a tomato in an effort to make a frost-resistant vegetable. That effort failed, and the fish-gene tomato never made it to market.

This example illustrates the kind of cross-species combination that might occur, but it's not a good example of what's actually on the market.

Roughly 60% of the corn in the U.S. is engineered to contain a gene known as Bt that comes from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt makes a toxin that kills certain insects, including the destructive European corn borer. When the Bt gene is inserted into the corn genome, the corn makes its own bug-killing Bt toxin -- pesticide is built right into the plant.

Nearly 90% of the U.S. soy crop is engineered with other genes taken from bacteria that allow the plant to withstand sprayings of specific weedkillers, or herbicides. Sometimes the chosen genes enable the soy to detoxify weed-killing chemicals; others block the response of the soy plant to the herbicide so it doesn't succumb.

Certain bacteria have the unique ability to infiltrate cells, and they are often used to escort new genes into plants. Alternatively, plants can be engineered using a tool called a "gene gun" in which bullets made of tungsten or gold are coated with the genetic material and then shot into plants' cells at a high speed in hopes that the gene will get incorporated into the plant's genome. In a third method, a shot of electricity makes the plant cell temporarily porous so that the new gene can get into the cell.

But all of these methods leave a fair amount of room for error, which means that genetic engineering can be, much like conventional breeding, a time-consuming, hit-or-miss process, says Michael Hansen, senior scientist with the consumer advocacy organization Consumers Union in Yonkers, N.Y. "You have no idea where you're inserting the material," he says.

In part, this explains why almost the only genetically engineered crops used in food products are engineered for pest- and herbicide-resistance. These "first generation" biotech crops were relative easy to engineer.

The second generation of biotech crops may look more like the harvest originally promised by its proponents several decades ago. Although most are still several years from hitting the market, crops are being engineered to contain things consumers are actually interested in, such as extra vitamins or minerals, healthful omega-3 fatty acids or hypoallergenic proteins.

Engineering such products doesn't always involve splicing genes from one species into another. To engineer a hypoallergenic peanut, scientists at Alabama A&M University inactivated a gene that produces an allergy-inducing protein in peanuts. They reported on the success of their research in the Plant Biotechnology Journal last month.

Scientists are also working on folate-rich tomatoes and calcium dense potatoes. Monsanto is developing a line of bioengineered soybean oils designed to be more healthful than their conventional counterpart. One oil -- made by inactivating genes naturally found in soybeans -- will be lower in saturated fats and have a reduced tendency to produce unhealthful trans fats during processing. Another will be made from soybeans altered to make stearidonic acid (SDA), which the body fairly easily converts into EPA, a beneficial omega-3 fat found in fish.

Undaunted by the hypoallergenic wheat sitting idle in her lab, Berkeley biologist Lemaux is now at work on improving the nutritional characteristics of a different grain: sorghum. The crop isn't eaten in the U.S., but it's a common part of the African diet.

Supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemaux is attempting to increase the amino acids in the grain and make it more digestible. Others funded by the foundation are working to increase sorghum's vitamin and mineral content.

This time around, Lemaux is sure the final product will be well-received. "This is something that would actually mean something to a lot of people," she says.

That doesn't guarantee acceptance, however. In 2000, two European scientists announced that by inserting a daffodil gene (and a few other genes) into rice, they created a grain with 23 times the beta carotene as normal rice. The rice was unveiled as a solution to vitamin A deficiency, which causes blindness in developing countries.

But the rice has faced its share of opposition from critics who contend that the rice couldn't supply enough beta carotene to combat blindness and that if cultivated, it will supplant native rice varieties and erode biodiversity.

Seven years later, the rice (also being supported by the Gates Foundation) is still in development.

"Genetic engineering has some potential to bring benefits to consumers and farmers," says Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But it's a slow road to get there."

But will people eat it?

Technical challenges may be formidable, but consumer resistance may prove an even greater challenge for crop engineers to overcome.

In polls, genetically engineered ingredients consistently rank at the bottom of the list of things consumers try to avoid in foods (well below fat, salt and sugar). This is probably due in large part to the fact that most consumers think they've never eaten genetically engineered foods.

Yet at the same time, according to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, about half of U.S. consumers say they're opposed to GMOs.

"Many people are hesitant," says Michael Fernandez, former executive director of the initiative, which surveyed consumers on the subject of agricultural biotechnology between 2001 and 2006. "They have questions of safety and ethical questions."

Is there evidence to back up these fears?

Many critics' concerns about genetically modified crops have centered around environmental issues. They argue that a newly engineered species could out-compete native species or that plants engineered to be resistant to weedkillers could inadvertently lead to the evolution of impossible-to-control "super-weeds."

Health concerns have also figured into the debate. Some scientists and food safety advocates have suggested that genetically engineered foods might result in new allergies, harm the immune system or lead to antibiotic resistance.

So far, the evidence for such claims is slim, but some examples do exist.

In the 1990s, Food and Drug Administration scientists warned that genetic engineering could result in new allergens because the introduction of new genes into a plant -- or even inserting a gene in a new place in the plant's genome -- could result in the plant making new or larger-than-normal amounts of proteins. (Allergic reactions, including itching and anaphylactic shock, are often triggered when the immune system encounters a foreign protein.)

In some cases, new allergens have, in fact, been created, although the end products of such tinkering haven't made it to market. In a widely cited example, scientists in 1996 inserted a Brazil nut gene into soybeans to make the bean more nutritious. The result was a soybean that triggered nut allergies, and the Brazil nut-soybean project came to a screeching halt.

In 2000, traces of a genetically modified corn called Starlink -- unapproved for human use because it contained a protein that hadn't been ruled out as an allergen -- inadvertently made its way into the food supply.

The unapproved corn ended up in, among other places, taco shells made by Kraft Foods. Dozens of consumers reported allergic reactions after they heard about the contamination. But when Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigators attempted to correlate consumers' symptoms with consumption of Starlink, they couldn't find a link.

Today, researchers are highly vigilant about the possibility of introducing potential allergens into the food supply, says Monsanto's Stark. One of the first things scientists do after identifying a gene with desirable characteristics, he says, is make sure it doesn't produce allergens. "If it even has the potential, it's dead. It doesn't go into the plant."

Risks are unclear

Another reason genetically engineered food is likely to be safe comes from the way it is used in our foods, says Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Most of the genetically engineered food consumed in this country is eaten processed -- in the form of high fructose corn syrup and vegetable oils, for example -- and not whole. Processing destroys much of the proteins and other products of genetic toying around that might otherwise have posed some health risk, Jaffe says.

Evidence from animal studies also suggests that genetically engineered crops could affect the immune system in unforeseen ways, but studies are few and far between (and limited to creatures with four legs).

In 2005, Australian scientists published findings that when a pea was engineered to include a gene from a bean to make it pest-resistant, the resulting pea caused immune reactions in mice. When mice ate, inhaled or were injected with meal made from the engineered peas, they suffered swelling and inflammation just about everywhere.

There's another, largely theoretical concern about genetically engineered foods: that they're toxic.

Many plants, such as potatoes, tomatoes and celery, manufacture their own toxic chemicals to ward off pests. In large amounts, these toxins can be harmful to humans too.

Critics argue that, in theory, at least, the inexact nature of gene insertion could cause mutations that could make a plant make an unexpected high level of toxins.

But conventional breeding can accomplish the same: Celery is sometimes selectively bred for high levels of psoralens, chemicals the plant makes to fight off disease, and that can cause rashes in farmers and produce aisle workers.

Also on the list of health concerns is the possibility that genetic engineering can exacerbate antibiotic resistance. To ensure that a desired gene (say, for making Bt toxin) has made it into the DNA of a target plant such as corn, scientists will sometimes insert the desired gene along with a gene for antibiotic resistance, too -- because resistance is easy to determine.

Today, the use of antibiotic-resistance genes is slowly (and at the urging of the FDA) being phased out.

Lemaux says biotech crops are extensively tested through multiple generations to ensure that they're stable and safe. And Michael Doane, director of public affairs for Monsanto, adds that genetically engineered crops have been grown and consumed around the world for more than a decade without incident.

The reason, he says: "There's a very, very comprehensive review process before a crop is commercialized."

That review process isn't comprehensive enough for many critics, particularly those who point to the environmental risks associated with GMOs.

Plant pollen and seeds scatter easily, carried by wind, bees and birds, which means that it's easy for engineered crops to cross-pollinate with, and possibly out-compete, wild species.

Earlier this year, federal Judge Charles Breyer issued a ruling that put a halt to the growing of genetically engineered alfalfa. Breyer ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees field testing of genetically engineered crops, gave the green light to a variety of herbicide-resistant alfalfa prematurely saying it hadn't addressed the crop's potential to contaminate nonengineered and organic alfalfa and create super-weeds.

Starlink aside, there's plenty of reason to think genetically engineered plants can turn up where they're not wanted. In 2004, scientists found that genetically engineered golf course grass in Oregon cross-pollinated with natural grass more than a dozen miles away.

In 2006, the USDA announced that an unapproved variety of genetically engineered long-grain rice had contaminated nonengineered rice fields in five Southern states.

Events such as these have led critics to say that far more government oversight of genetically engineered foods is needed.

Today, genetically engineered crops are regulated in part by the Environmental Protection Agency, in part by the USDA and in part by the FDA. The EPA steps in when a crop is engineered to make a pesticide or herbicide. The USDA oversees the field testing that goes on before a biotech crop can be considered for the food supply. And the FDA takes over to make sure a new crop is safe for humans to eat.

The FDA accomplishes that through a voluntary consultation process in which companies developing new crops voluntarily submit the results of their safety testing to the agency. The agency reviews the company's data and then responds with questions or concerns.

On the whole, the FDA does not consider bioengineered foods to pose any risks beyond those posed by conventional foods, said FDA public affairs specialist Stephanie Kwisnek. In addition, "the agency believes that companies are cooperating with the voluntary system," Kwisnek stated via e-mail.

Some think this process is sufficient. Jaffe points out that it's similar to the type of regulation that applies to pharmaceuticals. His organization, Center for Science in the Public Interest, reviewed the safety data on genetically engineered soy, corn and canola submitted to the FDA. "We concluded that the current crops on the market aren't harmful to humans," he says.

In other words, even though the process is voluntary, it appears to be working, for now. Lemaux says that makes sense. Companies, she says, have an incentive to make sure their engineered products are safe. "In the end, who's going to get sued? It's not the FDA or the EPA."

But Hansen of the Consumers Union and others say that safety testing isn't adequate because it isn't standardized across the industry and isn't necessarily done well. French scientists this year published results of a reanalysis of the safety data collected by Monsanto on a variety of transgenic corn. Monsanto concluded the corn was safe, but when the French scientists looked at the data, they found evidence of decreased weight, liver toxicity and increased levels of blood lipids in rats.

Those kinds of discrepancies have led advocates to call for government-led, premarket testing of genetically engineered foods. "The public deserves an independent regulator," Jaffe says.

Others, meanwhile, such as Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a consumer advocacy group, press for food labels so that consumers can have the choice whether to eat biotech foods or avoid them -- be it for health concerns, environmental reasons or both.

"Not a single American," Kimbrell says, "is getting up in the morning and saying 'Boy, I can't wait to go out and buy some genetically engineered food.' "

21 October 2007

Brazil: Attack by Syngenta's armed militia results in dead and wounded in Brazil

Via Campesina press release, 21 October 2007.

During an attack of an armed militia with around 40 gunmen to the peasants' camp at the experimental field trial of Syngenta Seeds multinational, at Santa Teresa do Oeste, at 13:30 of today (October 21st), a Via Campesina member, Valmir Motta, 32 years old, father of 3 children, was executed with two shots on his chest. Other six rural workers are severely wounded and a gunmen was possibly killed. The wounded: Gentil Couto Viera, Jonas Gomes de Queiroz, Domingos Barretos, Izabel Nascimento de Souza e Hudson Cardin, were taken to hospital in the region. Izabel (a woman) is in coma and on death risk.

The Syngenta's field trial was occupied this morning (21/10) by about 150 (one hundred and fifty) peasants from Via Campesina. The field trial was occupied by peasant families in March 2006, to denounce to public authorities and civil society the illegal reproduction by Syngenta of GMO soy and maize seeds on the area. The occupation turned the Syngenta's crimes known worlwide. After 16 (sixteen) months of resistance, on July 18th of this year, the 70 (seventy) families left the area, moving to a provisional settlement "Olga Benario", also at Santa Tereza do Oeste municipality.

Today, during the re-occupation of the area, the rural workers lighted fireworks and the security men that were at the company's field left the place. Around 13:30 a micro-bus sttoped in front of the main entrance and a militia of about 40 gunmen heavily armed got off the bus shooting towards the peasants. The gunmen broke the front porch, executed Valmir Motta with two shots on his chest, shot other 5 peasants and beated Isabel do Nascimento de Souza, who is at the hospital, severly wounded.

Syngenta has been hiring security services that act in irregular way on that region, articulated by the Rural Society of the West Region (Sociedade Rural da Regiao Oeste, SRO) and the Movement of Rural Producers ( Movimento dos Produtores Rurais, MPR). One of the directors of the security services company named "NF" was arrested and the owner escaped during a Federal Police operation earlier this month, when there were aprehended ammunition and illegal guns.

There is evidence showing that the company is hired as a facade and when is time to the operations, they hire illegaly more security men, forming an armed militia that works doing violent evictions and attacks to landless peasant camps on that region. On last Thursday (18), a denounce on the armed militia's actions related to the SRO/MPR and to Syngenta on the West region was re-enforced during a public hearing, coordinated by the Human Rights and Minorities Comission of the Federal House of Deputies, held at Curitiba city.

Via Campesina demands to the Judiciary power to investigate the attack against rural workers of the camp, that, toghether with families at the Olga Benario settlement still struggling to turn the field trial into a Center for Agroecology and multiplication of criolla seeds to family farm and land reform.

The residents at the Olga Benario settlement, which borders with Syngenta's field trial, are also against GMO experiments in that area as it will contaminate their production of criolla seeds and will cause damage to their food, health and environment.

Via Campesina

Information to the press
55(41)84119794 - Solange
55 (41) 9676 5239 - Jakeline
55 (41) 3324 7000
viacampesinapr@gmail.com

20 October 2007

Japan: An appeal to extend the moratorium concerning GM crop cultivation in Australia

NO! GMO Campaign (Japan), 20 October 2007. By Keisuke Amagasa

We, representatives of consumers' groups in Japan, are currently visiting four states in Australia between 14 and 22 October 2007, in order to deliver a letter demanding state premiers to extend their moratoria on GM crop cultivation, and a petition to support the moratoria signed by a large number of organizations. The delegation consists of Ms. Seiko Matsuda from the Green Co-op Consumers' Co-operative Union, Ms. Ryoko Shimizu (Seikatsu Club Consumers' Co-operative Union) and Mr. Keisuke Amagasa (NO! GMO Campaign, Consumers Union of Japan). The petition is signed by 155 Japanese consumer organisations, whose total membership represents 2.9 million Japanese consumers.

On 16 October, we visited the New South Wales parliament in Sydney, and met Mr. Ian Cohen MLC. He raised a question to the Minister for Primary Industries, Ian MacDonald, regarding our letter at the Senate right after our meeting, and received a response from the Minister. Thereafter, we communicated our demand and presented our counterargument to the Minister's response. We then handed the letter and the petition directly to the Minister's advisor.

On 18 October, we visited the Department of Primary Industries of the State of Victoria, in Melbourne, and met Dr Deborah Peterson, Deputy Secretary for Policy & Strategy, and two other senior officials. We communicated our demand, handed the letter and the petition to them, and received their firm commitment to bring our demand to the Chair of the GM review panel.

On 19 October, we visited the South Australian parliament in Adelaide, the Shadow Cabinet, Mitch Williams MP and many other parliamentarians. Thereafter, we met the chairperson of the Minister's Advisory Committee, Ms Anne Levi, to exchange views concerning the GM crop moratorium. We then presented the letter together with the petition to the governor of the state through the Hon Jack Snelling, the speaker of the Lower House. Copies of the letter will be provided to all the members of the parliament.

On 22 October, we will be meeting the Minister for Agriculture and Food of Western Australia, the Hon Kim Chance MLC, in Perth, and will present the letter and the petition directly to him.

At this moment, there is a high probability that the moratoria in NSW, Victoria and South Australia will be lifted. Under these circumstances, we have had the opportunity to state accurately the actual situation in Japan, which is that Japanese consumers are rejecting GM food very strongly. Japan is currently the biggest buyer of Australian canola.

The GM review panel in each state will be presenting their reports concerning the GM crop moratorium in each state very soon now. We anchor our hopes on millions of consumers all over the world sending appeals to extend the Australian states' moratoria on GM crop cultivation.

Contact:

NO! GMO Campaign: http://www.no-gmo.org
Nishi Waseda 1-9-19-207, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan
Tel: +81-3-5155-4756 / Fax: +81-3-5155-4767
E-mail: no-gmo@jca.apc.org

19 October 2007

Russia: Parliament passes GM legislation

Just-food.com, October 19, 2007

Legislation surrounding the labeling of GM food in Russia looks set to ease, according to local reports.

According to the news service Prime Tass, the upper house of the Russian parliament, The Federation Council approved a bill that will mean packages containing genetically modified (GM) food must contain information on genetic modification only if the GM content is more than 0.9%.

Current legislation means GM foods must always contain that information, the report noted.

To become law, the bill must be signed by the president.

Looking to a Future with Genetically Enhanced Humans
A new Nobel laureate's work shows that the prospect of genetically engineering children is controversial but no longer just a fantasy.

AlterNet, October 19, 2007. By Marcy Darnovsky.

It's Nobel Prize season, and the Nobel scientists are very much in the news. James Watson, awarded the laureate in 1962 for helping to deduce the now-iconic double-helix structure of DNA, is currently embroiled in controversy after making a series of blatantly racist remarks in the UK Sunday Times last week.

But related views espoused by one of this year's laureates have gone unnoticed. In early October, the Nobel Prize for biology went to three scientists whose talent and persistence gave us "knockout mice," the genetically engineered lab animals widely used by researchers to model and study human diseases. In the words of a Nobel committee member, these designer mice have "led to penetrating new insights" in several biological fields.

The story of one of the biology winners, Mario Capecchi, was the lead in most of the news reports about the award. Capecchi's rags-to-riches life gave an extra mythic dimension to the fairytale-like quality that always accompanies the Nobel announcements, with their large sums of money and middle-of-the-night phone calls to astonished scientists.

Capecchi spent his early childhood in World War II Italy, living on the streets and in orphanages after his mother was sent to Dachau for anti-Fascist activities. She survived and found her son on his ninth birthday. Together they set sail for the United States, where Capecchi got a high-quality education and eventually reached Watson's Harvard lab.

But there's another aspect of Capecchi's life that may sound more like science fiction than fairy tale. The new Nobel laureate, like his former mentor Watson, has spoken enthusiastically of using the genetic science he's helped advance to engineer biologically enhanced children.

The prospect of a renewed, high-tech eugenics is extraordinarily controversial, but it is not just a fantasy. It is coming ever closer to technical plausibility, and for a disturbing number of influential scientists and eccentric futurists, it is an agenda. At an infamous UCLA conference in 1998, Watson, Capecchi, and other prominent scientists gathered to strategize about how to make it "acceptable" to the public. The event was titled Engineering the Human Germline -- a reference to what is now more commonly called "inheritable genetic modification" -- and covered on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.

The conferees were quite explicit. Watson -- hardly known for his shyness or tact -- proclaimed to the audience of nearly a thousand, "If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it?" (As for the "better human beings" he has in mind, he told a British film maker in 2003 that he considers ten percent of children "stupid," and would like to see them genetically modified. "If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease," Watson said. He went on to argue for using genetic techniques to prevent the births of "ugly girls." "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty," he explained. "I think it would be great.")

Another conference attendee, Princeton mouse biologist turned futurist Lee Silver, has elaborated on this frankly eugenic vision. In Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (William Morrow: 1997), Silver eagerly imagines a future in which the appearance, personality, cognitive abilities, and sensory capacities of children become products of genetic modification. Silver acknowledges that the costs of such procedures would limit their widespread adoption, and predicts that over time society would segregate into castes that he dubs the "GenRich" and the "Naturals."

In the promotion of a new eugenics, Capecchi has been less the salesman or provocateur, and more the architect -- or, perhaps, the engineer. His talk at the 1998 conference, called "The Genetic Engineer's Tool Box," examined techniques "for safe, reliable germline engineering in humans." Capecchi acknowledged concerns about the wisdom of making permanent changes in the human genome. If inheritable genetic modification were to begin in twenty years, he mused, "the procedures that we'll be working out at that point will appear very primitive fifty years from now. And those procedures, in turn, will appear very primitive a hundred years from now." This presents a serious problem: "[T]here's no way we should create a system where it is a permanent record."

But for a man of Capecchi's scientific imagination, this problem is surmountable. In fact, he had already devised a clever work-around. His proposal: Create those genetic changes in the embryos that will become genetically enhanced children, but put "on" and "off" switches into their genes. Newsweek described the scheme as "an end run around the worry that it is wrong to monkey with human evolution."

Unlike Watson and others, Capecchi seems not to have pursued advocacy of using genetic tools in the service of a eugenic future. Perhaps he has had second thoughts. Perhaps he has recognized the disastrous new forms of discrimination and inequality that eugenic engineering could so easily produce. Perhaps there's a chance he'll use the platform afforded by his Nobel Prize to reject such dangerous applications of the science he's helped to develop. Or is that too much of a fairy tale ending?

Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, is associate executive director at the Center for Genetics and Society and a contributor to the blog Biopolitical Times. [http://geneticsandsociety.org]

USA: Genetically altered food: Labels hotly debated in Iowa
Opposing sides are divided on safety concerns, and presidential candidates are being urged to take stands.

Des Moines Register, October 19 2007. By Paula Lavigne.

Iowa is playing center stage in a global debate over whether people should be warned when the genetic makeup of their food has been altered.

A national advocacy group believes consumers would demand that genetically modified foods be labeled if they knew just how much is being changed in labs. The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods is pushing presidential candidates to support making labeling the law - with some success.

Leading Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards agree to the organization's proposal, as do candidates Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. Top Republican candidates have not taken positions.

"We want to make food safety a defining issue of this election," said Anne Dietrich, the Fairfield, Ia.-based executive director of the campaign. "Once this becomes the law of the land, then Monsanto, Syngenta, Kraft and Kellogg's will reformulate their products. Iowa is the best place to start."

But the group's efforts have met resistance from Iowa industry leaders and global experts in genetic engineering. Many of them are gathered in Des Moines this week for the World Food Prize, an event that honors innovations in increasing the world's food supply.

While Dietrich and her supporters argue that genetically engineered foods threaten human health and the environment, biotechnology leaders say the foods are safe and vital to feeding the world, especially amid growing demand for crop-based biofuels.

James Greenwood, a speaker at the event and president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said opponents of genetic engineering use scare tactics.

"They hope by using these scare tactics they can persuade policymakers to alter labeling, and they can use the label to drive people away."

Although years of debate have yielded no public consensus on the issue, one thing is certain: Genetic engineering or modification increasingly affects Iowans at the supper table and in the field. Ninety-four percent of soybeans and 78 percent of corn planted in Iowa are genetically engineered varieties, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Those who modify the foods use DNA to take a trait from one species and introduce it into the genes of another. The process can make a species grow better, yield more or resist pests and disease.

Prior attempts in Congress by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich to pass similar legislation requiring labels have failed. But supporters of labeling believe this election year is different. Recent concerns about food safety in the United States, they say, create an opportunity to inject genetic engineering into the presidential debates and create consumer support.

Yet Greenwood cautioned candidates against trashing genetics in front of farmers, who profit from genetically engineered crops.

