NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • September 2007

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

30 September 2007

USA: rBGH-free trend sheds light on genetically engineered food
Kroger is latest company to ban use of controversial GE hormone in milk production

The Organic & Non-GMO Report, September 2007

When it comes to genetically engineered (GE) foods, most Americans eat in the dark. Surveys consistently show that a majority of Americans are unaware that more than 70% of processed foods they eat contain ingredients from GE corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton.

However, Americans are increasingly aware of one GE product in their food, and they don't like it. And the food industry is responding. Food retail giant Kroger recently announced that by February 2008 all its processed milk will be from cows not injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) or rBGH.

Tipping point

Kroger's announcement is the latest indication of an rBGH-free trend sweeping the nation's dairy industry. The number of dairies using the hormone is dropping dramatically. All milk produced in Oregon is now rBGH-free. Other rBGH-free dairy producers include Wilcox Dairy in Washington, Great Plains Dairy in North Dakota, Darigold Farms and Meadow Gold in Montana, Associated Food Stores in Utah, Sinton Dairy in Colorado, Promised Land Dairy in Texas, Kleinpeter Farms Dairy in Louisiana, Byrne Dairy in New York, Rutter's and Swiss Premium dairies in Pennsylvania, Garelick Farms in New Jersey, and H.P. Hood in Massachusetts. And these are just a few companies.

Major companies are banning the hormone. Dean Foods, the nation's largest dairy processor, has converted to rBGH-free production in several of its New England facilities, and grocery giant Safeway has done the same in Washington and Oregon. In May, Publix Super Markets, with 900 stores in the South - hardly a hotbed of anti-genetic engineering activism - went rBGH-free in its branded milk products. California Dairies, which produces 8% of the milk supplied in the US, banned the use of rBGH this past August.

The trend isn't limited to dairies. Starbucks plans to transition to rBGH-free milk in all its stores by the end of the year. Denver-based Chipotle Mexican Grill is serving only rBGH-free sour cream in all of its 530 or more restaurants.

Then there are organic dairy companies, who are required to not use genetically engineered products like rBGH. Organic milk is now nearly a $1 billion per year industry and growing 14% per year.

As Rick North, project director, Program for Safe Food at Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, says, "A helluva lot of dairies have gone organic or rBGH-free since 2002."

Like "steroids for athletes"

All these dairies are going rBGH-free for one reason: consumers don't want genetically engineered hormones in their milk. The dairies say they are simply responding to this demand. Kroger based its rBGH-free decision on customer feedback. Publix's director of media and community relations, Maria Brous, said, "We wanted our customers to enjoy the wholesome goodness of milk, without added hormones."

Consumers are also willing to pay more for milk labeled rBGH-free, according to several studies, including one published last year in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Controversy has surrounded rBGH, the creation of Monsanto Company, since it was approved by the FDA in 1994. An estimated 20% of dairy cows in the United States are injected with rBGH to increase milk production. While the FDA says the hormone is safe and doesn't affect milk quality, consumer groups claim that milk from cows injected with rBGH contains high levels of Insulin Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), which is considered a potent tumor promoter. A Canadian study found that rBGH significantly increased the risks of mastitis, failure to conceive, and lameness in cows. As a result, rBGH is banned in Canada and Europe. New Hampshire's commissioner of agriculture Stephen H. Taylor has likened rBGH to "steroids for athletes."

Misleading consumers?

Dairy producers inform consumers that their products are rBGH-free with label statements such as, "No rBGH in our products mean better and healthier cows" or "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones."

Monsanto despises the labels, has sued some companies that use them, and now wants the FDA and Federal Trade Commission to crack down on them. The company recently sent letters to the agencies stating, "For years now, deceptive milk labeling practices have misled consumers about the quality, safety, or value of milk and milk products from cows supplemented with rBGH." Monsanto goes so far as to claim that the rBGH-free labels "present a serious regulatory and public health concern."

Doesn't Monsanto realize that many consumers view rBGH as a "public health concern?"

North says Monsanto is complaining because the rBGH-free trend is hitting them where it hurts - the bottom line. "Monsanto is getting clobbered in the marketplace because dairies nationwide are going rBGH-free," he says.