"I wouldn't want to be a presidential candidate going into Iowa ... and extolling the virtues of labeling their corn in a way that might make consumers not want to buy it," he said.

Perhaps the worst biotech black eye in the United States happened in 2000, when Aventis' StarLink corn was found in taco shells. The incident prompted a nationwide recall and caused farmers and others in the grain industry to lose money.

The genetically engineered StarLink was allowed in animal feed, but it was not approved for human food because of concerns it could trigger allergic reactions. Federal regulators never proved that it did.

In fact, biotech leaders say no studies have ever shown their foods to be dangerous to consumer health. The industry, they say, has stopped using antibiotics in gene work because of concerns about people developing immunity.

Opponents say studies have shown that genetically modified foods expose people to new allergies and generate new toxins.

Fairfield attorney Steven Druker said the government allows genetically modified food on the market without adequate testing to determine its true risk. Druker sued the FDA to release files that he says show how agency bureaucrats silenced government scientists who doubt genetic engineering.

"These foods are not to be presumed safe," he said, adding they shouldn't be on the market - with or without a label.

The two camps also wield dueling research in other related areas:

- Opponents blame genetic engineering for ruining habitat and killing off certain animals and insects, including the monarch butterfly, and robbing the soil of nutrients. Biotech leaders dispute those claims and say genetically engineered crops actually help the environment because they lessen the need for pesticides.

- Proponents say genetic engineering creates reliable crops that can grow in parts of the Third World and other areas where it's difficult to farm, and provide more suitable and nutritious food for impoverished families. Opponents say that better distribution of food could help poor families in other countries, and that the benefits of growing altered crops don't outweigh the long-term risks.

A study war continues, with both sides alleging that existing research is flawed, biased or incomplete.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has deemed genetically engineered foods safe.

According to its rules, "there must be something tangibly different about the food product - not the process by which it's made - for the FDA to require labeling."

Tom West, vice president in biotech affairs with Pioneer Hi-Bred International, contends that genetically engineered foods are "the most tested foods in the history of mankind."

"There's not a single documented case of an illness or allergic reaction to a biotech food," he said.

Governments require labels in other parts of the world, including Europe, where consumers are more opposed to genetically modified food.

Although genetically engineered foods in the United States lack labels, some companies have chosen to market foods as "GMO-free." Consumers also can look for the USDA "organic" label because genetic modification is banned in organic food.

Leigha Bitz, a West Des Moines jewelry designer who blogs about buying organic food for her two young children, believes genetically modifying food robs it of its natural nourishment.

"God didn't make it that way," she said. "Everything we put in our bodies gets broken down by our bodies in special ways. If you change its molecular structure, it's not going to work as well."

About 60 percent of Americans don't believe they have eaten genetically engineered food, even though almost every American has, according to a study done last year by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.

The same survey showed that 46 percent of respondents were opposed to genetically engineered foods, which is down from a high of 58 percent in 2001 (following the StarLink incident). And 54 percent said they were unlikely to eat foods that had been genetically modified.

Reporter Paula Lavigne can be reached at (515) 745-3428 or plavigne@dmreg.com

Where some candidates stand

DEMOCRATS

CLINTON: Supports labeling
EDWARDS: Supports labeling
RICHARDSON: Supports labeling
OBAMA: Did not re

spond DODD: Campaign staff said Dodd would have to "look at the details of any specific piece of legislation and ensure that it's not unfairly burdensome on America's farmers. However, he does support the right of consumers to make informed choices about their food purchases."

KUCINICH: supports labeling genetically modified seeds and food. He also would create an indemnity fund financed by biotech companies for farmers who incur losses caused by genetically modified organisms. The Ohio congressman's attempts to pass legislation for regulating and labeling genetically engineered food have failed.

REPUBLICANS

GIULIANI: No position
ROMNEY: No position
THOMPSON: No position
HUCKABEE: Did not respond

Source: Candidate campaign staffs.

Note: Candidates listed include the top four leading candidates from each party from the October Iowa Poll. Although not among the leading candidates, Dodd and Kucinich are included because they have been mentioned by the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods as supporters of their cause.

France: Monsanto files suit against French GMO activists

Reuters, 19 October 2007.

PARIS, Oct 19 - The French unit of U.S. Biotech giant Monsanto has filed a lawsuit following the latest destruction of some of its test fields for genetically-modified maize. In a statement issued on Friday, Monsanto said that unidentified activists had ransacked three test fields in Valdivienne in central France after dark on Thursday.

"This senseless new act of violence penalises French research into biotech crops yet again and has no scientific basis," Monsanto said.

It used a procedure in French law allowing legal action to be brought against unknown defendants.

Activists have ruined other Monsanto GMO test fields this year, prompting a series of official complaints which the company has said typically leads to court action. Industry groups have denounced such attacks as disastrous for the country's agricultural research work.

Some farmers supportive of GMO crops have called on the government during government-led meetings on the environment to pass a GMO law as soon as possible, in part to stress the illegal nature of such activities.

Heated debate has surrounded the use of GMO products across Europe and in France, where many consumers and green groups doubt the safety of GMO products and fear that they will reduce biodiversity.

Australia: Removal of GM ban may cost Japanese contracts

The Age, October 19 2007. By Orietta Guerrera.

VICTORIA risks losing lucrative Japanese contracts if its ban on commercial production of genetically modified canola is lifted, the State Government has been warned.

A delegation from Japan's No! GMO Campaign met senior Department of Primary Industries officials in Melbourne yesterday. The meeting was part of a 10-day campaign against GM canola in Australia.

The delegation presented a petition signed by 155 groups, which they say represent 2.9 million consumers, farmers and canola oil producers in Japan.

Most states and the ACT have bans on GM canola, or on GM crops in general. Victoria, NSW, Tasmania and South Australia are reviewing their stance.

In Victoria, a panel is examining the trade and economic implications of allowing the ban to lapse when it expires in February. Campaign spokeswoman Ryoko Shimizu said Japanese companies had turned to Australian canola because of its GM-free status after Canada started growing GM canola.

Australia exported 312,000 tonnes of canola to Japan last year - 41 per cent of this country's canola export market. Ms Shimizu said Japanese consumers and producers were concerned about the environmental impact of growing GM canola.

18 October 2007

Ireland: Euro-Toques quit Féile Bía
Oliver Moore gets to the bottom of a high profile Féile Bía pull-out

[Explanatory note from GM-free Ireland:

The Irish branch of Europe's leading chefs organisation, Euro-Toques, pulled out of the Government-run Féile Bía food awareness scheme last May, because of its failure to support small food producers and the continued awarding of its "Quality Assurance" label for Irish meat and dairy produce that is being refused by leading EU retailers because it comes from livestock fed on GM ingredients.

Euro-Toques Ireland (www.eurotoquesirl.org) is an NGO representing the country's 200 leading chefs, who promote high quality, GM-free, locally produced traditional and artisanal food. Bord Bía (www.bordbia.ie) is the Irish government Foood Board, which promotes and markets Irish food abroad. Féile Bía (www.bordbia.ie/consumers/eating_out/_feile_bia/about-feile-bia.html) was initiated by Euro-Toques to create public awareness of Ireland's culinary heritage, to promote local food, and to inform restaurant customers about the origin and methods of producing the food they eat. Initiated by Euro-Toques Ireland, the programme was run by Bord Bía in conjunction with Euro-Toques, the Restaurants Association of Ireland, and Irish Hotels Federation until Euro-Toques pulled out in May 2007. Euro-Toques and the Restaurants Association are members of the GM-free Ireland Network.]

Irish Examiner, 18 October 2007. By Oliver Moore.

Some of Ireland's best known chefs have pulled out of the Féile Bía scheme.

"Naturally, we're very disappointed," says Aidan Cotter, chief executive of Bord Bía, on the Euro-Toques Ireland pull-out.

So he should be. Amongst the 200 Euro-Toques Ireland members are household names such as Nevin McGuire of McNean's Bistro, Darina Allen of Ballymaloe House, and Ross Lewis of Chapter One.

And Euro-Toques has 3,500 members throughout Europe, including many of the most highly regarded chefs in each country. The organisation was founded by Pierre Romeyer, of Belgium's La Maison de Bouche, a three star Michelin restaurant.

What makes the withdrawal all the more noteworthy is that the aims of Euro-Toques seem, on the face of it, to chime with those of Bord Bía, and those of the Féile Bía scheme run by Bord Bía in conjunction with the Restaurants Association of Ireland, Irish Hotels Federation, and up to now, Euro-Toques Ireland.

Euro-Toques aim to support culinary traditions and quality food. And bord Bía are the Irish food board, who promote and market Irish food.

According to Bord Bía, "Central to the Féile Bía concept is that members source the maximum amount of freshly available produce. In addition to promoting traceability, Féile Bía aims to encourage sourcing from artisan producers and small butchers and highlighting of this supplier information on menus."

Brid Torrades is a commissioner of Euro-Toques. She runs three establishments in Sligo - the Atrium Cafe in the Model Arts Centre, Osta Café and Wine Bar and the soon to be opened Tobergal Lane Café. Brid was a Euro-Toques commissioner when the Féile Bía concept was first mooted, as a Euro-Toques initiative stemming from the successful European Fête de la Cuisine - which is also a Euro-Toques concept.

"The intention was to create an awareness of our culinary heritage and to progress things further in Ireland. Euro-Toques invited the relevant players together, including Bord Bía, and the name Féile Bía [which means "Celebration of Food" in Irish] was settled upon following a brainstorming session."

She goes on: "We felt that the original Féile Bía did just that, while at the same time encouraging chefs and hotels who previously would not have considered the importance of locally sourced produce."

After this first year, 1999, however, Euro-Toques claim that Féile Bía moved away from this position. According to their letter of withdrawal, the Féile Bía tagline changed from "A celebration of Irish Food" to "A celebration of quality food" and then "Certified farm to fork", becoming indicative of a move towards traceability scheme support and bureaucratisation.

"Féile Bía is now essentially a traceability scheme, which favours larger suppliers and larger catering operations, who can bear the burden and cost of increased bureaucracy. As traceability legislation already exists, and Euro-Toques members conform to this and go far beyond it, a scheme which essentially only guarantees traceability is superfluous, and only adds to the growing bureaucracy which food businesses are now subject to."

Euro-Toques members also suggest that their own guidelines go much further than Féile Bía. "We aspire to sourcing in season, locally, with sustainable agriculture practices and good animal husbandry; elements which cannot be guaranteed by a 'Quality Assurance Scheme'. Furthermore, we believe that people should have the freedom to produce and supply quality food without being forced to be part of any scheme which may contribute to the high costs and bureaucracy which are already crippling so many producers," says Brid Torrades.

Another major issue for Euro-Toques is genetic modification. As the letter of withdrawal states, "We also have serious concerns... about the use of GM feeds in the production of meat and dairy in Ireland. We are not happy to endorse a branding which 'quality assures' such products."

I put these concerns to Aidan Cotter, chief executive of Bord Bía. I asked him about Féile Bía and the Quality Assurance Scheme.

He said, "The principal condition is that it has to be based on Quality Assurance... we have to have Quality Assurance as a platform on which to promote, in order to stay on the right side of state aid rules."

He also suggested Quality Assurance is about more than just safety, it's about broader issues such as environmental health (for example, salt levels in pork) and animal welfare.

In relation to the small producer, Aidan suggested "We do believe that it supports small producers."

He also pointed out that the scheme itself does not cost money to join, and that it supports both small and large producers. Also, Bord Bía do promotional work for small producers, including the launch of a center of excellence to support these producers.

I put some of these points to Lorcan Cribbin, commissioner-general of Euro-Toques Ireland. According to Lorcan, "It's not difficult if you have money. If you are making a nominal amount of money, and then someone comes in and tells you to upgrade your production, and it's going to cost twenty or thirty grand, more and more people are falling by the wayside, because they can't afford to do it."

"If you let all these artisan producers slip through the net, in 10 or 15 years time, Ireland will be a far poorer place fo it."

Chefs worried by consumer unawareness of GM feedstuffs

Confusion over genetic modification has contributed to the pullout of the Euro-Toques organisation of top chefs in Ireland from the Féile Bía scheme run by Bord Bía.

Euro-Toques - one of the Féile Bía founders - wrote to Bord Bía about their genetic modification concerns in March last year, and were told Irish beef production conditions are fully transparent.

"I am satisfied the product continues to enjoy a strong, positive image and the full confidence of customers in the European Union, who now represent 93% of our beef export market," was the Bord Bia response.

Euro-Toques suggested in their Féile Bía withdrawal letter, "This is blatantly untrue, as few consumers are aware of the use of GM feeds in Irish food production."

I put this issue to Aidan Cotter of Bord Bía. "What they say is correct, most consumers don't know that most animals are fed feed that happens to be GM. It's not deliberately GM, but it just so happens that so much of the maize and soya beans that comes across from the US and South America is GM, and is not segregated. So farmers tend not to have a choice. That goes not just for Ireland, but also for the UK and continental Europe. So consumers in Europe are choosing meat locally, whether in France or Italy, that is generally fed on the same feed animals are fed on in Ireland. So when I say conditions are transparent, what I mean is that the conditions of production in Italy or France or wherever are the same, but our animals are fed to a greater extent on grassland."

I put it to Aidan that, according to our new Food Minister, feeding GM feedstuffs to our livestock may involve a market risk. If consumers found out about this feed, they might be concerned. "If there is a risk, that risk is shared by all meat producers throughout Europe. Would consumers have a problem with it? We don't know. But we have close relations with 40 retailers around Europe... and we've asked many of them for their view in regard to GM feed."

"We asked them would they be interested in a source of GM free beef products, and their answer is no."

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Bord Bía and Féile Bía should be re-named Failure Bía for their lack of backbone on GM issues.

GM-free Ireland invited Bord Bía CEO Aidan Cotter to explain his organisation's position on GM food at our Green Ireland conference on branding for food, farming and eco-tourism in June 2006. Following pressure from the Canadian Government agent Shane Morris, Bord Bía withdrew agreed sponsorship for the event but sent its Director of Marketing and Corporate Services, Muiris Kennedy, who failed to address the subject of GM food in his speech, and then reneged on his promise to help organise a high level follow-up discussion on Ireland's GM policy with food and farm industry stakeholders.

Bord Bía recently admitted that Ireland can't compete with low-quality beef imports and that the only way forward is to go for high quality, ecologically produced, grass-fed and organic production methods which the EU market demands (Irish Times, 17 October). Why then does this Government agency continue to abuse Irish tax-payer's money by disseminating disinformation on GM feed and food?

•

Quoted in the article aBové, Aidan Cotter fails to answer Euro-Toques's criticism of the "Quality Assurance" label which Bord Bía routinely awards to Irish beef, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients.

•

Cotter makes the outrageous claim that Irish beef production is "transparent" on GMOs, despite the giant EC loophole that fails to require a GM label for meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients.

•

Cotter says farmers "tend not to have a choice" to avoid GM feed. But EU law has required all animal feed containing GM ingredients to be labelled as such since 2004, and certified non-GMO animal feed is both available, affordable, and still used by leading farmers in Ireland and other parts of Europe.

•

Cotter's claim that farmers and consumers "have no choice" to avoid GM feed and food is pure biotech industry propaganda. This disinformation continues to be widely disseminated by the Irish Farmers Association, Teagasc (the Irish Government Agriculture and Food Authority), the Irish Grain and Feed Association, the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association, and Fine Gael Agriculture Spokesman Michael Creed. This suits the financial interests of R&H Hall, which imported and sold thousands of tonnes of American GM maize contaminated by the illegal Herculex variety to farmers in April. Instead of returning the illegal cargo to the sender in the USA, it foolishly kept it here in the hopes that the EU will retroactively legalises it. For details see www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac/.

•

Cotter states that "if there is a risk, that risk if shared by all meat producers throughout Europe". This is also untrue, because leading EU food producers are now using certified non-GMO maize and soya meal for their animal feed.

•

Cotter falsely says "we don't know" if EU consumers have a problem with GM fed meat and dairy produce, even though a million EU citizens have signed a petition demanding mandatory labelling for meat, poulty and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients, based on the consumer's right to know what we eat.

•

Finally, Cotter states that many of the 40 European retailers polled by Bord Bía are not interested in GM-free beef products. This is hard to believe, because most leading retailers in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Poland and Switzerland already have own-brand labels for meat and dairy products from livestock fed on certified non-GMO feed. And here in Ireland, our leading beef exporter, Kepak, offers farmers a premium for beef fed on certified non-GMO animal feed.

For more information on the GM animal feed controversy, see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed

Euro-Toques Ireland policy on GM food: "GMO - An Issue of Concern"

The introduction of genetically modified organisms into the food chain is the most significant development in the agri-food sector in recent times.

Whatever the scientific arguments for GM may be, this technology is very new and there is still significant doubt about its safety

The Irish government takes a pro-GM stance, but this issue has not been debated openly and the majority of consumers do not want it.

Euro-toques Ireland is opposed to the introduction of GM crops and the use of GM animal feeds in Ireland, as we believe they pose a serious threat to the traditional, artisan and local foods we are committed to. Apart from the health, environmental, economic and ethical concerns (of which there are many), this is primarily a question of consumer choice.

Why is Euro-toques opposed to the proliferation of genetically modified food, feed and crops?

•

The safety of GMOs has not been proven. Until such time a precautionary approach must be adopted

•

GM technology allows the patenting of seeds and other life forms. We believe the control of food supplies by corporations is a major risk to food security, diversity, and safety.

•

GM elements are currently included in most livestock feed, but the resulting meat and dairy products are not labeled to indicate this; we believe consumers have a right to know what they are eating and the right to choose GM-free food.

•

It is proven that cross-contamination occurs between GM crops and organic and conventional crops. Once this happens availability of GM-free food can no longer be guaranteed. Once GMOs are released into the environment, they cannot be recalled.

Proliferation of GM food and crops poses a very serious threat to Ireland's reputation as a clean, green island, putting our tourism, culinary, and food export industries at risk. We believe the future for Ireland lies in protecting our natural heritage, encouraging sustainable and environmentally sound agricultural practices, and marketing the country as natural and unspoilt.

•

Consumers throughout Europe have shown that they do not want GM food and there is no market in Europe for GM products.

Euro-toques chefs seek to use ingredients which are free of GM elements and support the campaign to KEEP IRELAND GM-FREE

For more information please go to www.gmfreeireland.org

If you also feel that this is something we should be concerned about, please sign the petition a http://www.gmfreeireland.org/action/index.php and consider contacting your local media, TDs and County Councillors.

Ireland: Our reliance on unsafe US products

Irish Farmers Journal, Letters to the Editor, 20 October (published 18 October) 2007.

Dear Sir,

In the Journal on 6 October, Mr O'Reilly makes the carefully worded statement that GM foods have not been scientifically proven to harm animals or humans. With the massive casualty lists associated with 'starlink corn' and L-Tryptophan food supplement, it appears that the standards Mr O'Reilly applies to scientifically prove guilt are infinitely more rigorous than those he regards as being sufficient to demonstrate safety.

Phill Angel, when he was Monsanto's Director of Corporate Communication (US) stated: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food, our interest is to sell as much as possible, assuring safety is the FDA's job" (New York Times, 25 October 1998).

However, the FDA employs the self fulfilling prophecy of regarding GMOs as being safe and, therefore, do not safety test.

Irish agriculture is becoming increasingly reliant on products from this dysfunctionally regulated US market. Who in this set-up is serious about defending the vital interests of Irish farmers and those of our customers on whom we rely to actively seek out Irish products on the market shelves and who are the ultimate drivers of the Irish agricultural economy?

Nick Cullen
Ballysax
The Curragh, Co Kildare.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

A few years ago, during a live radio debate between Monsanto Ireland CEO Patrick O'Reilly and GM-free Ireland co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan, the Monsanto man not only denied the existence of scientific evidence about the health and environmental risks of GM food and crops, but actually denied that GMO crops are modified by the introduction of DNA from foreign species including viruses, bacteria, plants and animals! Monsanto's concept of truth has no relation to reality.

Ireland: Limit of sciences & the science of limits

Irish Farmers Journal, Letters to the Editor, 20 October (published 18 October) 2007.

Dear Sir,

I read with interest Dr Carmondy's [the correct spellling is Carmody] comments about selective use of the terms 'scientific' and 'unscientific' by a number of agricultural leaders, both farmers and scientists.

I hope to clarify for your readers, what may appear on the face of it, a rather confusing stand off between different groups of scientists calling each other unscientific.

Getting straight to the nub of the issue, when someone says that X, Y, or Z practice is unscientific, most of the time the practice they are calling unscientific is, in fact, a moral or ethical position.

Now, there are very very few things that are not ameliorable to the scientific method and the main one is determining the correctness of a moral or ethical position. Science has enormous power to determine what the outcome of a particular moral position will be but the scientific method is completely powerless - it has absolutely no tools with which to even attempt to illustrate this with what is now an extreme, but only 200-year removed position. "It is unscientific not to use slave labour on farms, they increase output, profit and improve the quality of life of farm families". I trust that the absurdity of this statement makes the intellectual slight of hand that was used jump out.

However, if we were living 300 years ago at the height of the slave trade, were modern science around, it could be used to work out how to maximise the output of slaves, how to prevent them mutinying and what would happen if you stopped using slaves, but it could only be utterly silent on the issue of whether using slaves at all was the right or wrong thing to do.

Unfortunately, few scientists (and lay people) are educated in the philosophy of ethics or are even exposed to any such concepts during their training or work. The idea of using slaves on farms is considered morally repugnant by the vast majority in the developed world. When a society overwhelmingy adopts a unified moral position, it is described by philosophers as a norm, ie. what is considered normal.

When a norm has been in place for many decades, people stop seeing it as a moral decision, rather 'it's just how things are'; it's part of the wallpaper.

The idea that farms should maximise yield is a moral norm, one that has become 'just how things are' due to fifty years of the common agricultural policy stamping that 'fact' on every facet of farming life.

However, nowhere, in all of the scientific literature is a study 'proving' that yield maximisation is the correct thing to do, because it's impossible for science to do so.

The stand off between organic and non-organic, is at root a moral issue, with organic farming having an ethic of environmental sustainability and non-organic farming, one of profit and yield maximisation (I would contend that for many actual farmers have much wider ethics than this, if not they would be working in the finance sector, where profit maximisation is the only norm).

Science can therefore be used by organics to maximise environmental sustainability and by non-organic farming to maximise profit and yield just as science can be used to study and find out how to best use slaves. There is no real stand off, neither position is scientific and the other unscientific as science is forever mute as to which is correct.

I would recommend the book Impossibility: The limit of sciences and the science of limits by J. D. Barrow, to those wishing to learn more.

Dr Charles Merfield
University College Dublin
Belfield, Dubiin.

Ireland: GM decision continues to hurt

Irish Farmers Journal, 20 October (published 18 October) 2007.

As Ireland and the rest of the EU await the resolution of the political mess left by our politicians on the importation of GM containing feed-stuffs, the hypocrisy of their decision continues to reinforce itself.

The most recent example was seen when Turkey purchased roughly one million tonnes or 25% of potential EU purchases of the US GM corn by-products that would normally enter the EU (around four million tonnes).

This is almost as much as Ireland would normally purchase so this will no longer be available. And lamb produced in Turkey, possibly using this same feed, enjoys an import commitment into the EU while EU producers are forced to cope with higher feed prices. These US by-products are amongst the most competitive in the world and have readily been purchased by other countries while they remain locked out of EU markets.

These US products are now no longer available to us and Ireland's continued abstention in the EU debate is part of the problem.

Patents Could Play Major Role in Global Biofuels Market
Next Generation Biofuels Likely to be Dominated By Globalized Patent Portfolios

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy press release, 18 October 2007

Minneapolis - As the fast-growing biofuel market goes global, national and international rules governing patents will play an increasingly important role in how the industry develops and who benefits, finds a new paper by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

The paper, "Patents: Taken for Granted in Plans for Global Biofuels Markets" by IATP Senior Policy Analyst Steve Suppan, examines how patents covering biofuel feedstocks and processing are being used by large agribusiness, biotech, financial and energy companies. Read the full report at: www.iatp.org.

"Patent law didn't start the biofuel gold rush, but it will influence its future," said Suppan. "Understanding patent policy is crucial for strategizing how biofuel technologies might aid or hinder sustainable development."

Billions of dollars are going into the development of new biofuel feedstocks and processing to find the next generation of cellulosic biofuels. Global corporations are taking advantage of low patent standards in the U.S. and at the global level to patent new genetically engineered crops for biofuel, as well as enzymes to be used in processing facilities to produce the biofuel, the paper found.

Biofuels have been touted as an effective development strategy in developing countries in South America, Africa and Asia. But many biofuel investment plans risk damaging the environment in those countries, as investors deforest land for biofuel plantations in ecologically-fragile areas around the world.

"Promoters of a globalized biofuel market promise public benefits for rural development and the environment," said Suppan. "But the patent system excludes the public interest, even when publicly funded research leads to the development of patented products. Biofuel development receives many forms of public financial support, and the patent system needs reform to protect such investment."

Though patents are granted by national governments, free trade agreements (such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement) and World Trade Organization agreements contain patent rules.

The paper calls for patent reform that asserts the primacy of public domain, protects traditional knowledge (for example, in plants used in biofuels) and fits within a human rights framework. Such an approach could support rigorous environmental and social performance requirements and oversight for future biofuels' development.

You can read the full report at: http://www.iatp.org.

Contact:

Ben Lilliston, 612-870-3416, ben@iatp.org

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works globally to promote resilient family farms, healthy communities and ecosystems through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy. http://www.iatp.org

17 October 2007

USA: Syns of Omission: Civil Society Organizations Respond to Report on Synthetic Biology Governance from the J. Craig Venter Institute and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

ETC Group News Release, 17 Oct 2007

A report released today on policy options for governance of synthetic biology is a disappointing effort that fails to address wider societal concerns about the rapid deployment of a powerful and controversial new technology. Synthetic biology aims to commercialize new biological parts, devices and living organisms that are constructed from synthetic DNA - including dangerous pathogens. Synthetic biologists are attempting to harness cells as tiny factories for industrial production of chemicals, including pharmaceuticals and fuels. ETC Group describes the synthetic biology approach as "extreme genetic engineering."

The report, authored by scientists and employees from the J. Craig Venter Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Center for Strategic & International Studies (Washington, D.C.) was funded by a half-million dollar grant from the U.S.-based Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and billed as a "project to examine the societal implications of synthetic genomics."1 The study was more than two years in the making, but the report makes no policy recommendations and failed to properly consult civil society. While the authors do acknowledge possible bio-error (i.e., synbio accidents that cause unintended harm to human health and the environment), the emphasis is on how to impede bioterrorists "in a post-September 11 world."

"This report is a partial consideration of governance by a partisan group of authors," explains Jim Thomas of ETC Group. "Its authors are 'Synthusiasts' - or, unabashed synthetic biology boosters - who are primarily concerned about holding down costs and regulatory burdens that could allegedly stymie the rapid development of the new industry. By focusing narrowly on safety and security in a U.S.-centric context, the report conveniently overlooks important questions related to power, control and the economic impacts of synthetic biology. The authors have ignored the first and most basic questions: Is synthetic biology socially acceptable or desirable? Who should decide? Who will control the technology, and what are its potential impacts?"

The report's authors include representatives from institutions with a vested interest in commercialization of synthetic biology. According to the J. Craig Venter Institute, one of the three institutions that led the study, scientists are just weeks or months away from announcing the creation of the world's first-ever living bacterium with entirely synthetic DNA and a novel genome. Scientists from the Venter Institute have already applied for patents on the artificial microbe, dubbed "Synthia,"and Craig Venter predicts that it could be the first billion or trillion dollar organism. The report fails to address issues of ownership, monopoly practices or intellectual property claims arising from synthetic biology.

"The sixty-page report has oodles of input from a small circle of scientists and policy 'experts,' but the 20-month long study fails to incorporate views of civil society and social movements," points out Hope Shand, ETC Group's Research Director. "An insular process like the one that produced the Sloan report instills little confidence in the results."

The economic and technical barriers to synthetic genomics are collapsing. Using a laptop computer, published gene sequence information and mail-order synthetic DNA, it is becoming routine to construct genes or entire genomes from scratch - including those of lethal pathogens. The tools for DNA synthesis technologies are advancing at break-neck pace - they're becoming cheaper, faster and widely accessible. The authors acknowledge this reality, and evaluate several options for addressing it.

One proposal aimed at "legitimate users" of the technology - those working in industry labs, for example - is to broaden the responsibilities of Institutional Biosafety Committees, which were established (in the US) to assess the biosafety and environmental risks of proposed recombinant DNA experiments.

Edward Hammond, Director of the Sunshine Project, a biotech and bioweapons watchdog, argues, "Institutional Biosafety Committees are a documented disaster. IBCs aren't up to their existing task of overseeing genetic engineering research, much less ready to absorb new synthetic biology and security mandates. The authors of this report are aware of the abject failure of voluntary compliance by IBCs, including by the Venter Institute's own IBC. So it is very difficult to interpret their suggestion that IBCs oversee synthetic biology as anything but a cynical attempt to avoid effective governance."

Options for governing synthetic biology must not be set by the synthetic biologists themselves - broad societal debate on synbio's wider implications must come first. Synthetic microbes should be treated as dangerous until proven harmless and strong democratic oversight should be mandatory - not optional. Earlier this year the ETC Group recommended a ban on environmental release of de novo synthetic organisms until wide societal debate and strong governance are in place.

ETC and other civil society organizations have called repeatedly for an inclusive, wide ranging public dialogue process on societal implications and oversight options for Synthetic Biology.

The full text of "Synthetic Genomics: Options for Governance" is available here: http://www.jcvi.org/

ETC Group's January 2007 report on synthetic biology, Extreme Genetic Engineering, is available here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=602

Backgrounder:

Open Letter on Synthetic Biology from Civil Society, May 2006: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=11

For further information:

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

ETC Group (Carrboro, NC, USA) Hope Shand Kathy Jo Wetter hope@etcgroup.org kjo@etcgroup.org Tel: +1 919 960-5223

ETC Group (Ottawa, Canada) Pat Mooney etc@etcgroup.org Tel: +1 613 2412267

Sunshine Project (Austin, TX, USA) Edward Hammond hammond@sunshine-project.org Tel: +1 512-494-0545

Note:

1 See, for example, MIT news release, June 28, 2005, "Study to explore risks, benefits of synthetic genomics," available on the Internet: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/syntheticbio.html.

IMCOPA - Sustainable, Non-GMO, hard-IP soy products

FoodNavigator.com, 17 October 2007. Sponsored message.

IMCOPA

IMCOPA is the largest Brazilian crusher dedicated to Sustainable, Non-GMO, hard-IP soy products (< 0.1% with fully documented traceability).

IMCOPA is introducing and expanding its brand name IMCOSOYÆ for soy products like:

•

Soy Lecithin http://sf1.novisgroup.com/l.php?l=1&m=0IMPO17&c=brdkonqzzcrrnua

•

Soy Meal & Concentrates

•

Soy Oil (crude & refined)

IMCOPA Food Ingredients office in Europe

In course of 2006, IMCOPA opened its own offices in Europe http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=77408-imcopa-soy-lecithin-non-gm.

After serving the market for several years through a selection of large distribution clients, the company decided to market its products under IMCOPA's brand name IMCOSOYÆ for various reasons, namely:

•

Enhanced contact between South American Suppliers and European and Asian industrial buyers

•

Continued resistance against material containing GMOs

•

Expected overall growth of the soy market

Its European presence enables IMCOPA to provide the following benefits to its clients:

•

More cost-efficient logistics

•

Efficient lead times for deliveries in Europe from dedicated Non-GMO storage & packaging facilities in Rotterdam

•

Locally available support for sales, QA and logistics

•

Direct access to the source of sustainable Non-GMO Soy products

IMCOPA is a company dedicated to build and maintain long-term relations with its clientele worldwide where it already delivers and serves many of the A-rated customers.

In the recent past, IMCOPA has attained approximately 38% market share in the European Non-GMO, hard-IP lecithin market.

Advantages from IMCOPA's product certification

For the benefit of those IMCOPA customers that are looking to improve the public perception of their performance in the area of Corporate Social Responsibility, here are short descriptions of the two relevant types of certification IMCOPA can offer with its products:

•

ProTerra

This certification standard was created by Cert ID in 2006.

It is based on the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production. ProTerra enables responsible corporations to assure their buyers, and ultimately consumers, that their products have been produced sustainable. Globally active major NGOs have declared their support of the ProTerra Standard.

•

Non-GMO, IP

In 1999 IMCOPA became the first soy crusher and processor in Brazil to demonstrate by way of independent certification that its entire product range has less than 0.1% GMO content and comes with fully documented traceability all the way back to the agricultural producer. These criteria not only meet the demands of major European retailers and food manufacturers but also those of NGOs and consumers.

Meet us at Fi Europe stand number H217; South Hall For more information about IMCOPA contact us at + 31 73 640 8690 Or via lecithin@imcopa.com

http://sf1.novisgroup.com/l.php?l=2&m=0IMPO17&c=brdkonqzzcrrnua

UK: Smell a rat? Results from animal feeding trials give us reasons to be fearful

Soil Association news release, 17 October 2007. By Gundula Azeez

A few years ago the debate on the safety of GM was high profile but there was little evidence on either side. We were sure that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) were a health risk but the GM companies argued we were being irrational. The Government said decisions should be made on "sound science". Years later, we now have a body of science. But this indicates that GMOs really are unsafe.

Animal feeding trials

Industries use animal feeding trials to test whether their products are safe for humans. In the 1990s, the biotechnology company Calgene found that mice fed on its new product, Flavr Savr tomatoes, the first GM food, developed lesions in their gut wall, while seven out of 40 rats fed the GM tomatoes died within two weeks. In defiance of its own scientific advisors, the US Government decided to abandon animal trials to test GM safety and instead adopted an alternative approach from the industry, 'substantial equivalence'.

The same thing happened in the UK. The first GM animal feeding trial, conducted by Dr Arpad Pusztai for the UK Government in 1998, found rats fed GM potatoes developed lesions in their gut wall. Pusztai was suspended, gagged and eventually dismissed. The Lancet recommended that Pusztai's study be repeated; this has not happened.

Instead the UK and the rest of Europe abandoned the use of animal feeding trials and followed the US policy of 'substantial equivalence'. In this process, just a small number of chemicals, such as key nutrients and known toxins, are compared to the non-GM plant. If the levels are considered similar, the whole plant is deemed to be 'substantially equivalent' to its non-GM counterpart. Few further tests are carried out, and the GM plants are presumed to be safe.

According to the Food Standards Agency (FSA), it "is satisfied that these safety assessment procedures, using the framework of substantial equivalence, are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that approved GM foods are as safe to eat as their non-GM counterparts."

However this process leaves thousands of plant chemicals potentially altered and untested. Since then, further studies have shown how irresponsible the Government is for ignoring evidence from animal feeding trials.

In 2005, Russian scientist Dr Irina Ermakova fed a group of female rats Roundup-Ready (RR) soya before they mated, during pregnancy and lactation. High mortality rates occurred: 56% of the rat pups died within three weeks of birth, compared with only 9% in the control rats. Stunted growth was also observed in the surviving GM-fed pups.

The FSA said that Dr Ermakova's study had insufficient nutritional detail and was inconsistent with another RR soya feeding trial, and so could be dismissed. However, that study had even less nutritional detail.

In June 2005, after Greenpeace took Monsanto to court, the biotech company was forced to reveal its safety data for a GM maize. GM maize is widely used in animal feed, along with soya. The maize, Mon 863, had been genetically modified to produce a Bt-toxin, which kills maize pests. Monsanto's own studies showed that Mon 863 had statistically significant effects on rats that, according to a French scientist, indicated a toxic reaction. However the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) accepted MonsantoÇs arguments for why the findings should be ignored, and approved the GM maize.

The story of another approval shows how GM regulators can turn a blind eye to worrying evidence. After a trial of the GM oilseed rape, GT73, caused significant decreases in rats' weights, Monsanto said there were technical problems and repeated the study. The second study found that the GM-fed rats had larger liver weights. Monsanto said this trial should also be ignored as it was "inconsistent" with the first trial. When a third study found no problems, GT73 was approved by the EFSA.

Another recent study raised a new concern. Australian scientists inserted a gene from a kidney bean into peas to make them resistant to a weevil. They then fed the GM peas to mice for four weeks. Results published in 2005 showed this triggered allergic reactions and the miceÇs lung tissue became inflamed. The mice also became sensitive to other substances, such as egg white, whereas those fed non-GM peas did not.

The scientific community was surprised because the gene, when it was in the kidney bean, had been known to be safe. However, further tests revealed that when the gene was introduced into the pea, the pea had attached different chemicals to the protein produced by the gene, changing its safety. The scientists were forced to conclude that a gene that is safe in its native plant may become unsafe when inserted into a GM plant - contrary to what had been assumed by the GM regulators.

There has been only one published test of humans fed on GM, and that also showed disturbing results. Following one meal of GM-soya milkshake and GM soyaburger, Newcastle University found that portions of DNA from GM soya had transfered into the gut bacteria of some of the volunteers. Could GM food affect the health of our gut bacteria? Irresponsibly, the FSA omitted to mention this key finding when presenting the results of this study in 2002.

GM animal feed

Currently most of the approved GMOs are being used as animal feed. A forthcoming Soil Association report shows that nearly all the meat and dairy food sold in UK supermarkets is being produced using GM animal feed.

The question is, can GM material from GM-fed animals end up in our food? Four scientific studies now suggest it can. Two studies detected GM DNA from GM maize and oilseed rape in blood, liver, kidneys and other organs in pigs. In addition, two studies have found GM soya and maize DNA in cowÇs milk.

Further research is clearly needed but it now seems the public is unknowingly consuming GM material, albeit in small quantities, in food from GM-fed animals.

Avoiding GM

How can you avoid eating food that might have come from GM-fed animals?

Meat, dairy and eggs from animals fed on GM products are not labelled as such.

The only supermarket to produce all its non-organic milk, eggs and fresh meat without GM feed is Marks & Spencers.

Otherwise the only way to be sure is to go organic, because organic standards prohibit the use of all GMOs including GM animal feed.

There is now enough evidence to be seriously concerned about the health effects of eating GM. We should now also be concerned about the effects on farm animals. You have the right to avoid eating GM; do exercise it.

Action

Send this article to the Food Standards Agency's Board (Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH) expressing your concern that scientific evidence is being ignored.

Further reading

Jeffrey M. Smith's new book, Genetic Roulette, lays out the health risks of GM foods and the flaws in the system designed to assess them.

Ireland's beef market

The Irish Times, Op-Ed page, 17 October 2007.

New strategies will be required if Ireland is to compete successfully on the European beef market. Providing a premium quality product, with the emphasis on eco-friendly farming, could result in a 10 per cent increase in value for the same volume of exports, according to Bord Bia chief executive Aidan Cotter.

It will take imagination, commitment, investment and intensive marketing to increase the level of sales within the European premium beef sector. But Ireland has a built-in advantage because of our mild climate, green image and grass-fed system.

We are simply unable to compete price-wise with imported beef from Latin America. And while pressure on the EU Commission to impose stricter quality controls on imports, or to ban them completely, may provide our farmers with a breathing space, the long-term outlook is not encouraging. That is why Irish producers, processors and marketing people must now co-operate and concentrate on penetrating the European premium market with high-value products.

Research has already been carried out by Bord Bia on how this might be achieved. Investment at all levels of the processing sector will be required, according to Mr Cotter. And the establishment of central packaging facilities in EU countries would allow for the supply of a greater number of supermarket chains. But the key ingredient will be the production of prime quality beef on a largely grass-fed or organic basis.

In the past, policies designed to maximise agricultural output under CAP support systems did little for the quality of Irish beef. But, in recent years, that has changed with the introduction of new beef breeds and bloodlines. Now we produce some of the finest meat in Europe. And, with growing competition from Latin America, the focus must remain on quality, not quantity.

There has been on-going antagonism between producers and processors because of the disparity between prices paid at the factory gate and those paid in supermarkets by consumers. Such issues are unlikely to be resolved in the short term. But, in targeting specific premium beef markets in Europe, a greater level of co-operation, advance planning and information-flow between producers and processors would be of considerable benefit in ensuring a successful outcome. The Irish beef industry is worth about €1.5 billion. Mr Cotter estimates its value could be raised by as much as €170m, allowing for some increase in grain prices, through more intensive marketing, up-dated processing and quality production. That would be a considerable achievement. And it should be a win-win situation for all concerned.

USA: Extracts from Ignacio Chapela's speech on the BP-Berkeley deal

GM Watch, 17 October 2007.

What would certainly come out of the BP-Berkeley facilities would be a large number of genetically altered, reproducing, LIVING organisms to be released in the public environment.

These organisms do not represent Science. If anything, they may represent our failure as scientists to assume the deep inadequacies of our understanding about living organisms and the ecology of our planet.

Despite a third of a Century and more than $350 billion dollars invested in the trinket, a hurricane remains more predictable, and a wildfire remains more controllable than GMO organisms. Meanwhile, they have proven to be a disastrous economic proposition, not to speak of their environmental and social consequences.

Cognizant of this reality, BP-Berkeley proponents would wish to rename everything in their trade to give it a fresh face of novelty...

Full speech:

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7617

UK: BP Executive pied as Europe's largest BioFuels Event disrupted

Indymedia UK, 17 October 2007.

This morning a group of 15 climate change activists from protest group Food Not Fuel entered the BioFuel Expo & Conference taking place at the Newark Showground and took over the keynote speech. Oliver Mace, CEO of BP Fuels, the lead sponsors of the event recieved a cream pie in the face. Another campaigner was D-locked to the podium and various alarms were placed around the place. The hall was emptied and talks were canceled. There were no arrests.

They were protesting against planned expansion of biofuels citing its contribution to deforestation and the fact that it will continue to contribute to climate change. The activists complained that biofuels on a large scale is greenwash and companies such as BP are ignoring its negative impacts on the environment.

Protester Michelle Lynch said, "What they are promoting is a replacement to fossil fuels, but the reality is that they are little better. Large scale plantations are not the solution; reducing our consumption is the only realistic way forward."

Another protester, Thomas Bradshaw pointed out, "Biofuels will be taking food from the mouths of the hungry when there are already 800 million people suffering from malnutrition. These corporations are effectively encouraging the erosion of valuable ariable farmland and rainforests vital for combating climate change."

Notes for editors:

1. The protestors can be contacted at 07880 937 511. Their critique argues that radical social change is needed to deal with the impact of peak oil and climate change, and that seeking solutions such as carbon trading and biofuels are not the answer, as the real problem is unsustainable economic growth.

2. The BioFuels Expo & Conference (www.biodiesel-expo.co.uk) is the largest of its kind in Europe, and brings together big industry players such as BP Fuels, Deloitte & Touche and many chemcial, agricultural and manufacturing companies.

3. A comprehensive critique of biofuels can be found at BioFuels Watch (www.biofuelwatch.org.uk) who are a distinct group from Food Not Fuels, but are hosting their own demonstration against the Conference.

4. Text of leaflet distribute to attendees.

Biofuels & Fossil Fuels: Biofuels that are not produced by recycling waste oil are the direct product of large scale monoculture. Currently the amount of fossil fuels required to produce biofuels is greater than the amount of fuel you get out: you have to make the fertilizer, run the agricultural machinery, transport the feedstocks and fuels, and refine the plant matter into fuel.

Biofuels & Food: The land that is used to farm biofuels has to come from somewhere. If it is agricultural land used for food then there will be less food. Maize, Mexico's staple crop, have increased massively due to American demand for bioethano. Adding to the number of people living below the poverty line.

Biofuels & Land use: If not agricultural land, then biofuels will be grown on virgin rainforest or wetland. 1/3 of all greenhouse gas emissions come from the destruction of living carbon sinks. The Amazon rainforest is the largest driver of the climate on the planet and expanding bioethanol plantations will push it to extinction. Wetlands, eg peat, contain more carbon that the whole atmosphere and cover just 1% of the worlds surface. The largest peat bogs in the world, in Indonesia, are currently being drained for palm oil plantations. If greenhouse gas emissions continue as they currently are we will go beyond the climate tipping point causing mass extinction of life on earth.

Biofuels & Local Control: The driving force behind the expansion in biofuels are big corporations such as BP & Monsanto, and government - the very people who have got us into this mess. They are using biofuels as a way to continue their position of power into the post peak oil world. To stand a chance of survival the control of land must be by local people for local people.

The Solution: We will need to reduce our consumption to levels that we can meet ourselves. This WILL mean a reduction in luxuries, like the luxury to travel. Some biofuels will be used, but at a fraction of our current oil use. We need to end the search for technological solutions to economic problems. We need to localise our economy, produce our own food, make our own tools and use less.

We need an end to economic growth.

Contact

Food Not Fuels
tel + 44 (0)7880 937 511
e-mail: foodnotfuel1@yahoo.co.uk
Newark Showground
Newark, Nottinghamshire UK

'Black people are less intelligent than whites', claims DNA pioneer

Daily Mail, 17 October 2007.

One of the world's most eminent scientists is at the centre of a row after claiming black people are less intelligent than whites.

James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has drawn condemnation for comments made ahead of his arrival in Britain tomorrow for a speaking tour.

Dr Watson, who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, made the controversial remarks in an interview in The Sunday Times.

The 79-year-old geneticist said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

He includes his views in a new book, published this week, in which he writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically".

"Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so," he says.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is now studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain to promote his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, told the Independent: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments.

"I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices. These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exist at the highest professional levels."

Dr Watson was hailed as achieving one of the greatest single scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s, forming part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA.

He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

He has served for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics.

He has courted controversy in the past, reportedly saying that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.

He has suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, proposing a theory that black people have higher libidos.

He also claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University, told the Independent: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain.

"If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

16 October 2007

European Union blocks GMO potatoes, corn

Budapest Business Journal, October 16 2007

(New World Publishing via COMTEX) -- European Union governments blocked approval of a genetically modified potato made by BASF AG and three corn varieties developed by Monsanto Co. , hampering EU efforts to expand the biotech-crop market. The opposition by health regulators from countries including Italy, Poland and Hungary prevents fast-track approval of the Amflora potato for animal feed and the corn types for feed and food. The European Commission, 27-nation EU's executive, must now ask government ministers to give their verdict in a step that will add months to a process the US says is too slow. The potato and corn varieties pose "no risk to human or animal health or to the environment," the commission said in a statement today in Brussels. A split among ministers, who have about three months to decide, would give the commission the power on its own to approve the BASF and Monsanto applications. The commission is seeking to push through approvals of products in the $6 billion global biotech crop market over the resistance of a group of countries that also include Austria, Greece, Cyprus and Luxembourg. Surveys show opposition to such foods by more than half of European consumers, who worry about risks such as human resistance to antibiotics and the development of "superweeds" impervious to herbicides.

Moratorium

Biotech foods range from corn to soybeans whose genetic material has been altered to add beneficial traits such as resistance to weed-killing chemicals. National authorities throughout the EU have a say over approvals because the bloc's single-market rules require that a product sold in one member state be allowed for sale in the others. The EU ended a six-year moratorium on new gene-altered products in 2004 after tightening labeling rules and creating a food agency to screen applications by companies including Monsanto and Syngenta AG. Since then, the EU has approved the import of some gene-modified products for food and feed use via a slow-track procedure and has yet to endorse any requests for cultivation. Germany's BASF is awaiting EU approval of a separate application to plant the Amflora potato for use as industrial starch. EU governments have failed over the past 10 months to muster a sufficient majority for or against this cultivation request at regulatory and ministerial levels, giving the commission the power to decide in the coming weeks.

Monsanto Corn

BASF genetically altered the potato to enhance its starch content for industries including textiles, packaging and adhesives. By-products from the starch-extraction process would be used for animal feed. The three Monsanto corn varieties are hybrid versions of products that have won EU approval for feed and food use. The three products are called MON863 X NK603, MON863 X MON810 and MON863 X MON810 X NK603. The commission's push to allow cultivation of the BASF potato and its use in feed as well as to permit the feed and food use of the Monsanto hybrid corn varieties follows endorsements by the European Food Safety Authority, a scientific organization responsible for advising on biotech-food applications. In June, European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said any EU delay over the approval of biotech crops declared safe by scientists risks prompting legal challenges from farm exporters such as the US, Canada and Argentina. In a case brought by these three countries, the World Trade Organization ruled last year that the 1998-2004 EU ban was illegal.

American expert thanks Poland for keeping GMO-free

Polish Radio, 16 October 2007

Jeffrey Smith, an American expert on genetically modified food has thanked the Polish government for its efforts to keep Poland a GM foods - free country.

Genetically modified food is not natural and not safe for your health, Smith told a press conference at the Polish environment ministry. It may do more harm than global warming, he added. Genetically modified organisms, when spreading in the environment, may adversely affect other organisms, Smith pointed out.

Polish environment minister Jan Szyszko stressed that Poland wants to keep its GMO free status because of which our food products are especially valued on the European market.

Genetically modified food supporters claim it may solve the problem of hunger in the world. Opponents warn, that there is no guarantee that GM foods are safe for people.

Columbans warn pro-GM food lobby has eyes on Australia

Columban Centre for Peace, Ecology and Justice media release, October 16th 2007, World Food Day

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation says that 854 million people do not have sufficient food for an active and healthy life. This year's theme for the UN "World Food Day" is The Right to Food.

The right to food is the inherent human right of every woman, man, girl and boy, wherever they live on this planet. The theme demonstrates increasing recognition by the international community of the important role of human rights in eradicating hunger and poverty, and hastening and deepening the sustainable development process. http://www.fao.org/wfd2007

The Columban Centre for Peace, Ecology and Justice (PEJ) supports the UN focus on the right to food, not just the right to food sufficiency, but the right to food sovereignty.

We believe that Genetically Modified food is a threat to food sovereignty.

The biotech industry which promotes GM food as a solution to global hunger is trying to get GM food crops into Australia. States are currently reviewing the moratoria which were placed in 2003/04 on the growing of GM crops. There is strong pressure on State Governments to lift the moratoria.

The Columban Centre for Peace, Ecology and Justice's (PEJ's) primary concern is that the sheer strength of the pro-GM crop lobby in Australia will eventuate in States lifting their moratoria, giving the green light for GM food production which, once implemented, is irreversible. Where is the respect for life and God's creation when the simple human right to decide on what you consume can be imposed unawares?

These are some of the problems as seen by PEJ:

•

The reasons for the moratoria have not changed since 2003, in fact evidence from overseas and events in Australia have highlighted the importance for continuing the prohibitions.

•

Adequate independent testing has not occurred. Instead there has been a big PR campaign to convince some farmers that their income will improve by using GM crops (i.e. Canola).

•

GM food crops affect biodiversity and alter the food chain.

•

GM crops contaminate non-GM crops which is unfair to farmers, denying them choice and affecting their markets.

•

The use of processes in producing a GM product involves viruses, antibiotics and nuclear transfer. It is possible that these will break down natural barriers and facilitate virus infections. Some scientists have called these biological time bombs.

•

The long term health risks are untested and the fact that research bodies such as the CSIRO have to use private funding further compromises independent testing.

•

Current patenting laws mean the GM seeds would be the property of the biotech conglomerates. Farmers are denied the saving of seeds, overall costs increase. Markets are lost.

•

Objective information about GM food technology is not being disseminated to the general public. People have the right to know about something so important.

•

Inadequate labelling laws already disguise the use of GM ingredients in Australian foods imported from overseas e.g. canola oil and soy.

•

The benefits promoted to farmers by GM companies' spin experts are inaccurate. Conventional breeding of new varieties to deal with the old problems of drought, weeds, and pests is sustainable and more effective.

•

The interests of a few with much power who are seeking greater profits are being put ahead of the common good of all Australians and our environment.

The Columban Centre for Peace Ecology and Justice therefore on World Food Day 2007 calls on the Australian State Governments to continue the GM Food Moratoria till 2015.

Contact:

For further inquiries please call:

Fr Charles Rue 0408 279 871
Anne Lanyon 02 9352 8021

Comment by GM Watch:

The Columbans are a missionary society (not a religious order) of priests who work in cooperation with Columban Sisters, associate priests and lay people in many countries. The Columbans specifically approach their work from a standpoint of solidarity with the poor and the integrity of creation. http://www.columban.org.au/about-us/who-are-the-columbans.html

Kenya: Protests over Biosafety Bill

Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, 16 October 2007. By Rosalia Amungo.

The battle against the Biosafety Bill went a notch higher on Tuesday when civil society groups took to the streets to urge President Kibaki not to assent to the Bill.

The groups claims the Bill seeks to introduce Genetically Modified Food products through the back door.

The Anti GMO groups who included farmers demonstrated through various Nairobi streets to oppose the Biosafety bill 2007 which they claim will introduce genetically modified crops.

The protestors want the bill to be shelved until after the general elections scheduled for December.

They claim the introduction of GM crops, will impact negatively on trade and agriculture and also encourage dumping of genetically modified food that has been rejected in other countries into Kenya.

The group also took its grievances to the Head of Civil Service Ambassador Francis Muthaura.

Proponents of the Bill claim it provides a legal framework to a wide range of research and study on biotechnology, which can enhance food production.

With only a few days before Parliament is prorogued it is uncertain whether Mps will be able to finalize debate on the Biosafety Bill or it may just have to wait until the tenth Parliament.

India: 'Holy' seeds threaten to halt biotech project

IANS, October 16 2007

Bangalore, Oct 16 (IANS) Heritage and the humble brinjal [aubergine] have come in conflict in India's southern Karnataka state, with the controversy even threatening to halt a US funded biotechnology project.

Under this project, researchers at the University of Agricultural Sciences in Dharwad will be conducting field trials with brinjal varieties carrying the Bacillus thuriengiensis (Bt) gene. The Bt-brinjal will resist insect attack and so help farmers save on pesticides.

But Ramesh Bhat, one of India's leading biologists and former deputy director of the National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad, has sounded a warning.

He says field trials of Bt-brinjal carry the danger of the Bt gene contaminating the native variety of brinjal called Mattu gulla which people consider 'sacred' because its seeds were reportedly given to the people of Mattu village by the 15th century Hindu saint Vadiraja.

In a recent report in the journal Current Science, Bhat says that Mattu gulla dishes are invariably used for a festival held every alternate year in the Udupi Sri Krishna temple since the 15th century and feature in traditional meals.

Grown in Mattu village of Udupi district, Mattu gulla is a unique variety of brinjal with small spines on the stalk. It has a special flavour and is round and green in colour unlike the elongated and pink or white varieties common elsewhere. The skin of the Mattu gulla is thin, and virtually gets dissolved on boiling.

'Preserve the heritage of sacred Mattu gulla' is a new slogan that is threatening to derail the biotechnology project in Karnataka.

According to Bhat, brinjal (Solanum melongina) originated in India and has been used as a vegetable in the country since time immemorial. 'The classic Ramayana contains reference to the brinjal,' he said.

Public participation in Ireland's policy on GMOs

Letter to the editor of the Irish Examiner, 16 October 2007.

Dear sir,

Shane Morris (letter of 15 October "GMO guidelines already exist") [see below] hopes to prevent a democratic discussion on GM food and farming policy, by claiming this already took place in 1997 and 1999. He also suggests such a process would be a waste of time because EC law prohibits blanket bans on GMOs. He denies the scientific evidence that GM food and farming create unacceptable health, environmental, agronomic, economic and legal problems. He calls for the Government to re-examine the recommendations of its working group on modern biotechnology, but fails to mention that the Government never implemented the latter's recommendation to investigate the health risks of GM animal feed and food and the effects of GMOs on farmers and the environment.

This is not surprising, since Morris is employed by the Canadian Government to sabotage Ireland's policy making process on GM food and farming, as part of their strategy to force EU consumers to accept more Canadian GM feed and food imports. But Morris is wrong on all points.

First off, there has been no democratic process for stakeholder input on GM food and farming policy, as required by the Aarhus Convention on public participation in environmental decision-making, to which both Ireland and the EU are signatories. The "public debate" in 1997 was a small meeting at the University of Limerick stacked with Monsanto employees. Noel Dempsey's Department of the Environment held a two-day "debate" in 1999, but the process was so disorganised and undemocratic that all of the participating NGOs walked out after the first day, after issuing a press release describing the debate as a shambles.

In 2004, an Inter-agency Working Group chaired by the Department of Agriculture invited public submissions for a National Strategy to legalise the so-called "co-existence" of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. The legally flawed terms of reference relied on two scientifically false assumptions. The first of these was that the cultivation of GM seeds and crops can be segregated from conventional varieties and related species (despite GMO contamination incidents from 40 countries proving the opposite). The second was that GM crops are "substantially equivalent" to their conventional counterparts, despite the fact that GM crops contain novel proteins and enzymes which have never existed before in the evolution of life on Earth (as a result of the presence in them of transgenic DNA from viruses, bacteria and other plant or animal species). The terms of reference also excluded any discussion of their health and environmental risks.

This so-called public consultation on "co-existence" excluded 83% of the stakeholder groups who would be legally and economically affected by GM crops and GM superweeds, including food exporters, local authorities, and the National Parks Service. The working group falsely claimed it was under a legal obligation to complete the strategy in July 2005, shortened the deadline for submissions from a year to 4 months, ignored the views of those who did participate, and then waited for an entire year before publishing a draft version of the strategy. The as-yet unpublished final version is therefore in breach of the Aarhus Convention, and is legally null and void. So much for "public consultation".

The letter from Morris also repeats the WTO and European Commission's mantra that sovereign governments can not ban GM crops or GM imports. In reality, 9 EU member states and 236 Regional Governments + Switzerland have already done so. See map at www.gmfreeireland.org/map.

Third, Morris implies that Ireland has carried out scientific assessments of the health risks of GMOs. The reality is that no proper long-term studies on the health risks of GM food or feed have been done anywhere, because Monsanto et al refuse to make the necessary sample material available to researchers. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, whose CEO John O'Brien is a former boardmember of a lobby group funded by the agri-biotech industry, keeps claiming that GM animal feed and food are safe, based only on claims provided to the European Food Safety Authority by Monsanto and the other corporations who own the patents on GM seeds and crops.

Finally, Morris calls for the Government to re-examine the recommendations of a report from the Interdepartmental Group on Modern Biotechnology, published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in 2000. But his letter does not mention the Government's complete failure to implement the report's conclusion: "We recommend that independent generic research (not limited to any particular product) be conducted in this country into all aspects of GMOs including human health and safety, animal feed and live crops, and the effects of GMOs on the environment, including wildlife and biodiversity, having regard to our distinctive climate and geological conditions." The new government should implement a moratorium on all GM crops until this research has been completed.

It is quite extraordinary that Irish newspapers continue to publish letters from a foreign government agent such as Shane Morris, whose attempts to stifle democratic participation in GM policy making have been described by New Scientist magazine, Private Eye, the Soil Association, GM Watch, the Independent Science Panel and other scientists as involving "personal abuse", "intimidation", "defamation", "misleading" scientific papers, "untrue statements", and "flagrant fraud".

For details, see www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/.

Yours etc

Michael O'Callaghan
Co-ordinator
GM-free Ireland Network

15 October 2007

Ireland: GMO guidelines already exist

Irish Examiner, Letters to the Editor, 15 October 2007.

AS someone who helped organise the first public debate in Ireland on GM food/crops in 1997, I find it fascinating that 10 years on we're still going in circles. GM Free Ireland suggests we "need a national conversation between all stakeholders on the issue of GMOs" (October 5).

However, this occurred in 1999, when Noel Dempsey held public consultations on GMOs. The result was Mr Dempsey accepting that "it is not open to an individual EU member state to ban either field trials or the importation of genetically modified products approved at EU level" and "if Ireland operates a policy of transparency and scientific assessment with regard to genetically modified organisms, there should be no risk to health or the environment". Mr Dempsey ignored this when he agreed a programme for Government with the Greens that would "seek to negotiate the establishment of an all-Ireland GM-free zone".

The Government should re-examine the recommendations of its working group on modern biotechnology (2000), including that "new ways of informing the public about biotechnology, its existing and potential benefits, and the possible risks to health and the environment should be devised and deployed".

Shane Morris
6 Coolkill
Sandyford
Dublin 18

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

See letter to the editor of the Irish Examiner from Michael O'Callaghan, under 16 October aBové.

Ireland: Evidence should be scrutinised over the safety of genetically modified food

Irish Medical News, Letters to the Editor, 15 October 2007.

I welcome the letter from Prof Moses (IMN, 27/8/2007) in relation to the safety of genetically engineered foods. Prof Moses quite rightly questions the validity of scientific experiments that are not peer- reviewed, and in addition, the importance of accurate information when ascertaining the causes of outbreaks of illness.

Unfortunately, information on both of these issues is in short supply. Biotechnology companies rarely allow their studies to be subject to such scrutiny, and as a result, there are only limited data in peer- reviewed journals concerning the safety of GM food, although calls have been made for such studies to be made available in the literature.

While Prof Moses states, "We must not forget that GM foods have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people for more than a decade without a single confirmed adverse health effect." I would like to ask who is checking the absence of adverse health effects?

The Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta is reported to have stated that evaluating the public health implications from the inadvertent introduction of StarLinkT corn into the human food supply in the US posed a challenging retrospective task.

The difficulties of this investigation highlight the importance of evaluating the allergic potential of genetically modified foods before they become available for human consumption. This is where feeding trials, or in this case their absence, should be centre stage.

Indeed, one of the conclusions of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on "Allergenicity of Foods derived from Biotechnology" in January 2001, stated that post-market surveillance is a valuable tool in the monitoring of adverse effects and long term sequelae of foods derived from biotechnology.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is not undertaking any such surveillance, neither am I aware of such surveillance being undertaken in other countries.

Epigenetics is now coming to the fore. Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that occur without a change in DNA sequence and can complicate the genetic manipulation of plants.

The potential health impacts of genetically enginered food is too serious an issue to ignore any longer. We are guinea pigs in a global experiment, but in which nobody is monitoring the results. The issue is of profound importance; surely feeding trials cannot be too much to ask?

Dr Elizabeth Cullen
Thomastown
Kilcullen, Co. Kildare

Northern Ireland: Food shortage fears are voiced

Farming Life, 15 October 2007.

Europe could run short of food, and, as a result, consumers will suffer from food price increases and be forced to buy imported food from sources where production is not as well-regulated as within Europe. This was the warning issued by Robin Irvine, president of the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association, when he met Michelle Gildernew, Minister for Agriculture this week.

Mr Irvine emphasised: "I am not just issuing a warning from our association, I am repeating the warning issued by Markos Kyprianou, the EU Commissioner for Food, and Marianne Fisher Boel, the EU Commissioner for Agriculture. "

The irony of the situation is that the food that will have to be imported will be produced from the crop varieties which the unwieldy European system takes so long to approve, thus leaving Europe's food producers totally uncompetitive.

Robin Irvine added: "The EU system of approval for new varieties of crops is totally out of sync with the rest of the world. While food production in other countries enjoys the benefits of new science and technology the European system plods along several years our of date."

To clarify some misconceptions, Mr Irvine explained: "Some people see this as an argument about the pros and cons of GM materials. This argument is not about GM, it is about the survival of our food industry, GM materials are already in the European food chain.

"The Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association respects the right of consumers to choose whether they wish to go down the GM route or not. Our members manufacture animal feed without GM materials for those who wish to avoid them.

"The point is that for those consumers who choose GM, the main food-producing countries in the world are using biotechnology to increase the efficiency of food production - Europe is out of step with the rest of the world in that it takes two years longer than any other region to approve these and is in danger of making local food producers so uncompetitive that many will be forced out of business ‚ consumers will be denied an affordable local product, produced to a very high standard and will be dependent on imported food produced under a much less regulated regime ‚ using practices which would not be permitted in Europe.'' According to NIGTA, the loss of one million tonnes of US maize products which made up about one-third of cattle rations in Ireland is only the tip of the iceberg. If the EU approvals system is not updated then new varieties of soya will be denied to European food producers. Maize products can be replaced with other feeds, albeit at a much increased cost, but soya products cannot be replaced. EU politicians and decision makers must face up to the reality of this.

Food supplies are tightening around the world - the developing countries such as China and India are increasing their consumption and the energy industry is competing with food processors for the worlds grain supplies. Global grain supplies are lower than they have been for a generation and a number of food exporting countries are limiting exports to ensure sufficient supply for their own population.

Europe has approved many GM crop materials and these are widely used in food and feedstuffs and the European Food Safety Authority is currently assessing 90 new crop varieties. The difficulties lie with the delays in approving these new varieties and this is leading to disruption in international trade. It is a question of European food security.

Monsanto increases investment in Mendel

Reuters, Oct 15 2007

(Reuters) - Monsanto Co said on Monday that it had increased its investment in Mendel Biotechnology Inc in a deal that will boost the privately held company's work in cellulosic biofuels like grasses and food crop waste.

Mendel, based in Hayward, California, will also use the proceeds to repurchase shares from current holders of stock and options, slightly increasing St. Louis-based Monsanto's stake in the company.

The companies did not disclose additional financial details.

Since Mendel was founded in 1997, the company has worked with Monsanto to support the discovery and development of new technologies for agriculture.

Mendel has identified and patented the use of genes that control many aspects of plant growth and development. It is using such inventions to develop new plant varieties with improved productivity and quality.

Monsanto has exclusive royalty-bearing licenses to Mendel technology in certain large-acreage crops, including soybeans. In return Monsanto pays Mendel to perform research and provides commercial rights to key technologies.

Mendel lately has been working on developing dedicated energy crops for the biofuel industry.

"Mendel has been an important collaborator for us, and their research continues to play an important role in the development of new products for the farm," Steve Padgette, vice president of biotechnology at Monsanto and a Mendel board member, said in a statement.

(Reporting by Carey Gillam)

Zimbabwe: Agric Biotechnology - Mixed Blessing

The Herald (Harare), 15 October 2007. By Sifelani Tsiko.

While Zimbabwean scientists are upbeat about the need to use biotechnology to improve agricultural productivity, agronomists and environmentalists argue that emerging technologies could have serious implications on the operations of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe and Africa as a whole.

Agronomists and environmentalists who attended a three-day workshop on the implications of Economic Partnership Agreements and the need for the protection of farmers' rights which was held last week in Harare said modern biotechnology is very expensive in terms of access, affordability and suitability for smallholder farmers in developing countries.

"Developing countries do not have the resources to conduct research in modern biotechnology and the seed, the technology and other input requirements cannot be afforded by smallholder farmers," said Mr Andrew Mushita, the director of the Community Technology Development Trust.

Prominent Zimbabwe agronomist Mr Roger Mpande said although Zimbabwean scientists were excited about biotechnology and its potential in the agriculture sector there is need to conduct research on the implications of modern biotechnology on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers who constitute more than 80 percent of the population in most developing countries.

"Zimbabwean scientists are so excited about modern biotechnology but they haven't told us about the possible impact of growing genetically modified (GM) crops on farmers," he said.

"Biotechnology research on GM crops is very expensive and smallholder farmers cannot afford to buy GM seed. Scientists want to promote the growing of GM crops at the expense of local and indigenous varieties which are easily accessible, cheap and suitable for local soils and climate."

Mr Mushita, an expert on agrobiodiversity and environmental issues told participants that even though modern biotechnology offered some opportunities it has some demerits which affect the interests of and livelihoods of smallholder farmers.

Modern biotechnology, he said, was largely in the hands of multinational corporations that enjoyed exclusive rights over the technologies as they have the resources and capacity to develop new GM seed varieties.

He said unlike local seed varieties such as 'Mutode' (maize seed), indigenous small grains, beans and other vegetables that could be saved as on-farm seed over years, new GM seed hybrids could only be used once.

"Farmers will depend heavily on seed from these multinationals leading to loss of biodiversity. The hybrid seed cannot germinate again once you harvest it whereas local seed types can grow," Mr Mushita said.

He told smallholder farmers, policy makers; agronomist and other experts that smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe and the entire African continent were unlikely to reap the benefits attributed to advances in agricultural biotechnology.

Instead, Mr Mushita argued that the advances in and adoption of new agro biotechnologies were likely to worsen rather than mitigate existing inequalities, undermine rather than protect African biodiversity, and facilitate dependence rather than development.

According to Mr Mushita some of the disadvantages of modern agro-biotechnologies include:

•

Technologies and GM seed types owned and controlled by multinationals

•

Technologies and GM seed crops protected by Intellectual Property Rights

•

GMOs contaminate biodiversity

•

Seeds are converted from being self-propagating to laboratory products

•

Plant Breeders and patent holders gain monopoly rights over seeds

•

Farmers become dependent on biotechnology industry over seeds

Agronomists and environmentalists who attended the workshop which was organised by CTDT said it is better for local scientists to embrace biotechnology in other fields such as medicine, veterinary, chemical and other fields which have limited adverse effects on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers.

Scientists who attended a workshop organised by the National Biotechnology Authority two weeks ago argued that biotechnology could be used to find solutions to some of Zimbabwe's pressing challenges.

Other scientists also unanimously agreed that Zimbabwe should fully embrace biotechnology and tread the path that India, China, Cuba, Brazil and South Africa have taken.

Given the importance of agriculture in Zimbabwe and the entire African continent biotechnology has been greeted with a mix of hope and suspicion making it a hot bed of fierce debate.

The sharp differences are reflected both in public and academic spheres in their approach on biotechnology and in legislative frameworks that deal with its introduction and regulation.

"In the future, bananas engineered to include malarial provolactics could prove to have great health benefits for the region.

"Bt cotton could reduce pesticide use, freeing much-needed foreign exchange and reducing the need for farmers to handle dangerous chemicals, and drought tolerant crops could reduce losses associated with bad weather," Mr Abisai Mafa, acting chief executive of the National Biotechnology Authority remarked in 2001.

"At the same time, there are many unknowns, which will take time to resolve. DDT, for example, was used for years before its cumulative effects were realised. We should therefore not move recklessly towards the adoption of GM crops."

Supporters of the expansion of production of GM crops and related products argue that emerging technologies can modernise agricultural production in the developing world.

Increasing yields, they argue, will end hunger and malnutrition, and biotechnology will make agriculture more sustainable by reducing chemical inputs.

Mr Mpande said a number of factors limit the applicability of these new and emerging technologies to the African context.

He said GM crops have failed to be adopted in Zimbabwe and a few other African countries.

"The Bt Cotton project in Zimbabwe was a failure. Farmers were not keen to adopt the new seed technology, in Malawi and Tanzania there are similar reports," he said.

Critics of biotechnology say the limitations are, in large part, a function of Africa's position within the global political economy.

They say current biotechnology research is not generally informed by local conditions in Zimbabwe and across the entire African continent.

In many ways this reflects the classic problem of development and "appropriate technology."

Agronomists and environmentalists called for the promotion of appropriate technology that is sensitive to the local conditions in the developing world. They said appropriate technology would be small-scale, labour-intensive, more subject to local mastery, repair and control and would meet particular cultural and ecological demands of the communities where it would be applied.

Such technology, Mpande and other agronomists and environmentalists believed, would be more likely to result in improved smallholder farm out and development.

In a paper titled, "Biotechnology and Rural Development: Implications for Southern Africa Agriculture," Noah Zerbe, a political scientist said the current generation of GM crops under commercial production reflects the problem of inappropriate technology.

"They were designed for North American (and to a lesser extent European) farmers, not African smallholders, and focused on crops not usually grown by and adopt traits of secondary importance to most smallholder African farmers.

"Soyabeans, for example, one of the dominant commercial biotech crops, are almost exclusively cultivated by large-scale commercial farmers. The GM maize currently available is yellow maize, grown primarily as animal feed and considered unpalatable by many Africans.

"Similarly, the GM canola/rape currently on market is designed for high oil output, as the crop is grown for oil production in the West," he said.

African farmers, he said, however grow rape as a household vegetable for domestic consumption.

"While some research is now being directed into other crops of importance to smallholder farmers--crops such as cassava and sorghum--the vast majority of research remains confined to crops cultivated by commercial farmers in Europe and North America," Zerbe argued.

Opponents of biotechnology say because farmers in developing countries could produce and save their own seed from season to season, corporations argued that there was little reason for them to fund research into open pollinated varieties (OPV) seed and instead focused on hybrid crops such as maize.

Zimbabwean agronomists said the selection of hybrid crops for research and the deliberate exclusion of OPVs from research was not based on the potential of such crops nor the needs of farmers but instead on the potential profits that multinational seed companies could reap.

As a result, they said, there was limited funding into research on OPV seed which are important smallholder farmers who grow crops such as groundnut, sorghum and millet which are drought tolerant and can adapt to semi-arid regions of the country.

Studies by agronomist show that across Southern Africa, informal seed networks remain the primary source of seed for the vast majority of smallholder farmers.

In Sadc region, the studies show, less than 10 percent of seed sown by smallholder farmers is obtained from the formal sector.

Farmers rely extensively on farm saved seed (60-70 percent of total seed planted) and social networks (30-40 percent). Informal, community-based seed networks -- saving seed on-farm, or acquiring seed from relatives, neighbours, or other community sources through barter or social obligation, they say, represent a key component of agricultural production in Southern Africa.

In the end, there is need for Zimbabwean scientists, agronomists and environmentalists to weigh what is best for the country in terms of biotechnology application, adoption and the implications of its use on smallholder farmers' livelihood.

Zerbe rightly concludes: "Agricultural biotechnology thus represents, at best, a mixed blessing for Southern Africa, holding both promise and peril for African smallholders in particular. The application of molecular techniques to agriculture could lead to increased yields and crops expressing many desirable traits.

"At the same time, however, the social, economic and environmental consequences of the new technology must be considered. The benefits of biotechnology will not be felt evenly. Some will benefit, others will not. Or perhaps more accurately, in Southern Africa, some will benefit, most will not."

Japan urges Australia to continue GM crop bans

ABC News, October 15 2007

A delegation representing Japanese food buyers has arrived in Australia to lobby state governments to maintain bans on genetically modified (GM) food crops.

Moratoriums on commercial GM food crops in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are due to expire next year and are currently being reviewed.

If the bans are lifted, genetically modified canola [oilseed rape] crops could be planted.

Anti GM campaigner Ryoko Shimizu says the delegation represents almost three million Japanese consumers who would not want to buy genetically modified canola.

"Now we import from Australia because of the GMO free status. So I believe it would damage the export market for Australian farmers," he said.

Japanese anti-GE foods group lobbies states

Food Week Online, 15 October 2007.

A Japanese delegation arrived in Australia today to deliver a petition asking state premiers to extend moratoria on genetically engineered food crops.

The delegation is from the No! GMO Campaign, an alliance of more than 80 Japanese consumer groups, farmers' groups and 300 individuals.

The petition is signed by 155 Japanese consumer organisations, consumer cooperatives, labour organisations and cooking oil producers whose total membership represents 2.9 million Japanese consumers.

The group is visiting Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth to meet with government and industry representatives to discuss their concerns about the potential lifting of Australia's GE food crop bans.

"We Japanese consumers are now standing at a critical crossroads in assuring our food safety," said Ryoko Shimizu, steering committee member of the campaign.

"Australia is the only country that can supply GE-free canola to food-importing countries like Japan. If the moratoria are lifted it would damage the reputation of Australian crops in Japan and Japanese consumers would stop buying Australian crops.

"We are concerned that the relationships which we have worked so hard to cultivate between Australian farmers and Japanese consumers would collapse."

Ms Shimizu works for the Seikatsu Club Consumers' Co-operative Union (SCCU) who currently imports 3500 metric tones of canola from Australia each year because of Australia's GE free status. Before buying canola from Australia, the SCCU purchased their canola from Canada until that country began growing GE varieties and could no longer guarantee conventional canola was free from GE contamination.İ

State governments introduced the moratoria on GE food crops in 2004 because of concerns within industry, the farming sector and regional communities about the impact of GE crops on markets. The states are currently under considerable pressure from the biotechnology industry and federal government to lift the bans.

Greenwash and EU lobby scandals exposed for public vote
Launch of online voting for the "Worst EU Lobbying" Awards 2007 at www.worstlobby.eu

Press release from Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth Europe, LobbyControl, Spinwatch, 15 October 2007.

Brussels, 15 October - Public voting for the "Worst EU Lobbying" Awards 2007 opened online today at www.worstlobby.eu. Organised by Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth Europe, LobbyControl and Spinwatch, the annual award for deceptive, manipulative and unethical lobbying this year includes a new special "Worst Greenwash" category for the company whose advertising is most at odds with the real environmental impacts of its business activities.

Through the Worst EU Lobbying Awards, the organisers aim to raise public awareness of controversial lobbying practices in Brussels, and put pressure on politicians to introduce effective EU lobbying transparency and ethics rules.

Until 24th November 2007, the general public can vote for the nominee they consider to have engaged in the most outrageous lobbying and greenwashing from a shortlist of five candidates in each of the two categories.

In the "Worst Lobbyist" category, the shortlist selected from 27 nominations received is:

•

BMW, Daimler and Porsche for their full-scale lobbying offensive to water-down and delay the EU mandatory targets for CO2 emissions from cars;

•

EU public affairs consultancy Cabinet Stewart for running the International Council of Capital Formation (ICCF) - this so-called 'unique European think-tank' is in fact a front group for US-based opponents of the Kyoto Protocol;

•

Viscount Etienne Davignon, for advising EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel about African development issues, even though he sits on the board for Suez ‚ a transnational corporation looking to expand its energy and water business into Africa;

•

The European Public Affairs Consultancies Association (EPACA) for its high-profile counter-campaign against the European Commission's plans for a lobby transparency register;

•

Repsol for misshaping the EU's research agenda on agrofuels to fit narrow commercial interests, at the expense of genuine measures to combat climate change.

"Once again the cases show that lobbyists employ heavy-handed and deceptive tactics if their core-business is at stake", criticises Olivier Hoedeman from Corporate Europe Observatory. "In order to enable public scrutiny of lobbying, we need effective transparency regulations that allow the public and decision-makers to see who is lobbying whom on whose behalf and for how much money."

But it's not only about the behaviour of lobbyists. Special Advisor Etienne Davignon has just been re-appointed by Commissioner Michel, despite what looks like a clear conflict of interest. "This case shows that the European Commission has not done its homework yet. The European institutions need to urgently develop stricter ethical rules," stresses Ulrich Mueller from LobbyControl.

In the "Worst Greenwash" category, the shortlist selected from 19 nominations received is:

•

Airbus for a series of adverts in which passenger jet silhouettes are filled with beautiful landscapes, pretending that their aeroplanes are green and clean;

•

BAE systems for promoting deadly weapons as environmentally friendly;

•

ExxonMobil for purporting it is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions while in reality its emissions are increasing;

•

The German Atomic Forum for its campaign "unloved climate protectionists", abusing the public's concern about climate change to promote nuclear energy;

•

Shell for an advert suggesting that their oil refineries emit flowers not smoke.

This year's nominations reflect the intense public debate about climate change. "The increased debate about climate change has given rise to a new wave of greenwash in Europe," explains Christine Pohl from Friends of the Earth Europe. "Corporations manipulate the public and try to create the impression that their behaviour is the solution to climate change whereas in reality they are part of the problem."

Online public voting is open until November 24. The award winners will be announced on December 4th at an awards ceremony in Brussels.

Contact:

Erik Wesselius, Corporate Europe Observatory: +31-30-2364422 (mobile), email: erik@corporateeurope.org

Christine Pohl, Friends of the Earth Europe; tel: +32-498-492563 (mobile) email: christine.pohl@foeeurope.org

Ulrich Mueller, LobbyControl: Tel: +49-221 1696507, email: u.mueller@lobbycontrol.de

Notes to editors:

You can find a briefing compiling detailed explanations of the case against each of this year's nominees at http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/Media_Briefing_Worst_EU_Lobbying_Candidates07.pdf. These texts are also available on the Awards' website.

14 October 2007

UK: Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film
Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth

The Observer, Oct 14 2007. By Jamie Doward, home affairs editor.

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils.

A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was welcomed by climate-change sceptics.

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies.

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost GBP1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.

The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.

The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.

In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive misunderstanding,' the report's authors said.

Martin Livermore, director of the alliance, confirmed Durward continued to support its work. 'He provides funds with other members,' Livermore said.

In the Nineties, Durward established the British Aggregates Association to campaign against a tax on sand, gravel and rock extracted from quarries. Durward does not talk to the media and calls to the association requesting an interview were not returned last week. However, he has written letters to newspapers setting out his personal philosophy. One letter claimed: 'It is time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way", declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals and roads.'

He later clarified his comments saying he was merely pointing out that the army had done a 'fantastic job' in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis. He has also asked whether there has been a 'witch-hunt against drunk drivers'.

UK: BBC Messes Up Again on Gore Story

SpinWatch.org, 14 October 2007. By Andy Rowell.

The BBC span is making a real hash of the Al Gore story. Today on Radio Four's flagship lunch-time news programme, it invited Martin Livermore from the Scientific Alliance, to give an interview on Gore winning the Nobel Prize.

As we have blogged on the site, the Scientific Alliance was set up by Scottish quarryman Robert Durward in 2001 to fight environmental regulations and take the sceptical line on climate change.

It was one of the first "corporate front groups" to be set up in the UK. It has consistently tried to undermine climate science and networked with Exxon-funded groups in the US and UK.

However rather than saying the Alliance undermines the debate on climate science, the BBC's presenter Shaun Ley described the Alliance as "campaigning to improve the quality of debate about science".

Asked about the Nobel award to Gore, Martin Livermore the Alliance's ex-Dupont front man said that it was "not healthy" to give awards to "fashionable causes". He also warned Gore's award would "close down the scientific debate".

When asked about the recent legal case against Gore's film in the UK, which had been objected to by "a parent", Livermore said the Judge who had criticised Gore had made a "sensible decision" on a "political film" that represented "just one point of view". What the BBC failed to do again is actually tell the listener what was going on here.

To an uninformed listener it seems that the Scientific Alliance and legal action - the parent -are completely separate. The problem is they are not. They are funded by the same person: Robert Durward, a Scottish Quarryman and chair of the New Party - which his political opponents have described as fascist.

The so-called parent is Stewart Dimmock, who is a member of the New Party, a failed New Party councillor, who has admitted being backed by the New Party in taking the legal action.

So, unbeknown to the public, on the radio at lunch-time the BBC interviewed an ex-chemical industry spokesman who works for a front group set up by a quarryman who was talking about a legal case that the quarryman has funded. But that's obviously too complicated for the BBC or too insignificant a fact to tell their listeners.

Ireland: Green 'U-Turn'

News of the World, 14 October 2007.

THE Green Party should put its money where its mouth is, a critic of its GM food policy has claimed.

Labour Agricultural spokesman Sean Sherlock said the Greens are allowing genetically-modified foods into Ireland, contrary to their stated policy.

He said: "They told us that once in government they would immediately declare Ireland a GM-free zone."

But Mr Sherlock said that in a cynical U-turn the Greens are now allowing GM animal feed.

Kenya: Scientists and lobby groups continue to differ on 'designer foods'

Sunday Nation, 14 October 2007. By John Mbaria, Environment Correspondent.

During the debate on the controversial Biosafety Bill 2007 that went through the Second Reading in Parliament on Thursday, MPs were reported to have voiced concerns over the introduction of extraneous issues that were not covered by the Bill.

Those opposed to 'designer' farming have asked scientists to address the fear of a likelihood that cultivating GM-crops might lead to decimation of such useful insects as bees and butterflies.

"We risk a possibility of poor farmers being at the mercy of Western companies selling expensive inputs, if we start growing GM-crops," said Ngonyo.

Mr Ngonyo wonders why key financiers have given a wide berth to organic farming in Africa, yet international markets are desperately in need of organic products.

MPs have been criticised for introducing alien and invasive species like the water hyacinth; cloning of humankind and the risks some Kenyans might have been exposed to in earlier Aids trials to the Bill fronted by Cabinet minister Dr Noah Wekesa.

"This Bill has nothing to do with Aids trials or the other matters raised by MPs in Parliament - It is basically about enabling the introduction and commercialisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the country," said Josphat Ngonyo, the director of Africa Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW).

First published in 2005, the Bill provides for the safe entry of GMOs into the country. It calls for the establishment of the National Biosafety Authority and sets out the latter's powers and responsibilities in regulating research, importation and commercialisation of GMOs.

Once enacted, it is expected to ensure the safe handling, use and transfer of these products.

But there are polarised views on its pros and cons. Championing one side of the debate has been the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, an organisation composed of 43 NGOs, farmer associations, consumer and community groups.

Though the group has said it supports an effective and powerful biosafety law to regulate GMOs, it has decried the "intentional scheme" to weaken the Bill so that the importation and commercialisation of GMOs can be "hussle-free."

The coalition also takes issue with the very process of preparing the Bill saying it did not incorporate the views of farmers and ordinary Kenyans but rather took a "boardroom approach".

In a recent advertiser's announcement in the Daily Nation, the group said the Bill leaves no room for Kenyans to debate whether or not they ought to accept GMOs here.

The group also says the Bill does not ask importers of GMOs to label them appropriately, neither does it deal with the safety of pharmaceutical products or food aid entering the country.

Members say it is too lenient on those who might release a GMO that harms public health or the environment. They are urging the Government to withdraw it from Parliament.

An equally vocal pro-GM lobby also published a whole page advertisement countering what the opponents of the Bill say.

Operating under the African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF), the lobby led by Norah Olembo and Florence Wambugu, both leading scientists in related fields deny that plucking genes from one set of organisms and pumping them into different organisms is morally wrong.

They say GMOs are a reality today and that it is safer for Kenya to be prepared for their entry by passing the Biosafety Bill, 2007.

Other groups have taken a middle-ground position, arguing that what matters is for the Government to promote the interest and safety of the public.

"This is because many GM crops are designed to produce one or more toxins which make it possible for the relevant plants to kill off destructive pests on their own," said a researcher at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Kari) who declined to be named.

The researcher added that consuming crops with such toxins over a long time could cause allergies. The toxins may have medium and long-term effects on other living organisms and particularly useful insects in the environment.

He argued that such concerns are not far-fetched because the world has only been cultivating and consuming GM products for slightly over a decade.

But many other scientists believe that Kenyans should not entertain blanket condemnation of genetic engineering. They say it has enabled humanity to develop artificially produced insulin, a much-needed hormone for diabetics to break down sugar in their bodies.

Although both sides of the debate have stated that food insecurity is the biggest challenge facing Africa, the pro-GM lobby has argued that technology - particularly manipulation of plant and animal genes - might be the panacea for food insecurity.

In its website, Kari says it is currently undertaking GM-seed research to combat the problems that hamper profitable agricultural research in Kenya - disease, pest, droughts and poor seeds.

Kari's research, which has centred on GM-maize, sorghum, cotton and sweet potatoes, is jointly undertaken with international research institutions and giant biotech companies from the US and elsewhere.

The aim, Kari says, is to produce seeds that are resistant to pests, weeds such as striga, droughts and others that are fortified with alien proteins.

13 October 2007

USA: Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd take stand in Iowa
in favor of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, 13 October 2007.

Fairfield, IA -- October 13 2007 - Senator John Edwards, Governor Bill Richardson, and Senator Chris Dodd have all gone on record in favor of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods this week in Iowa. In response to questions during their campaign visits to Fairfield this week, each candidate stated he would support legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods if elected to be President of the United States.

The three democratic candidates join many leaders in Iowa and the country who are calling for mandatory labeling legislation for genetically engineered foods. Presidential candidate Representative Dennis Kucinich also supports labeling of genetically engineered foods and has lead this effort in Congress for several years.

A report funded by the USDA and conducted by Rutgers University found that 89% of the American public feels the Federal Government should require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Only 10% felt that labeling should not be required.

All the known effects of genetically engineered foods have been documented in the book: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, by Jeffrey Smith. With input from more than 30 scientists over two years, it presents 65 health risks of GE foods and why current safety assessments are not competent to protect us from most of them. The book documents lab animals with damage to virtually every system and organ studied; thousands of sick, sterile, or dead livestock; and people around the world who have traced toxic or allergic reactions to eating GE products, breathing GE pollen, or touching GE crops at harvest. It also exposes many incorrect assumptions that were used to support GE approvals. Organizations worldwide are presenting the book to policy makers as evidence that GE foods are unsafe and need to be removed immediately.

Moreover, health watchdogs feel the FDA has been concealing important information about the hazards of GE foods. According to public interest attorney Steven M. Druker, Executive Director of The Alliance for Bio-Integrity, who initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its internal files on these novel products: "The FDA's own documents reveal that its scientific experts warned the administrators that GE foods pose abnormal health risks and must be carefully tested for unintended side effects. However, the administrators, who admit they have been following an ongoing White House policy to promote the biotech industry, covered up these warnings and claimed that they were unaware of any meaningful differences between GE foods and those produced naturally. It is only through this fraud that GE foods have entered the market, and they have yet to be confirmed safe through the kinds of testing that the FDA experts said is necessary." (Key FDA documents are posted at www.biointegrity.org)

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods www.thecampaign.org is a 501(c)4 non-profit advocacy organization started in March 1999. The Campaign is leading a national grassroots consumer campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States. Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in all the European Union countries, plus Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and many other leading industrial nations.

Ireland: Fine Gael emailer comes a GM cropper

The Irish Times, Miriam Lord's Week, 13 October 2007.

It's a slow day at the office. Then an e-mail lands in the Fianna Fáil adviser's in-box. His eyes light up when he sees the title: "Briefing Document for Fine Gael."

He opens the message to find Fine Gael's new 13-page strategy on the GMO issue has landed in his lap. They sent it to the enemy by mistake.

It begins "GMOs and Ireland: 10 years of poor FF-led policy." The opening paragraph begins thus: "Since 1997, Fianna Fáil governments have repeatedly flip-flopped the issue of GMOs. This recently came to a head on September 28th when Green Party Minister Trevor Sargent dramatically changed stated policy regarding a 'GM-free Ireland' by stating "GM free zone is not about banning imported GM feed" (possible draft Dáil questions, below on pg. 5)". And on it goes, with page after page of background rebuttal material, full of quotes from Fianna Fáil and Green politicians.

Suggested Dáil questions include ones for Trevor Sargent.

"Does Minister Sargent agree that this nation's food supply is not an issue for party political sound bites but rather political decisions made on the basis of scientifically sound independent advice?"

Lots of examples of previous statements are highlighted before a possible question for Minister Dempsey is offered: "Did Noel Dempsey, in his programme for government discussions with the Greens, forget the conclusions of his own tax payer-supported public consultations?" All that hard work for nothing. They're certainly green in Fine Gael now, but for all the wrong reasons. But Trevor Sargent had an extra pep in his step last week, and they're still laughing in Fianna Fail.

Forwarned is forearmed.

12 October 2007

AgBioWorld Members Discuss The Independent Article and YouTube Videos

Compiled by C.S. Prakash
October 12 2007 [shortened]

The Independent Posts Interview with Kings College Faculty Member Calling GM Crops "Dangerous and Unnecessary"

Abstract: Members discuss the need for a response after the United Kingdom newspaper The Independent published an anti-biotech article interviewing an associate professor at Kings College. Dr. Michael Antoniou of Kings College argued that "genetically modified crops are dangerous and unnecessary."

Several members expressed the need for a letter written not only to the newspaper but also the Dean of Kings College, pointing out the factual errors in the article. One member noted that another Associate Professor from a UK college published a similar article and after a letter was written to the University was forced to write a letter or apology for her "fear monger lies."

YouTube Video Posted by Member Predicted the 'Demise of GM Crops"

Abstract: A member posted a video to YouTube containing a CBC News clip of OECD Summit on GMO safety in Edinburgh March 1, 2000, featuring a debate between Patrick Holden of the Soil Association Alan McHughen in which Holden predicts the demise of GM crops within five years.

One member suggests that other members leave comments on the YouTube video "in anticipation of the anti's getting their licks in first" since the video is on a public site.

Link to the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwE0cqdZWlY

Members Discuss YouTube video of Interview on Monsanto vs. Schmeiser Court Case

Abstract: A member posted a video to YouTube containing a CBC interview with Alan McHughen concerning genetically modified crops and the Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser court case. The interview originally aired in June of 2000. The video also contains a short spot on the British Royal Family's views on GM crops.

Link to YouTube video being discussed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbAhdcfTuaA

AgBioWorld is comprised of ag-biotech experts who take a keen interest in the latest news and events important to ag-biotech. This blog aims to be a reflection of those events and news stories that have captured our attention. Please share your comments and feelings on the current climate for biotech with us as well.

Best regards,

C.S. Prakash

Comment from GM Watch:

These days CS Prakash seems to have left Andrew ("Hype, Libel and Fraud") Apel to edit the AgBioView listserv while he offers "a weekly synopsis of topics of concern to the agricultural biotech community covering the latest news, innovation and commentary from AgBioWorld members" c/o the "AgBioWorld GMO Food For Thought" blog. Here's a recent offering. As ever with AgBioWorld "commentary", it would be unwise to assume any neccessary connection with reality. It's not for nothing AgBioWorld claims the support of James Watson!

11 October 2007

Ireland: Feed shortage could get worse

Irish Examiner, 11 October 2007. By Stephen Cadogan.

THE problem of rising livestock feed costs will get worse unless new American genetically modified maizes are authorised quickly for use in the EU, said Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister Mary Coughlan in the Dáil last week.

"A similar situation is set to develop in the use of soya from 2009 onwards, with even more serious consequences," she warned.

Ms Coughlan fully accepted that the cost of grain-based inputs has increased substantially in the past six months. As a result, consumers would have to pay more for food products, and producers must strive for efficiency gains.

"Something will have to be done about getting higher prices for pigmeat so that with efficiencies at farm level, farmers are recompensed for their produce," she said.

"We will work with the industry to see what we can do in terms of supports," she promised. "There is evidence of pig producers bringing forward slaughter weights from 105kg to 95kg and of their not servicing breeding stock because people see no future in this industry," said Deputy Michael Creed.

Ms Coughlan said making more whole maize, instead of wheat, available for pig and poultry rations offered the greatest potential for action. But if new GM maizes introduced into US cropping are not authorised quickly in the EU the feed industry here will not be able to avail of increased quantities of whole maize.

"There is a real danger here that if the commission does not act urgently in coalescing the two authorisation systems the US exporters will continue to look to emerging feed markets in other parts of the world, thereby giving rise to serious feed problems for the EU livestock industry in the not too distant future."

She said the decision by Ireland to abstain on a recent EU vote on whether to allow three GM maizes for animal feeds was in line with that of France and Italy. "These are major buyers of Irish produce. Had Ireland voted in favour, it would not have affected the outcome of the vote. The Government's objective is to seek to negotiate an island-wide GM free zone. It is not about banning imported GM feed, it is about not growing GM crops and not proliferating GM pollen, seed dispersal and superweeds. In line with Government policy, I have set in motion a number of other departments to elaborate this commitment and to tease out the implications from a policy perspective. That is the Government decision."

Mr Creed said: "The French are self-sufficient and they want Fortress Europe, because it will drive up the price of their produce. They do not want imports. To argue that we were with the French is illogical and a disservice to Irish agriculture."

Ireland: Creed slams government on GMs

Irish Farmers Journal, 11 October (dated 13 October) 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.

Delays in the European approval for Genetically Modified (GM) crops is [sic] affecting feed prices, with pig and poultry farmers already feeling the effects. Fine Gael's new spokesman on agriculture, Michael Creed believes that it is time for Ireland to "get real" on the GM issue.

Michael Creed believes that, in future, land will have to provide food and fuel, so we need access to the best available technology. "We need to slay a few sacred cows here," he said. "Many Europeans are speaking from a comfort zone on GM. The "I'm alright Jack" attitude is not morally defensible in the face of world hunger," he said.

The Fine Gael man added that the notion that Ireland could proclaim itself to be GM free is a myth, as we use genetically modified feeds here. "My view is that we should embrace the science," he said. "We can't exclude ourselves from the option of growing the crops."

He has already sought a Dáil debate on the GM issue and has asked the Government to establish a cross-party committee on science and technology.

He said that pig producers in Ireland are now close to breaking point. "They are cutting slaughter weights and not serving gilts," he pointed out. He also highlighted another measure that would help alleviate their plight; the EU and Ireland must address the current labelling anomaly whereby pig-meat can be imported, processed and then labelled as Irish.

"Substantial transformation is a joke, the issue has to be addressed," he said. "If people see the Irish flag, they assume it's Irish."

In contrast, Creed is optimistic on the prospects for dairying. He believes there is scope for growth in the dairy industry without sacrificing margins, describing the proposal for a 3% quota increase as "modest".

The Fine Gael spokesman on agriculture is under no illusions – he faces a difficult taks to get his message across. The farming organisations are seen as the natural "opposition" to the Minister ofr Agriculture, and the national media has a dwindling interest in agriculture policy issues.

However, the Macroom-based TD is currently throwing himself into the role with enthusiasm, consulting with a wide array of interests. He has the advantage that agriculture is central to the economy of his constituency, Cork North-West. He also farmed full-time, from 1985 until his election to the Dáil in 1989.

Michael Creed is married to Sinead and they have two children, Ruth, 20 months, and Orla, three months.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

What would Michael Collins have thought of a political party ready to surrender Ireland's food sovereignty by promoting a policy that would rapidy cause all farmers to lose ownership of their seeds and crops?

That's exactly what would happen if patented GM seed or crops are ever introduced here (including GM rape seeds for use as agrofuel).

The Irish Farmers Journal article about Fine Gael agriculture spokeman Michael Creed suggests that Michael Collins's party has either fallen hook, line, and sinker for agri-biotech industry propaganda, or has become a propagandist itself. Everone else in Europe knows that rising feed prices are caused by peak oil, climate change and the massive diversion of food crops for the production of agrofuels. They also know that the current mania for agrofuels is backed by the GM industry, as in the $500 million joint venture between Monsanto and BP announced last summer.

Contrary to what Creed implies, the majority of Europeans do not want GM food and farming. His arguments that GM will end world hunger and that we should "embrace the science" are standard biotech propaganda (along with his pathetic implication that those who want to keep Ireland GM-free are "anti-science").

Readers of the Irish Farmers Journal, which describes itself as the best source of information for Irish farmers, should hold its editors accountable to provide balanced coverage of this controversial issue. The Journal's total bias in favour of the GM agri-biotech industry, as in the article aBové, recently led a prominent IFA farmer to describe the publication as "the Pravda for Agribusiness."

USA: Transgenic Corn Found to Damage Stream Ecosystems

Environmental News Service, October 11 2007.

BLOOMINGTON, Indiana, October 11, 2007 (ENS) - A widely planted variety of genetically engineered corn has the potential to harm aquatic ecosystems, finds a new study by an Indiana University professor of environmental science and his colleagues.

Pollen and other plant parts containing toxins from genetically engineered Bt corn are washing into streams near cornfields and harming a type of fly that is eaten by fish and amphibians, the study demonstrates.

Bt corn is engineered to include a gene from the micro-organism Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt, which produces a toxin that protects the crop from pests, especially the European corn borer.

The research team led by Todd Royer, an assistant professor in the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, found that consumption of Bt corn pollen, leaves and cobs increased mortality and reduced growth in caddisflies, aquatic insects related to the pests targeted by the toxin in Bt corn.

"Caddisflies," Royer said, "are a food resource for higher organisms like fish and amphibians. And, if our goal is to have healthy, functioning ecosystems, we need to protect all the parts."

Caddisfly larvae are an important part of stream ecosystems, where they help control algae populations and provide food for fish and other creatures. In healthy streams, caddisflies are very common and their cases are found by the hundreds under rocks and logs.

Bt corn was licensed for use in 1996 and quickly gained popularity. By 2006, around 35 percent of corn acreage planted in the United States was genetically modified, the study says, citing U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

Before licensing Bt corn, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted trials to test its impact on water biota. But it used Daphnia, a crustacean often used for toxicity tests, and not insects that are more closely related to the target pests, Royer said.

"Every new technology comes with some benefits and some risks," he said. "I think probably the risks associated with widespread planting of Bt corn were not fully assessed."

If there are unintended consequences of planting genetically engineered crops, Royer says farmers should not be held responsible. In a competitive agricultural economy, producers have to use the best technologies they can get, he said.

Funded by the National Science Foundation, the study is published this week by the journal "Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, PNAS."

There was a public outcry over the use of Bt corn in 1999, when a report indicated it might harm monarch butterflies. But studies coordinated by the federal Agricultural Research Service and published in PNAS concluded Bt corn was not a significant threat to monarchs.

Around that time, Royer said, he and his colleagues wondered whether the toxin from Bt corn was getting into streams near cornfields, and, if so, whether it could have an harmful impact on aquatic insects.

Their research, conducted in 2005 and 2006 in an intensely farmed region of northern Indiana, measured inputs of Bt corn pollen, leaves and cobs in 12 headwater streams, using litter traps to collect the materials. They also found corn pollen in the guts of caddisflies, showing they were feeding on corn pollen.

In laboratory trials, the researchers found caddisflies that were fed leaves from Bt corn had growth rates that were less than half those of caddisflies fed non-Bt corn litter. They also found that a different type of caddisfly had significantly increased mortality rates when exposed to Bt corn pollen at concentrations between two and three times the maximum found in the test sites.

Royer said there was considerable variation in the amount of corn pollen and byproducts found at study locations and there is geographical variation. Farmers in Iowa and Illinois, for instance, are planting more Bt corn than those in Indiana. The level of Bt corn pollen associated with increased mortality in caddisflies, he said, "could potentially represent conditions in streams of the western Corn Belt."

There are four bands of Bt corn seed available commercially - YieldGard from Northrup King (Novartis); YieldGard2 from Monsanto; YieldGard Rootworm from Monsanto; and Herculex from Pioneer DowAgra-Sciences.

Other crops such as potatoes and cotton also make use of Bt technology. By 1999, 29 million acres of Bt corn, potato and cotton were grown globally.

When proponents of Bt technology list the benefits, they often say the Bt proteins in the crops will not kill beneficial insects. Royer and his team showed that claim is not accurate in the case of caddisflies.

Other principal investigators for the study, titled "Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems," were Emma Rosi-Marshall of Loyola University Chicago, Jennifer Tank of the University of Notre Dame, and Matt Whiles of Southern Illinois University.

Kenya: Court Rejects Bid to Stop GMO Debate

The Nation (Nairobi), 11 October 2007. By Jillo Kadida.

Parliament can go ahead and debate a Bill that seeks to introduce genetically modified foods in Kenya, after all. This comes after the High Court on Thursday directed that a case challenging the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) be heard on merit instead of granting orders stopping the enactment of the Biosafety Bill 2007.

Mr Justice Joseph Nyamu said it was difficult to stop Parliament from thinking and formulating law.

The ruling arose out of an application filed by a group of 13 people seeking to block the passing of the Bill, which if enacted, would make (GMOs) available for sale in Kenya.

They said the public had not been involved in debate on matters of GMOs and so the publication of the Biosafety Bill 2007 was premature.

It further denies the public critical understanding in the making of a law that would have far-reaching effects on them and future generations, they argued.

The group, through lawyer Kibe Mungai, said GMOs were a health hazard to Kenyans.

And in view of risk posed by GMOs, Mr Mungai said, the legalisation of their production, consumption and trade threatened his clients' right to life and good health as protected by Section 70 and 71 of the Constitution.

The group told the court that the right to choose the foods one eats was a personal and private matter of conscience, which is necessarily interfered with by the production of food through biotechnology.

It would be a serious mockery of Kenya's sovereignty, said the group, for the Bill to be enacted on the basis of simplistic and racially demeaning arguments that hungry people - which unfortunately every African is assumed to be - have no business breaking bones over the content of the food they eat.

The group said the GMO controversy was a legitimate matter for President Kibaki to appoint a commission of inquiry to seek consensus.

Mr Mungai further said the standing orders, which allow Parliament to pass Bills with a majority of only 30 MPs or less out of the 222 was both undemocratic and unconstitutional. The judge said that the 13 could still go to court after the enactment of the Bill if they believe it contravenes the Constitution and have it nullified.

The case is scheduled for hearing on November 15.

Qatar's initiative to curb GM food menace hailed

The Peninsula (Quatar's leading English-language daily), 11 October 2007.

DOHA - Qatar's initiative in checking the proliferation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) is worth emulating for other GCC nations. It is the first country in the region to come out with a draft proposal to check the menace, said Greenpeace International Genetic Engineering campaigner Andi Freimuller. Freimuller, the Greenpeace project coordinator, was talking to The Peninsula after his meeting with top officials of Supreme Council for Environment and Natural Reserves (SCENR), here yesterday.

"Greenpeace congratulates Qatar being part of the International Biosafety Protocol (BSP). This was an important step towards bringing in a regulation on the flow of GMOs in Qatari market", he said.

UAE, Kuwait and Qatar were the three GCC nations that became part of the safety protocol. But Qatar was the first country to take a serious initiative to combat the menace. This is a good sign, he added.

Disclosing details of his discussion with SCENR officials, Freimuller said that Qatar's supreme policy decision body on environmental issues was awaiting approval to form a high level committee to address the concerns raised by Greenpeace. The committee will draft the legislations and then send it for the necessary approval from the higher-ups, he quoted Ghanem Abdulla Mohammed, Director, Wildlife Protection and Development, SCENR as saying.

Freimuller said that food tests conducted by Greenpeace during late 2006 had shown that many products sold on the Qatari market contained genetically modified organisms. Hence, Qatar must introduce mandatory labeling of GMO food products as soon as possible giving consumers at least the right to choose.

"Our demand is to ban the GMO stuff. If not, the customers should be at least allowed to make their choice", he said.

India, an important supplier of food products for Qatar has been conducting numerous field trials with GMO rice and six other food crops that are exported to the Middle East in the recent past. Field trials carry the inherent risk of contaminating commercial crops. It is to be remembered that Qatar imported thousands of tonnes of rice from India last year.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

The Arabian Gulf States are starting to question the ethics of genetic modification from an Islamic perspective, and heading toward mandatory GM food labelling. Earlier this year, a prominent Quatari cleric called for a boycott of GM food based on Sharia law. How will these consumers react to imported Irish meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients?

USA: Stop genetically engineered sugar beets
GM sugar to hit stores in 2008

Take action:

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=12700

Background Information:

American Crystal, a large Wyoming-based sugar company, who ironically have launched an "organic" line of their sugar, and several other leading U.S. sugar providers have announced they will be sourcing their sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets beginning this year and arriving in stores in 2008. Like GE corn and GE soy, products containing GE sugar will not be labeled as such.

Since half of the granulated sugar in the U.S. comes from sugar beets, a move towards biotech beets marks a dramatic alteration of the U.S. food supply. These sugars, along with GE corn and soy, are found in many conventional food products, so consumers will be exposed to genetically engineered ingredients in just about every non-organic multiple-ingredient product they purchase.

The GE sugar beet is designed to withstand strong doses of Monsanto's controversial broad spectrum Roundup herbicide. Studies indicate farmers planting "Roundup Ready" corn and soy spray large amounts of the herbicide, contaminating both soil and water. Farmers planting GE sugar beets are told they may be able to apply the herbicide up to five times per year. Sugar beets are grown on 1.4 million acres by 12,000 farmers in the U.S. from Oregon to Minnesota.

Meanwhile candy companies like Hershey's are urging farmers not to plant GE sugar beets, noting that consumer surveys suggest resistance to the product. In addition the European Union has not approved GE sugar beets for human consumption.

10 October 2007

EU experts fail to agree on four GMO approvals

Reuters, 10 October 2007. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union biotech experts clashed on whether to approve four genetically modified (GMO) products on Wednesday, passing the decision on authorization to the bloc's farm ministers, the European Commission said.

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, 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 been unable to secure the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval. They last agreed to authorize a new GMO product in 1998.

Three of the GMOs were maize hybrids developed by U.S. biotech crop company Monsanto Co from its existing product lines, for use in food and animal feed applications and engineered to resist certain insect pests and herbicides.

The three Monsanto maize types, hybrid combinations of the company's existing MON863, MON810 and NK603 maize, are intended to be imported into the European Union for further processing. No extra genetic modification was needed to produce the hybrids. They have been altered to resist pests such as rootworm and the European corn borer, and Monsanto's own Roundup Ready herbicide.

"The three maize varieties in question ... are resulting from the combination, by conventional breeding, of genetic modifications that are already authorized," the Commission said. The other GMO was a potato marketed by German chemicals group BASF and known commercially as Amflora, designed to yield high amounts of starch for use in industrial processing, not for human consumption.

While Wednesday's debate focused on BASF's request for by-products from the potato's starch extraction process to be used in animal feed, the company has also filed a separate EU approval request for cultivation.

"The by-products from the industrial process would also be allowed to be used as animal feed," the Commission said.

"The GM potato would not be authorized for food use but a 0.9 percent tolerance for adventitious presence is foreseen."

No decision on the cultivation request has yet been taken.

USA: An FDA-Created Health Crisis Circles the Globe
How corporations engineered the non-regulation of dangerous genetically modified foods

FoodConsumer.org, 10 October 2007. By Jeffrey M. Smith.

Government officials around the globe have been coerced, infiltrated, and paid off by the agricultural biotech giants. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton approved. [1] In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto. [2] In Mexico, a senior government official allegedly threatened a University of California professor, implying "We know where your children go to school," trying to get him not to publish incriminating evidence that would delay GM approvals. [3] While most industry manipulation and political collusion is more subtle, none was more significant than that found at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA's "non-regulation" of GM foods

Genetically modified crops are the result of a technology developed in the 1970s that allow genes from one species to be forced into the DNA of unrelated species. The inserted genes produce proteins that confer traits in the new plant, such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production. The process of creating the GM crop can produce all sorts of side effects, and the plants contain proteins that have never before been in the food supply. In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies. [4] If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.

There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.

Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto's legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, "What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing." According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, "In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do."

Following Monsanto's lead, in 1992 the Council on Competitiveness chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle identified GM crops as an industry that could increase US exports. On May 26, Quayle announced "reforms" to "speed up and simplify the process of bringing" GM products to market without "being hampered by unnecessary regulation." [5] Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled.

The person who oversaw its development was the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto's vice president.

Covering up health dangers

The policy he oversaw needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue. Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential problems. They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies. [6] In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA's internal files, "References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists)." [7]

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote about the policy, "What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, åWhat do I have to do to avoid troubleÇ-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects." [8]

The FDA scientistsÇ concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied. Consider the private memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." [9] Contrast that with the official policy statement: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." [10] On the basis of this manufactured and false notion of no meaningful differences, the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.

To further justify their lack of oversight, they claimed that GM crops were "substantially equivalent" to their natural counterparts. But this concept does not hold up to scrutiny. The Royal Society of Canada described substantial equivalence as "scientifically unjustifiable and inconsistent with precautionary regulation of the technology." In sharp contrast to the FDA's position, the Royal Society of Canada said that "the default prediction" for GM crops would include "a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities." [11]

Fake safety assessments

Biotech companies do participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, but it is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Companies can submit whatever information they choose, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of their own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, states flatly, "It is clear that FDA's current voluntary notification process (even if made mandatory) is not up to the task of ensuring the safety of future GE [genetically engineered] crops." He says, "The FDA consultation process does not allow the agency to require submission of data, misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat." [12] Similarly, a Friends of the Earth review of company and FDA documents concluded:

"If industry chooses to submit faulty, unpublishable studies, it does so without consequence. If it should respond to an agency request with deficient data, it does so without reprimand or follow-up. . . . If a company finds it disadvantageous to characterize its product, then its properties remain uncertain or unknown. If a corporation chooses to ignore scientifically sound testing standards . . . then faulty tests are conducted instead, and the results are considered legitimate. In the area of genetically engineered food regulation, the åcompetentÇ agencies rarely if ever (know how to) conduct independent research to verify or supplement industry findings." [13]

At the end of the consultation, the FDA doesn't actually approve the crops. Rather, they issue a letter including a statement such as the following:

"Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements." [14]

The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London [15] describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said , "It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health." [16]

Promoting and regulating don't mix

The FDA and other regulatory agencies are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting themòa clear conflict. Suzanne Wuerthele, a US EPA toxicologist, says, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."

Canadian regulators are similarly conflicted. The Royal Society of Canada reported that, "In meetings with senior managers from the various Canadian regulatory departments . . . their responses uniformly stressed the importance of maintaining a favorable climate for the biotechnology industry to develop new products and submit them for approval on the Canadian market. . . . The conflict of interest involved in both promoting and regulating an industry or technology . . . is also a factor in the issue of maintaining the transparency, and therefore the scientific integrity, of the regulatory process. In effect, the public interest in a regulatory system that is åscience basedÇòthat meets scientific standards of objectivity, a major aspect of which is full openness to scientific peer reviewòis significantly compromised when that openness is negotiated away by regulators in exchange for cordial and supportive relationships with the industries being regulated." [17]

The conflict of interest among scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel is quite explicit. According to Friends of the Earth, "One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links, such as close involvement with major conferences organized by the biotech industry. Two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry. . . . Several members of the Panel, including the chair Professor Kuiper, have been involved with the EU-funded ENTRANSFOOD project. The aim of this project was to agree [to] safety assessment, risk management and risk communication procedures that would "facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position.Ç Professor Kuiper, who coordinated the ENTRANSFOOD project, sat on a working group that also included staff from Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta." The report concludes that EFSA is "being used to create a false impression of scientific agreement when the real situation is one of intense and continuing debate and uncertainty." [18] This parallels the deceptive faÁade at the FDA.

The pro-GM European Commission repeats the same ruse. According to leaked documents obtained by Friends of the Earth, while they privately appreciate "the uncertainties and gaps in knowledge that exist in relation to the safety of GM crops . . . the Commission normally keeps this uncertainty concealed from the public whilst presenting its decisions about the safety of GM crops and foods as being certain and scientifically based." Further, in private "they frequently criticize the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and its assessments of the safety of GM foods and crops, even though the Commission relies on these evaluations to make recommendations to member states. . . [and] to justify its decisions to approve new GM foods." [19] For example, the Commission privately condemned the submission information for one crop as "mixed, scarce, delivered consecutively all over years, and not convincing." They said there is "No sufficient experimental evidence to assess the safety." [20]

Evaluations miss most health problems

Although the body of safety studies on GM foods is quite small, it has verified the concerns expressed by FDA scientists and others.

The gene inserted into plant DNA may produce a protein that is inherently unhealthy. The inserted gene has been found to transfer into human gut bacteria and may even end up in human cellular DNA, where it might produce its protein over the long-term.

Toxic substances in GM animal feed might bioaccumulate into milk and meat products.

Farmer and medical reports link GM feed to thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals.

But there is not a single government safety assessment program in the world that is competent to even identify most of these potential health problems, let alone protect its citizens from the effects. [21]

A review of approved GM crops in Canada by professor E. Ann Clark, for example, reveals that 70% (28 of 40) "of the currently available GM crops . . . have not been subjected to any actual lab or animal toxicity testing, either as refined oils for direct human consumption or indirectly as feedstuffs for livestock. The same finding pertains to all three GM tomato Decisions, the only GM flax, and to five GM corn crops." In the remaining 30% (12) of the other crops tested, animals were not fed the whole GM feed. They were given just the isolated GM protein that the plant was engineered to produce. But even this protein was not extracted from the actual GM plant. Rather, it was manufactured in genetically engineered bacteria. This method of testing would never identify problems associated with collateral damage to GM plant DNA, unpredicted changes in the GM protein, transfer of genes to bacteria or human cells, excessive herbicide residues, or accumulation of toxins in the food chain, among others. Clark asks, "Where are the trials showing lack of harm to fed livestock, or that meat and milk from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs are safe?" [22]

Epidemiologist and GM safety expert Judy Carman shows that assessments by Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) similarly overlook serious potential problems, including cancer, birth defects, or long-term effects of nutritional deficiencies. [23]

"A review of twelve reports covering twenty-eight GM crops - four soy, three corn, ten potatoes, eight canola, one sugar beet and two cotton - revealed no feeding trials on people. In addition, one of the GM corn varieties had gone untested on animals. Some seventeen foods involved testing with only a single oral gavage (a type of forced-feeding), with observation for seven to fourteen days, and only of the substance that had been genetically engineered to appear [the GM protein], not the whole food. Such testing assumes that the only new substance that will appear in the food is the one genetically engineered to appear, that the GM plant-produced substance will act in the same manner as the tested substance that was obtained from another source [GM bacteria], and that the substance will create disease within a few days. All are untested hypotheses and make a mockery of GM proponentsÇ claims that the risk assessment of GM foods is based on sound science. Furthermore, where the whole food was given to animals to eat, sample sizes were often very low - for example, five to six cows per group for Roundup Ready soy - and they were fed for only four weeks." [24]

Hidden information, lack of standards, and breaking laws

Companies claim that their submissions to government regulators are "confidential business information" so they are kept secret. Some industry studies that have been forced into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests or lawsuits have been appalling in design and execution. This is due in part to the lack of meaningful and consistent standards required for assessments. Gurian-Sherman says of the FDA's voluntary consultation, "Some submissions are hundreds of pages long while others are only 10 or 20." [25] A Friends of the Earth report on US regulation and corporate testing practices states, "Without standardization, companies can and do design test procedures to get the results they want." [26] Regulators also reference international standards as it suits them. According to the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, for example, FSANZ "relaxed adherence to international standards for safety testing when that better suited the Applicant's submitted work, and imposed international standards whenever that was a lower standard than we recommended." [27]

Regulators also break laws. The declaration of GRAS status by the FDA deviated from the Food and Cosmetic Act and years of legal precedent. In Europe, the law requires that when EFSA and member states have different opinions, they "are obliged to co-operate with a view to either resolving the divergence or preparing a joint document clarifying the contentious scientific issues and identifying the relevant uncertainties in the data." [28] According to FOE, in the case of all GM crop reviews, none of these legal obligations were followed. [29]

Humans as guinea pigs

Since GM foods are not properly tested before they enter the market, consumers are the guinea pigs. But this doesn't even qualify as an experiment. There are no controls and no monitoring. Without post-marketing surveillance, the chances of tracing health problems to GM food are low. The incidence of a disease would have to increase dramatically before it was noticed, meaning that millions may have to get sick before a change is investigated. Tracking the impact of GM foods is even more difficult in North America, where the foods are not labeled. Regulators at Health Canada announced in 2002 that they would monitor Canadians for health problems from eating GM foods. A spokesperson said, "I think it's just prudent and what the public expects, that we will keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians." But according to CBC TV news, Health Canada "abandoned that research less than a year later saying it was "too difficult to put an effective surveillance system in place.Ç" The news anchor added, "So at this point, there is little research into the health effects of genetically modified food. So will we ever know for sure if it's safe?" [30]

Not with the biotech companies in charge. Consider the following statement in a report submitted to county officials in California by pro-GM members of a task force. "[It is] generally agreed that long-term monitoring of the human health risks of GM food through epidemiological studies is not necessary because there is no scientific evidence suggesting any long-term harm from these foods." [31] Note the circular logic: Because no long-term epidemiological studies are in place, we have no evidence showing long-term harm. And since we don't have any evidence of long-term harm, we don't need studies to look for it.

What are these people thinking? Insight into the pro-GM mindset was provided by Dan Glickman, the US Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton.

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if youÇre against it, youÇre Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on.

Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever "they" were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn't have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches." [32]

Fortunately, not everyone feels that questioning GM foods is disloyal. On the contrary, millions of people around the world are unwilling to participate in this uncontrolled experiment. They refuse to eat GM foods. Manufacturers in Europe and Japan have committed to avoid using GM ingredients. And the US natural foods industry, not waiting for the government to test or label GMOs, is now engaged in removing all remaining GM ingredients from their sector using a third party verification system. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will circulate non-GMO shopping guides in stores nationwide so that consumers have clear, healthy non-GMO choices. With no governmental regulation of biotech corporations, it is left to consumers to protect themselves.

To learn how to opt-out of the eating GMOs and to find non-GM alternative brands, visit www.responsibletechnology.org

New Book Genetic Roulette Documents Serious Health Dangers

The sourcebook for the Campaign is the newly released Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. With input from more than 30 scientists over two years, it presents 65 health risks of GM foods and why current safety assessments are not competent to protect us from most of them. The book documents lab animals with damage to virtually every system and organ studied; thousands of sick, sterile, or dead livestock; and people around the world who have traced toxic or allergic reactions to eating GM products, breathing GM pollen, or touching GM crops at harvest. It also exposes many incorrect assumptions that were used to support GM approvals. Organizations worldwide are presenting the book to policy makers as evidence that GM foods are unsafe and need to be removed immediately.

But we don't need to wait for governments to step in. We can make healthier choices for ourselves, our families, and our schools now, and together we can inspire the tipping point for healthier, non-GM eating in America. We believe that this can be achieved within the next 24 months.

*******

The GM crops sold in the US include soy (including soy lecithin used in chocolate and thousands of other products as an emulsifier), corn (including high fructose corn syrup), cottonseed and canola (both used in vegetable oil), Hawaiian papaya, and a small amount of zucchini and crook-neck squash. There is also alfalfa for cattle (the sale of which was halted by a federal judge on March 13, 2007), GM additives such as aspartame, and milk from cows treated with GM bovine growth hormone. There is not yet any GM popcorn, white corn or blue corn. And the industry is threatening to introduce GM sugar from sugar beets next year. To learn more, for online shopping guides and to find out how to get involved, go to www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

The Institute for Responsible Technology's plans to achieve the tipping point on GMOs through consumer education has inspired the Mercola.com Foundation to match donations and membership fees to the Institute at this time. Please help end the genetic engineering of our food supply by contributing to the implementation of this important project.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the newly released book, Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods. He is the director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, the international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception, and the producer of the DVD Hidden Dangers in KidsÇ Meals.

Notes

[1] "Monsanto Bribery Charges in Indonesia by DoJ and USSEC," Third World Network, Malaysia, Jan 27, 2005, http://www.mindfully.org/GE /2005/Monsanto-Indonesia -Bribery27jan05.htm.

[2] "Greenpeace exposes Government-Monsanto nexus to cheat Indian farmers: calls on GEAC to revoke BT cotton permission," Press release, March 3, 2005, http://www.greenpeace.org /india_en/news/details?item_id =771071

[3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, (Iowa: Yes! Books, 2003), 224.

[4] See Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)

[5] Dan Quayle, "Speech in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building," May 26, 1992.

[6] See Smith, Seeds of Deception; and for copies of FDA memos, see The Alliance for Bio-Integrity, www.biointegrity.org

[7] Steven M. Druker, "How the US Food and Drug Administration approved genetically engineered foods despite the deaths one had caused and the warnings of its own scientists about their unique risks," Alliance for Bio-Integrity, http://www.biointegrity.org /ext-summary.html

[8] Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March 6, 1992, http://www.biointegrity.org /FDAdocs/04/view1.html

[9] Linda Kahl, Memo to James Maryanski about Federal Register Document "Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants," Alliance for Bio-Integrity(January 8, 1992) http:// www.biointegrity.org.

[10] "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," Federal Register 57, no. 104 (May 29, 1992): 22991.

[11] "Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada" The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001.

[12] Doug Gurian-Sherman, "Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods," Center for Science in the Public Interest, http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf /fda_report__final.pdf.

[13] Bill Freese, "The StarLink Affair, Submission by Friends of the Earth to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel considering Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn," July 17-19, 2001.

[14] FDA Letter, Letter from Alan M. Rulis, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA to Dr. Kent Croon, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Monsanto Company, Sept 25, 1996. See Letter for BNF No. 34 at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd /biocon.html

[15] See for example, "Good Enough To Eat?" New Scientist (February 9, 2002), 7.

[16] "Health risks of genetically modified foods," editorial, Lancet, 29 May 1999.

[17] "Elements of Precaution," The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001.

[18] Friends of the Earth Europe, "Throwing Caution to the Wind: A review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops," November 2004.

[19] Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace, "Hidden Uncertainties What the European Commission doesn't want us to know about the risks of GMOs," April 2006.

[20] European Communities submission to World Trade Organization dispute panel, 28 January 2005.

[21] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007

[22] E. Ann Clark, "Food Safety of GM Crops in Canada: toxicity and allergenicity," GE Alert, 2000.

[23] FLRAG of the PHAA of behalf of the PHAA, " Comments to ANZFA about Applications A372, A375, A378 and A379."

[24] Judy Carman, "Is GM Food Safe to Eat?" in R. Hindmarsh, G. Lawrence, eds., Recoding Nature Critical Perspectives on Genetic Engineering (Sydney: UNSW Press, 2004): 82-93.

[25] Doug Gurian-Sherman, "Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods," Center for Science in the Public Interest, http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf /fda_report__final.pdf

[26] William Freese, "Genetically Engineered Crop Health Impacts Evaluation: A Critique of U.S. Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops and Corporate Testing Practices, with a Case Study of Bt Corn," Friends of the Earth U.S., http://www.foe.org/camps/comm /safefood/gefood/index.html.

[27] M. Cretenet, J. Goven, J. A. Heinemann, B. Moore, and C. Rodriguez-Beltran, "Submission on the DAR for Application A549 Food Derived from High-Lysine Corn LY038: to permit the use in food of high-lysine corn, 2006, www.inbi.canterbury.ac.nzlink

[28] EU Regulation 178/2002 (Article 30)

[29] Friends of the Earth Europe, "Throwing Caution to the Wind: A review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops," November 2004.

[30] "Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are?" CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006.

[31] Mike Zelina, et al., The Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops on San Luis Obispo County," A Citizen Response to the SLO Health Commission GMO Task Force Report, 2006.

[32] Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene CafÈ, St. Martin's Press, September 2001, pg 139.

Polish AG Minister still firm on GMO rejection

Pierwszy Portal Rolny, 10 October 2007.
Abstract/Translation Polish => English: Anna Witowska, Food & Water Watch Europe

Polish Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Wojciech Mojzesowicz met with the Food Industry Council and after being presented with samples of GM corn that is resistant to diseases - he still remains a GMO opponent.

Mojzesowicz said: "This corn looks nice but is it healthy? Somebody brought it here and just because somebody brought it to this meeting, I can't just believe it's good."

Polish government is not going to embrace GMOs and supports the project of banning all GM feed by August 2008. Currently, Poland imports 2 million tons of GM-soy. Representatives of Polish feed and animal industries are protesting.

Jan Krzysztof Ardanowski, Polish Vice-Minister of Agriculture, does not see a problem here. "The world has enough non-GM soy. For example, Ukraine has proposed to sell Poland needed 2 million tons of non-GM soy."

The experts from the Institute of Agricultural Economics disagree. They claim that only 5-10% of world's animal feed comes from non-GM soy.

EU criticises Sweden over transparency move

EUobserver.com, 10 October 2007. By Helena Spongenberg.

BRUSSELS - The European Commission has taken the first step of legal action against Sweden for having given public access to a confidential document ‚ a move that could ultimately see Stockholm defending its traditional policy of transparency in EU courts.

Late last month the commission sent a formal letter to the Swedish authorities asking for explanation as to why environment group Greenpeace in 2005 got access to a document about a new type of genetically modified corn feed to be launched by Monsanto - the world's leading producer of biotech seeds.

The information had on Monsanto's request been classified as secret by the Dutch government where it had handed in its application.

The commission then contacted Sweden after the biotech firm had complained that the leak could have damaged the company.

Greenpeace had been refused access to the report in the Netherlands and therefore turned to Sweden where - after taking the issue to the highest court - the NGO finally got the report from the Swedish Board of Agriculture - the government's expert authority in the field of agricultural and food policy.

Article 25

The EU executive referred to an article laid out in an EU directive for genetically modified organisms, which says that if an application with a request to market a biotech product has been classified by one member states, then this confidentiality must also count when other member state authorities take part in the application.

"Such a system would not function if different competent authorities would be able to have different standpoints in the matter of whether information would be treated confidentially or not," the commission argues in its letter, according to Swedish newspaper MedieV”rlden.

It is on these grounds that Brussels has asked Sweden to explain how it implemented the directive into national law; whether Sweden recognises decisions made by other member states concerning the directive and how they justify their own decision.

It is too early to say what the Swedish government will reply to the commission, Magnus Bl¸cher from the legal office of Swedish environment ministry told EUobserver.

He said the government is expecting an explanation from the agriculture board next week after which officials from the environment, justice and foreign affairs ministries will work together on an answer for Brussels.

Stockholm has until the end of November to reply to the commission's letter.

Swedish transparency

The principle of free access to public records in Sweden is very important, said Per HultengÂrd - freedom of expression expert at the Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association (TU).

It is part of Sweden's cultural, historical and legal background. It is very well established, he told this news-site.

Mr Hultengård argued that when dealing with public documents sent to the Swedish authorities from other countries they should be subject to Swedish law and sometimes that clashes with community law.

The issue was controversial when Sweden negotiated its EU membership in 1994, with Stockholm declaring several times that it would maintain the widest public access and that it would strongly defend this right.

"I assume the Swedish government will continue this position", Mr Hultengård said.

EU fails to agree on GMO potato

Agence France Presse, 10 October 2007.

BRUSSELS ó EU states on Wednesday failed to reach agreement on whether to authorise a new genetically modified potato.

Since July, the biotech industry has been awaiting an EU decision on an application by German chemicals giant BASF to approve the genetically modified (GMO) potato for use as animal feed.

However the proposal, which scientific experts from the 27 EU member states could not agree on, would also allow for a 0.9 percent tolerance for "adventitious presence" in the general food market.

That means the GMO potato could not be deliberately introduced into the human food chain but its accidental residual introduction could be tolerated.

After the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health returned "no definitive opinion" on the matter, the decision must now go up to EU ministerial level and if there is still no agreement within three months then the matter will fall back into the lap of the European Commission, the EU's executive arm.

A dozen EU member states voted against authorising the GMO potato -- Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovenia -- thereby ruling out the qualified majority required.

Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland and Portugal abstained in the vote.

The minority of countries in favour of authorising the potato were Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, If the decision is left by default to the Commission it will refer to the advise of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which found that it was "improbable" that the potato would harm human or animal health or the environment.

However, some environmental associations have criticised EFSA's findings and have warned that the potato has a gene resistant to certain antibiotics.

The potato was genetically engineered to produce more starch, which has industrial uses including making paper, glue or textiles.

But BASF wants to use the residue and skin in animal feed. If it does get the green light it will be the first genetically modified product allowed since the end of a moratorium in 2004.

EU: People Power?
Invitation to a workshop on science, participation and politics, 20th November

Demos and Greenpeace would like to invite you to take part in a workshop for European NGOs and others to share and learn from experiences of public participation in issues involving science.

Tuesday 20th November 2007, 11am - 4pm at Demos, Magdalen House, 136 Tooley Street, London, SE1 2TU

We have seen recently a new enthusiasm across the EU for public participation. In the UK, Citizens' Juries are being held up as a source of new political legitimacy. For issues involving science, it is now accepted that public engagement is important for policy-making. Recent policies on GM crops, hybrid embryos and nanotechnologies have all claimed to have involved some element of public dialogue.

But we are also seeing a credibility gap emerging. The UK's recent energy review attempted a public consultation with public events, but was called a 'sham' and many green groups including Greenpeace pulled out because of doubts about the real intentions of the process. It seems that participation can be used both to close down debate and to open it up.

Where does this all leave science, democracy and civil society? Does public participation undermine NGOs and scientists? Or does it empower them? How should NGOs deal with future issues, whether micro-generation, open source software, the ethics of stem cell research, clinical trials for drugs or synthetic biology, in a more democratic way?

Please join us for a workshop bringing together participation experts, scientists and NGOs. Lunch will be provided.

Attendees at this workshop will all participate. But the conversation will be prompted by speakers including the following

•

Doug Parr, Chief Scientist, Greenpeace UK

•

Robin Grove-White, Emeritus Professor, University of Lancaster

•

Richard Wilson, Director, Involve

•

Norbert Steinhaus, International Science Shop Network and the Citizen Participation in Science and Technology project

•

Jack Stilgoe, Senior Researcher, Demos

RSVP to jack.stilgoe@demos.co.uk

We hope to see you there

Grants are available for NGOs from the European Union to travel to the workshop. Please contact Jack to find out more.

This workshop is supported by the European Commission's Science, Technology and Civil Society project (www.peopleandscience.org), which looks for new research from dialogue between scientists and NGOs.

UK: Science is the pursuit of the truth, not consensus

Financial Times, 10 October 2007. By John Kay.

Michael Schrage's comment on politics and science (September 26) [see next article below] struck a raw nerve: and provoked an extended response from the president of the Royal Society. Lord Rees advocates that we should base policy on something called "the scientific consensus", while acknowledging that such consensus may be provisional.

But this proposal blurs the distinction between politics and science that Lord Rees wants to emphasise. Novelist Michael Crichton may have exaggerated when he wrote that "if it's consensus, it's not science, if it's science, it's not consensus", but only a bit. Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.

Consensus finds a way through conflicting opinions and interests. Consensus is achieved when the outcome of discussion leaves everyone feeling they have been given enough of what they want. The processes of proper science could hardly be more different. The accomplished politician is a negotiator, a conciliator, finding agreement where none seemed to exist. The accomplished scientist is an original, an extremist, disrupting established patterns of thought. Good science involves perpetual, open debate, in which every objection is aired and dissents are sharpened and clarified, not smoothed over.

Often the argument will continue for ever, and should, because the objective of science is not agreement on a course of action, but the pursuit of truth. Occasionally that pursuit seems to have been successful and the matter is resolved, not by consensus, but by the exhaustion of opposition.

We do not say that there is a consensus over the second law of thermodynamics, a consensus that Paris is south of London or that two and two are four. We say that these are the way things are. Nor is there a consensus on evolution since creationists will never be reconciled to that theory. There is no possibility of a compromise, in which Darwinians agree that a few animals went into the ark with Noah and their opponents acknowledge that most species evolved.

Numbers are critical to democracy, but science is not a democracy. If an evangelical Christian converted all members of the Royal Society to creationism, that neither would nor should affect my belief in evolution. Most scientists know no more about climate change, HIV/Aids or the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine than do most lawyers, philosophers or economists, and it is not obvious who is better equipped to assess conflicting claims on these issues. Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think.

It is easy to see why the president of the Royal Society might want to elide that distinction, but in doing so he turns the organisation from a learned society into a trade union. Peer review is a valuable part of the apparatus of scholarship, but carries a danger of establishing self-referential clubs that promote each other's work.

Statements about the world derive their value from the facts and arguments that support them, not from the status and qualifications of the people who assert them. Evidence versus authority was the issue on which Galileo challenged the church. The modern world exists because Galileo won.

But to use the achievements of science to assert the authority of scientists undermines that very process of science. When consumers believe that genetically modified foods are unsafe, mothers intuit that their children's autism is caused by the MMR vaccine and politicians assert that HIV/Aids is a first world conspiracy, the answer that the scientific consensus is otherwise does not convince - nor should it. Such claims are mistaken because there is no evidence for them, not because scientists take a different view: scientists should influence policy by explaining facts and arguments, not by parading their doctorates.

The notion of a monolithic "science", meaning what scientists ? say, is pernicious and the notion of "scientific consensus" actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of "scientific consensus".

If all the members of the Royal Society were converted to creationism, that would not affect my belief in evolution

www.johnkay.com

UK: Politicizing Science Should science be more political?:

Financial Times, September 25 2007. By Michael Schrage.

The great tragedy of science, Thomas Huxley once observed, is a beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact. The great tragedy of science today, complain its champions, is its ugly and polarising politicisation. "Global warming" sceptics are compared to Holocaust deniers. Researchers using embryonic stem cells are called "baby-killers". The left labels the right "anti-science" theocrats; the right says the left perverts science to serve its collectivist agenda. No beautiful hypotheses here.

Perhaps the tragedy, though, is not that science is too political – it is that science is not political enough. Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, scientific conflicts are increasingly too important to be entrusted to the scientists. Public policy would be significantly better off if scientists were treated with greater scepticism and less deference.

Public debate would be far better informed if scientists were pushed to make their work more accessible, self-critical and contextually aware of findings in complementary technical disciplines. Politicians in democracies should not hesitate to exploit publicly the inherent uncertainties and legitimate disagreements in scientific analyses on sensitive issues. Highlighting science's flaws – not unlike highlighting flaws in healthcare, national security and economic programmes – is good politics and even better policy.

Science as an enterprise may be objective; scientists as individuals are not. Anyone who has participated in peer reviews or research grant committees knows this. Scientists can be as vulgar, pigheaded and contemptuously dismissive of contrary evidence as any lawyer, civil servant, journalist or elite professional. Indeed, scientists who inject themselves into the white-hot centre of policy debate tend not to be famous for either modesty or understatement. They are, in every meaning of the phrase, "political scientists".

That is fine. An individual scientist deserves much the same standing in a science policy debate as would a parent or teacher in policy disputes over education. Institutionally, however, America's National Academies of Science, the UK's Royal Society and the acronymed jumble of United Nations agencies have increasingly abandoned traditional roles as science "advisers" in favour of actively lobbying for their quantitative models and scenario extrapolations to be public policy planning tools. In effect, scientific institutions have evolved into "special pleaders", as vested in the rightness of their recommendations as any influence-seeking industrial trade group or bar association. The "scientific objectivity" of their forecasts is achieved through negotiated committee consensus.

Unfortunately, most of these consensus declarations minimise methodological disagreements, competing interpretations and self-criticism. Judicial rulings by supreme courts may include two or three cogent dissenting views from the bench; elite science review committees typically do not. Are distinguished scientists less ideological and more objective about evidence than distinguished jurists? Hardly.

The core problem is fundamental confusion over scientific consensus in public policy. A scientific consensus on how to split the atom is not a policy consensus on which bombs or nuclear reactors to build; a scientific consensus around the origins and transmission of HIV/Aids is not a consensus about public health interventions; and scientific consensus about climate change is not policy consensus around carbon taxes or renewable energy. History teaches that culture, ethics, economics and, yes, politics overwhelmingly determine how scientific consensus ultimately translates into policy. Scientific consensus is overrated as a successful policy rationale. "Better science" – say, identifying gene markers for intelligence or violent behaviour – is as likely to incite political polarisation as promote policy consensus.

But to the extent rational people insist "consensus science" justifies brave new policies, they invite closer scrutiny of how that consensus was reached. Here science does not do well. Ask physicists, molecular biologists, meteorologists, climatologists or economists what rules define "consensus" in their respective disciplines. Their answers will disappoint. No scientific consensus exists about what constitutes a scientific consensus.

Not 20 years ago, the scientific consensus declared the human genome filled with useless "junk DNA". Today the emerging "consensus" insists junk DNA is useful after all. A century ago, elite scientific consensus said "eugenics" should determine the west's population, immigration and education policy. How sustained should the perceived scientific consensus be before multi-billion-pound, life-and-death public policies are fixed around it?

Science has been an extraordinarily successful project to understand and explain the world and the universe. Postmodern and deconstructionist critiques dismissing science as just another narrative are nonsense. But history – from Newton to Blackett to Watson and Crick – gives the lie to the notion that excellent public policy is found at the point where excellent scientists agree. The opposite is more faithful to the facts: the most interesting and important public policy debates emerge from where excellent scientists disagree.

Politicians should cheerfully exploit this ugly fact. Scientists will be more credible and persuasive not if they are less political but if their arguments are more accessible, more testable and, yes, more humble. Then again, that is just a beautiful hypothesis.

The writer, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has served on national scientific literacy and innovation committees

9 October 2007

GMO potatoes in the food chain? No, thanks!
Slow Food asks the European Commission for coherent and responsible action to protect consumers, not multinationals.

Slow Food press release, 9 October 2007.

GMO producers continue their onslaught despite the alarming opinions of environmentalists and repeated statements of disagreement from consumers.

Tomorrow the European Commission should make a statement regarding the possible authorisation of the use of GM potatoes invented by the German multinational BASF in animal fodder. Only the foliage would end up in the animals' mangers, while approval was granted to grow the tuber last July for the production of cellulose.

The dossier presented by the German multinational, requesting authorisation to use by-products directly in the food industry, has been temporarily obstructed due to the contrary opinion of many scientists who claim that the human body would risk becoming immune to commonly used antibiotics.

The matter under discussion tomorrow is therefore a sort of Trojan horse to obtain direct access into the human food chain through animal fodder.

Carlo Petrini was consulted during a brief trip to Germany, a country which has declared itself favourable to the introduction of the "superpotato" produced by the colossal German chemical company. This is what he said:

"When experimental cultivation of the Basf potato was approved, the response to our protests was to say the potato was grown for industrial purposes because amylopectin (production of which is facilitated by the GM potato) was only needed for paper production. But now our worst fears have come true and we are faced with political management of the EU that is heedless of its role as representative of the causes of civil society and instead acts as the multinationals' henchman". The chairman of Slow Food International added: "Once again, we strenuously request that decrees regarding the value of typical products, protecting the environment and the health of consumers should be followed up with coherent and responsible action from the European Commission".

Who owns broccoli?
Call against patenting of plants and animals

No-Patents-On-Seeds.org, 9 October 2007.

A year ago, farmers and development aid groups all over the world called for a halt of patents on plants and animals. The call was directed at the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office.

This call can now also be signed by indivuals, due to large demand. Please support this action for a world-wide prohibiton of patents on seeds and livestock. You can help by collecting signatures and sending them to the initiators (see below). The call asks political institutions and patent offices to act immediately in order to stop the patenting of plants and animals - especially conventional breeds.

Visit the following site for more information and to download the list of signatures:

www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Go to: "Der globale Aufruf"

Contact:

Ruth Tippe
Kein Patent auf Leben
Frohschammerstr. 14
D-80807 München
Germany
rtippe@keinpatent.de

Bulgaria puts higher stake on organic food

SofiaEcho.com, 9 October 2007.

Bulgaria's organic foods market is marking some serious growth in the past several years, according to recent reports in the local and international media.

Two parallel interests towards organic farming and its produce had been noticed, said an article on October 8 on the Organic-Market.Info web site.

One of them was of a group of customers with a so-called green mind, in other words people who wanted to be in control of their health, who valued the environment and the country's prestige. The other group in this process was a constantly growing number of farmers, who offer their organic produce on the market. According to Organic-Market.info most organic farms in Bulgaria were very small and ran less than one hectare. They often relied on investment from abroad and supply contracts with foreign companies. Currently, 90 per cent of all Bulgarian organic food is exported to wealthier European Union (EU) member states. In addition to the production from these small farms, large areas of wild land have been certified as organic to collect wild fruits, herbs and mushrooms. It was assumed that about 60 % of raw materials came from this wild collection. Organic rose oil, tobacco, wine and fruit growing were assumed to be of the highest potential for the country, the article said.

The Bulgarian laws on organic agriculture fully complied with the EU legislation and a serious part of the land in Bulgaria was suitable for such agriculture, according to Agriculture Ministry statement.

The ministry has promised to support organic farming and food processing with around 12.6 million euro in 2007 in order to boost the domestic market and gain market niche in the EU. The Bulgarian law on genetically modified organisms (GMO) is already restrictive which favours organic farming and prevents conflicts between organic and non-organic farmers, the article in Organic-Market.Info says.

USA: Bud maker denies GM accusations

FoodNavigator.com, 9 October 2007. By Neil Merrett.

Anheuser Buschİyesterdayİdeniedİclaims by environmental Greenpeace that batches of its beer, including the flagship brand Budweiser,İcontainİgenetically modified (GM) materials.

Greenpeace, pointing to independent laboratory testing, alleges that traces of a genetically engineered strain of rice known as "Liberty Link" had beenİfound inİbeer made at the company'sİeastern coast US breweries in 2006.İ

Liberty Link is a series of strains of GM riceİfrom Bayer CropScience. Some of the strains are banned in a number of markets around the world for human consumption,İbut not in the US.

The claims could come as a blow for the global brewer, particularly in markets like the EU, where GM use continues to be met with opposition from both legislators and campaigners over claims that long-term impacts are not known.

However, Doug Muhleman, Anheuser Busch's vice president of brewing, operations and technology told BeverageDaily.comİthat the allegations were "false and defamatory" and that no contamination had been found by the brewer.

"All of our products are made according to the highest quality standards and in complete compliance with the laws in each country where we sell our beers," he stated.İ

Muhleman said that in the US the vast majority of commercial crops like corn contain genetically modified material approved as being safe for human consumption by the government.

He conceded therefore, that with the group using US long grain rice for all domestic beer production, there may be "micro levels" of Liberty Link strains in the product. However, the GM strainsİare fully approved by the country's regulator for use in foods and drinks, he said.

Muhleman says that even in the chance that the GM rice may have been present during production, Liberty Link's proteins, like many other proteins, is significantly removed or destroyed by the brewing process.İ

"Liberty Link has not been found in any of our tests of our beers brewed in the United States," he stated.

Outside of its domestic operations though, GM use remains a contentious issue for food and beverage manufacturers, though Anheuser Busch claim it is confident that its international breweries were fully complaint with international laws.

"Neither [the company], nor our international licensed brewing partners use genetically modified ingredients, including genetically modified rice, in brewing products sold in any country with legal restrictions," Muhleman added.

The companyİsaid thatİit continually supports US farmers, resistingİcalls from Greenpeace toİboycottİGM crops. The company allegesİit is now facing retaliation for that stance from the environmental group.

However, Greenpeace claims that the Liberty Link rice was designated for test sites only and was never cultivated to be sold commercially.İ The organisationİadded thatİthe rice strain was still outlawed in most foreign markets despite being retroactively approved by the US Department of Agriculture.

Greenpeace said it was now calling on the brewer to commit itself globally to ensure all its beer ingredients were GM free, and to oppose the practice of growing rice products like Liberty Link in the US.

About 30 per cent of the 2006 of theİUS grain crop was contaminated byİthe LLRICE601 and LLRICE604İstrains of genetically engineered Liberty Link rice, originating from Germany's Bayer CropScience.

The strains, which areİlinked to increased herbicide tolerance, both contain a protein called PAT, which according to the USDA has been safely used on other deregulated products for over a decade.

Though the exact details of how the contamination occurred were unknown, the resulting furore severely damaged the reputation of US rice, with 63 per cent of the year's total export trade of the product being disrupted, Greenpeace said.

Due to Anheuser Busch's position as the largest single purchaser of American rice, Greenpace claims that the group had a repsonsibility to ensure it was fully aware of how it isİsourcing ingredients.

"Although Anheuser-Busch did not cause the genetic contamination of the rice, the company has a responsibility to their customers," the organisation stated.İ "It should have refused to purchase or use any rice contaminated by theİ[GM] strains."

8 October 2007

China: Biofuels drive could cause more harm than good

Ecologist Online, 8 October 2007.

China has announced a major drive towards the use of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel - just as another report pours more water on the idea that biofuels will end the energy crisis.

ChinaPower, a company run by the daughter of former Prime Minister Li Peng, has pledged to invest $1.3 billion in alternative fuels, much of which will go towards plantations of energy crops such as cereals and oily fruits.

The announcement comes as scientist and former Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen publishes a paper in the 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions' journal, showing that emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from the use fertiliser to grow energy crops has been heavily underestimated.

Together with international colleagues, Crutzen has showed that microbes in the soil actually turn some 3 - 5 per cent of the nitrate in the fertiliser into nitrous oxide, as opposed to 1 per cent as previously thought.

This has led the scientists to calculate that emissions of nitrous oxide, some 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, from growing rapeseed crops actually cause up to 1.7 times more global warming than the 'offset' effect caused by burning a supposedly 'carbon-neutral' fuel.

US lets Bayer off the hook for GM rice contamination

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 8 October 2007.

Brussels - The US authorities have failed to identify how unlicensed genetically modified (GM) rice seriously contaminated the food chain last August. Bayer CropScience, the company who owns the GM rice, will not face any legal action by the US government. Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on national governments and the European Commission to demand that the US urgently tightens up its safety procedures to prevent future GM contamination incidents.

Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe's GM Campaign Co-ordinator, said:

"Farmers, consumers and the food industry are still in the dark over how illegal GM rice got into our food because of the pathetically lax standards for regulating GM crop trials in the US. It's a scandal that Bayer will get off scot-free when hundreds of rice farmers have suffered severe financial losses and consumers around the world have been exposed to illegal GM ingredients. The European Commission must put pressure on the US to radically improve their procedures, as well as tightening up EU and national controls to ensure that future GM contamination incidents are prevented."

The investigation by APHIS [1], published on Friday evening (5th October), was launched in August 2006 after illegal GM rice was found to have contaminated commercial rice supplies. At the time, the variety (LLRICE601, owned by Bayer CropScience) was not approved anywhere in the world, but had been field tested in the US from 1998 to 2001. Contaminated rice was exported around the world and was discovered in all UK supermarkets. In Europe emergency laws were put in place to stop further contaminated rice being imported and to ensure it was removed from the market.

The investigation failed to discover how LLRICE601, and another rice variety (LLRICE604) also found to have caused contamination, entered the food chain. Key to this failure was the fact that vital records "had not been maintained and were not available". This included original maps showing the locations of the GM field trials and records showing that procedures to confine the trials had been followed – such as cleaning equipment and the dates of planting. This meant that the investigators had to rely on interviewing individuals to attempt to piece together what happened. Because of this lack of evidence, Bayer, who claimed the contamination was "an Act of God" [2], will escape any enforcement action. Hundreds of rice farmers, who suffered severe financial losses, will now have to pin their hopes on winning the law suits filed against the GM giant, which could take many years to resolve.

The USDA seems reluctant to address its failures and has admitted that future contamination incidents are likely to occur [3]. It has, however, identified some lessons learned and possible areas for tightening up controls of field trials [4]. These include whether records should be kept, increasing separation distances between GM trials and other crops and whether to require permit holders to have testing procedures available to identify unauthorised GM varieties in case of contamination.

Friends of the Earth is calling on the European Commission and UK Government to put pressure on the US to ensure that they urgently improve their controls on experimental field trials of GM crops, including:

•

Any country that exports food and feed crops or seeds to the EU must deliver a complete list of GM crops grown for commercial and experimental use in their country.

•

For each one, the relevant reference material to allow testing must be provided so countries can take steps to prevent unauthorised foods and feeds from coming onto the EU market.

•

A review of European controls (supported by the FSA) to ensure that unauthorised GM crops are not placed on the market. This should result in a new, proactive, system of identifying at-risk crops and countries, and routine monitoring at EU ports of entry for unapproved or mislabelled GMOs.

For more information, please contact:

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Mobile +32 485 930515, rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Helen Holder, Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth Europe GMOs campaign:
Mobile +32 474 857638, helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Notes:

[1] The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Investigative and Enforcement Services in coordination with USDA's Office of the Inspector General, focused on the unintentional release of trace amounts of regulated genetically modified rice detected in two commercial varieties of long-grain rice.

Press release:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/10/0284.xml

Report:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/10/content/printable/RiceReport10-2007.pdf

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101265.html

[3] Briefing Transcript:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?
contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/10/0285.xml
(Attention, long link may be broken! Please copy and paste both lines into browser)

[4] Lessons learned:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/10/content/printable/LessonsLearned10-2007.pdf

USA: wwwaaasssuuupp with Budweiser using GE rice to brew its beer?
Anheuser-Busch using experimental genetically-engineered (GE) rice to brew Budweiser

Greepeace press release, 8 October 2007.

Amsterdam - Greenpeace today released the results of analysis showing the presence of an untested experimental genetically-engineered strain of rice at a mill in Arkansas, in the United States, which is operated by Anheuser- Busch to brew its beer brand, Budweiser.

An independent laboratory, commissioned by Greenpeace, detected the presence of GE rice (Bayer LL601) in three out of four samples taken at the mill (1). The experimental GE rice is one of three rice varieties that were first found in 2006 to have contaminated rice stocks in the US. Since then, GE contamination has been found in approximately 30 per cent of US rice stocks.

This has had a massive negative impact on the US rice industry as foreign markets, where GE rice has not been approved, have been closed to US rice. (2)

"Anheuser-Busch must make a clear statement about the level of GE contamination of the rice used to brew Budweiser in the US and spell out what measures are in place to ensure this beer does not reach the company's export markets," said Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace International GE Campaigner.

"US beer drinkers need Anheuser-Busch to explain why it is not preventing use of this genetically-engineered rice in the US. If, as the company has informed Greenpeace, all of the Budweiser exported from the US or manufactured outside of the US is guaranteed GE free then Anheuser-Busch needs to state this publicly, and explain the double standard," said Stabinsky.

Greenpeace informed Anheuser-Busch of the test results prior to their release and sought clear information from the company on the extent of contaminationand its global policy on the use of GE ingredients. Anheuser-Busch responded that the rice is approved in the US and is not used in brewing Budweiser destined for export. The full extent of the contamination remains unclear, however.

LL601 GE rice was retroactively granted approval by the US Dept of Agriculture in an effort to reduce public concern and company liability despite 15,000 public objections.

The European Food Safety Authority stated that there was insufficient data to make a finding of safety. Greenpeace says that US consumers have a right to know if this GE rice is used to make Budweiser. This GE rice is not approved outside the US so the Budweiser brewed with it could not be sold abroad.

Anheuser-Busch is the largest single rice buyer in the US, buying 6-10 per cent of the annual US rice crop. Budweiser is one of only a few beers having rice as an ingredient. The brand is found in around 60 countries through a mix of exports and local brewing arrangements.

"We are asking Anheuser-Busch to make a global commitment to produce all of its beer GE free. Anything less will leave a bad taste in the mouth of Budweiser drinkers." said Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace.

Press contacts:

- Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace International GE Campaigner in Washington DC, + 1 2022857398

- Lindsay Keenan, Greenpeace International GE Campaigner, + 44 7726 103 406

- Omer Elnaiem, Greenpeace International Communications in Amsterdam, + 31 615093589?

Notes:

1) Test results are available on request.

2) See Greenpeace's briefing paper for full background on safety, science, markets and politics regarding the ongoing LL601 and other GE rice contamination cases.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/bayer-cropscience-contaminates

3) wwwaaasssuuppp? - Budweiser spoof video link In relation to Budweiser's use of genetically engineered rice to brew its beer Greenpeace has also released a spoof on one of their most famous TV ads. Have a look at the original first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L38wthA4Ld0

Now watch our version on Greenpeace TV:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/greenpeace-tv/?MM_URL=gptvbanner150

The Philippines: GMO critics hail court for Temporary Restraining Order on Bayer's application

Sun Star, 8 October 2007

KORONADAL CITY -- Religious leaders here hailed the recent decision of a Philippine court in issuing a temporary restraining order against the genetically modified rice produced by Bayer Crop Science, Inc.

Oblates of Notre Dame Sister Pat Babiera, justice and peace coordinator of the Diocese of Marbel, assailed Bayer for trying to introduce genetically modified rice variety Liberty Link 62 (LL62) in the country.

"Consistent with our advocacy stance for preserving the integrity of creation – we laud the temporary restraining order issued by a court stopping the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Plant Industry from approving the application of the genetically-modified rice Bayer LL62," she said in a statement.

Last month, Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 101 Judge Evangeline Castillo Marigomen favored the injunction sought by environmental group Greenpeace.

"With the unfavorable publications and debates these genetically modified organisms have spawned, it is but prudent that the approval of the application of [Bayer] be restrained in the meantime considering that rice is a staple on the dining table of the Filipinos," her decision reads.

The injunction petition, which Greenpeace filed August 23, questioned the apparent lack of public voice and public consultation on GMO approvals by DA and BPI, particularly in the case of Bayer LL62's application.

Sister Babiera said it is "very risky" to allow genetically modified rice in the country, especially since Filipinos are rice consumers.

"We do not know yet the hazards that it will produce in our rice biodiversity, environment, and well-being," she added.

Babiera expressed fears that once LL62 is approved for commercial propagation in the country, the Philippines, which imports rice, could become a dumping ground of genetically-altered rice rejected by other countries.

She said they opposed the entry of genetically modified rice in the Philippines since the effects of another transgenic crop, the Bacillus Thuringiensis corn, have not been fully determined.

"And now here comes the genetically-modified rice with [also] unknown implications on human health, biodiversity, food security and farmersÇ livelihood," the nun said.

Daniel Ocampo, Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner in Southeast Asia, said that if Bayer's application for LL62 is approved, "the entry of GMO rice in the Philippines will irrevocably alter the future of the FilipinosÇ most important staple food."

He said the group filed the petition also because Bayer's application "will put our rice under further control of greedy corporate interests."

LL62 is rice with DNA injected with genetic material from an entirely different organism to resist a powerful weed killer, glufosinate, also produced by Bayer.

Bayer reportedly filed the application with the BPI in August last year for the approval of its GMO rice in the Philippines.

It filed the application at the height of the biggest genetic contamination case concerning United States rice supply.

USA: GM Corn May Affect Aquatic Ecosystems, Indiana University Study Says

Indiana University press release, 8 October 2007.

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A study by an Indiana University environmental science professor and several colleagues suggests a widely planted variety of genetically engineered corn has the potential to harm aquatic ecosystems. The study is being published online this week by the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.

Researchers, including Todd V. Royer, an assistant professor in the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs, established that pollen and other plant parts containing toxins from genetically engineered Bt corn are washing into streams near cornfields.

They also conducted laboratory trials that found consumption of Bt corn byproducts produced increased mortality and reduced growth in caddisflies, aquatic insects that are related to the pests targeted by the toxin in Bt corn.

Caddisflies, Royer said, "are a food resource for higher organisms like fish and amphibians. And, if our goal is to have healthy, functioning ecosystems, we need to protect all the parts. Water resources are something we depend on greatly."

Other principal investigators for the study, titled "Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems," were Emma Rosi-Marshall of Loyola University Chicago, Jennifer Tank of the University of Notre Dame and Matt Whiles of Southern Illinois University. It was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Bt corn is engineered to include a gene from the micro-organism Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces a toxin that protects the crop from pests, in particular the European corn borer. It was licensed for use in 1996 and quickly gained popularity. In 2006, around 35 percent of corn acreage planted in the U.S. was genetically modified, the study says, citing U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

Before licensing Bt corn, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted trials to test its impact on water biota. But it used Daphnia, a crustacean commonly used for toxicity tests, and not insects that are more closely related to the target pests, Royer said.

Royer emphasized that, if there are unintended consequences of planting genetically engineered crops, farmers shouldn't be held responsible. In a competitive agricultural economy, producers have to use the best technologies they can get.

"Every new technology comes with some benefits and some risks," he said. "I think probably the risks associated with widespread planting of Bt corn were not fully assessed."

There was a public flap over the growing use of Bt corn in 1999, when a report indicated it might harm monarch butterflies. But studies coordinated by the government's Agriculture Research Service and published in PNAS concluded there was not a significant threat to monarchs. Around that time, Royer said, he and his colleagues wondered whether the toxin from Bt corn was getting into streams near cornfields; and, if so, whether it could have an impact on aquatic insects.

Their research, conducted in 2005 and 2006 in an intensely farmed region of northern Indiana, measured inputs of Bt corn pollen and corn byproducts (e.g., leaves and cobs) in 12 headwater streams, using litter traps to collect the materials. They also found corn pollen in the guts of certain caddisflies, showing they were feeding on corn pollen.

In laboratory trials, the researchers found caddisflies that were fed leaves from Bt corn had growth rates that were less than half those of caddisflies fed non-Bt corn litter. They also found that a different type of caddisfly had significantly increased mortality rates when exposed to Bt corn pollen at concentrations between two and three times the maximum found in the test sites.

Royer said there was considerable variation in the amount of corn pollen and byproducts found at study locations. And there is likely also to be significant geographical variation; farmers in Iowa and Illinois, for example, are planting more Bt corn than those in Indiana. The level of Bt corn pollen associated with increased mortality in caddisflies, he said, "could potentially represent conditions in streams of the western Corn Belt."

Once published, the paper will be available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0707177104v1. Reporters can obtain a copy of this article prior to its publication by contacting the PNAS News Office at 202-334-1310 or PNASnews@nas.edu. Reporters registered with PNAS's EurekAlert! can obtain the article through that service.

To speak with with Todd Royer, contact Jana Wilson, IU SPEA, at 812-856-5490 or wilsonjs@indiana.edu; or Steve Hinnefeld, University Communications, at 812-856-3488 or slhinnef@indiana.edu.

Contact: Steve Hinnefeld, slhinnef@indiana.edu, 812-856-3488, Indiana University.

7 October 2007

UK / Ireland / Canada: open letter to Shane Morris from the Soil Association

Dear Shane Morris,

As you requested, I have read the 'open letter' you sent me.

You say you did not try to close down any website, but simply "asked for defamatory allegations against me to be removed". I assume that these are the same "allegations" that you had yourself reproduced (the article and the title) some time ago on your own blog, saying at the time that the supposed author "still refuses to claim I committed fraud".

As you know, GM Watch did recently change the title that you now object to, without any admission of fault or liability, because it was the simplest way to get their site back up.

I understand that you also made legal threats against GM Watch's web host over what you considered "continued and persistent acts of defamation". This included their referring to you as a "lobbyist", their saying your research was "deliberately skewed", and their saying that they found the evidence you had presented for the "wormy sweet corn" sign having been removed unconvincing. Such statements you claimed were "defamatory untruths" and were made in breach of their web host's usage agreement. Yet I have not heard that the ISPs of other websites which have used identical - or even more robust - language have been asked to remove these statements. For instance, on three science sites you are in turn: described as a "lobbyist"; you are accused of "making untrue statements about the "wormy corn" sign being removed"; and your research is dismissed as "obviously rigged".

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiotechCanadaSLAPPScandal.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/would_you_eat_wormy_sweet_corn.php

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=50095

In addition, the current edition of the magazine Private Eye quotes a leading expert on research ethics at Cambridge University, Dr Richard Jennings, who describes your research as "flagrant fraud". The same article refers to your "heavy-handed libel threats".

The other group you have charged with defamation, GM Free Ireland, can answer you for themselves, but I understand that they did not apologise to you, despite a public statement you put out that implied that they did. I also understand that you wrote to them in August saying, in part: "You will note that the GM Watch website in the UK has been disabled. As a matter of urgency please remove the (sic) all the GM Watch material on GM Free Ireland's website that you have reproduced in connection with me.....If this is not done by close of business today, August 17, 2007, I will have to further instruct my legal representatives on the matter".

You may underestimate the impact that the threat of legal action by a Government employee has on small, voluntary organisations. I do not.

I am afraid that I am always reluctant to debate with people who resort to personal abuse, and I note that on your blog you said the following about Dr MacRae, after Dr MacRae stated that he had seen the 'wormy corn sign' at the farm store your original paper was about:

"has GMWatch (or their big funders) bought lies in Canada??? In a desperate attempt to gain creditability (sic) GMWatch has rolled out a anti-GM consultant, Rob McRae to contradict me. McRae is a long time paid lackey of Greenpeace. In a hilarious farce McRae claims, without any evidence, all sorts of things about his visits to Birbank Farms......Just shows that anyone can be bought...oh well, I ain't going to argue cos I'm sure he is 110% correct!!!(wink)".

I'm afraid I do not recognise this sort of personal abuse as part of a reasonable debate, nor the sort of behaviour the Canadian Government should be associated with.

In my letter to them, I asked the Canadian Government to do three things - disassociate itself from your paper, encourage the British Food Journal to withdraw your paper, and to disassociate itself from attempts by you as one of their employees to undermine the wishes of the democratically elected Irish Government. I still think it is reasonable to ask the Canadian Government to disassociate itself from your research and subsequent threats, given that your employment by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada suggests to me and others that you are speaking on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Melchett
Soil Association

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Shane Morris is an Irish citizen employed by the Canadian Government to sabotage Ireland's GM-free policy. His most recent intervention involved threats of libel action against GM-free Ireland for exposing his misleading "scientific" paper. Although his work has been widely discredited, his letters to the editor continue to be printed in the Irish Farmers Journal and other newspapers.

For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris

Peter Melchett's letter aBové was written in reply to the following from Shane Morris:

Dear Peter,

I hope you take the time to read this letter, as I am afraid you have been terribly misled.

Your recent suggestion in a letter to my employer (below) that I have "tried to close down one of the most respected websites dealing with information about GM, farming and food" is a lie. In fact, I simply and politely asked for defamatory allegations against me to be removed. As a scientist and a private citizen this is my right. The subsequent failure of others to remove defamatory comments and any actions taken thereafter by their internet service providers is hardly my business.

To equip you with all the facts I would add that the websites in question (i.e. GM WATCH and GM FREE Ireland) have removed their defamatory remarks and one has issued the following retraction that states:

Gmfreeireland.org would like to correct a claim previously made that Shane Morris made "fraudulent scientific claims". Gm freeireland.org acknowledges such a claim has no legal basis and would like to point out that:

- No findings of fraud were ever made by the British Food Journal in regards to the claims in the publication in question.

- The paper in question remains published as a valid piece of scholarly research.

- The academic award for the paper remains valid.

- A letter of explanation on the matter was published in the British Food Journal 2006 Vol 108, Issue 8 (accessed Sept 8, 2007)

Also your suggestions that I, as an Irish citizen, via the expression of my scientific opinion am "undermining the wishes of a democratically elected government", denies my democratic right to freedom of speech. This is something I find very surprising from you. Open democratic scientific debate may not be something you respect but it is something I and my trade union hold dear.

Kindest regards,

Shane Morris
(Private citizen and scientist)