Shedding light on GE foods

The rBGH-free trend is happening despite the fact that the US, unlike the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Norway, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries, doesn't require labeling of genetically engineered foods.

So, you won't find a milk carton with a label that says, "produced from cows treated with rBGH." US dairy processors that use the hormone prefer that consumers don't know.

Meanwhile, dairy processors and other companies committed to GE-free food production must resort to "negative" labels, which state that a product is "rBGH-free" or "non-GMO."

Monsanto and the majority of US food companies prefer that Americans continue to eat genetically engineered foods in the dark. They are afraid, and rightly so, that if a little light is shed on GE food, Americans will reject them, which is happening with rBGH.

"The more consumers know about this, the less they want it," says North.

Australia: Food shock as 'agflation' sees prices rise

The Age, September 30, 2007. By Stephen Cauchi.

IN THE 1970s it was "stagflation", the simultaneous combination of economic stagnation and high inflation. Now, in the noughties, we have "agflation" - price inflation of agricultural products, especially grains and related foodstuffs. Just last week, while announcing the Federal Government's aid package to drought-hit farmers, former deputy prime minister and Nationals leader John Anderson warned of a global food shock.

"This comes at a time of unprecedented concerns globally of very low grain stocks. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we will see a food shock in the next few years," said Mr Anderson. "We talk about oil shocks. We have gone on assuming that the supermarket shelves will always be loaded . this affects everyone from the farmers right through to those people who are dependent on countries like Australia to feed them."

It's a neat analogy. In the 1970s there was stagflation and oil shocks; in the 21st century, agflation and food shocks. Nor is it confined to Australia. "Bread leads the big food price hike" was the headline in London's Sunday Times earlier this month, detailing the doubling of grain prices and the flow-on from that: more expensive bread, pasta, noodles, barley and, because animal feed is grain-based, more expensive meat.

The Independent was even more bearish, headlining "The fight for the world's food": "Population is growing. Supply is falling. Prices are rising. What will be the cost to the planet's poorest?"

With agflation, economists are blaming the rocketing economies of India and China on the demand side; on the supply side, drought in the world's breadbaskets - possibly driven by climate change - and diversion of grain into biofuels in the United States are the main culprits. "As these two forces combine they are setting off warning bells around the world," said The Independent.

"It has even revived discussion of the work of the 18th-century British thinker Robert Malthus. He predicted the growth of the world's population would outstrip its ability to produce food, leading to mass starvation."

Terry Sheales, from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, said all grain-producing countries - Australia, Canada, the US and Europe - had suffered drought, cutting output. At the same time importers, such as Egypt, had placed early orders, spiking demand.

"The wheat situation is very serious, as you can see from how prices have escalated. They're about 30 per cent higher compared to last year," said Dr Sheales. "Stocks at the start of the year were pretty low, around 117 million tonnes, (and) overall the expectation is that stocks will be run down further."

Wheat supplies have hit a 26-year low, pushing prices to a record $US9.16 ($A10.35) a bushel last week. Despite the drought, an Australian crop of 13 to 14 million tonnes is tipped, which is better than last year.

The high price is a mixed blessing for farmers: those whose crop has withstood the drought will do very well, those without a crop won't having anything to sell.

But consumers are suffering, their plight worsened by shortages of other grains. The US decision to encourage biofuel made of corn has sent prices of that crop rocketing to $US157 ($A177) a tonne. That in turn has prompted farmers to grow corn at the expense of other crops, including soybeans, pushing up their price as well.

"We haven't had this emphasis on producing biofuels before. That's a new important added factor in the world grains market," said Dr Sheales.

Monash University economist Robert Brooks said: "A number of the large agricultural producers have been in drought conditions for a long time (but) the question that's triggered a lot of the agflation concern is fuel substitution."

Agflation was, however, "a new term for something that's gone around a bit". "Agricultural prices and production goes through cycles at different points in time . the extrapolation from that - the old Malthus stuff - has been proved wrong many times."

John Freebairn, of Melbourne University, said the American policy of encouraging biofuels was "rather stupid". "It's taking corn and wheat and sugar away from food so the price gets ramped up on consumers, and burning biofuels creates nearly as much greenhouse gas as burning petroleum."

But no economist The Sunday Age spoke to thought there was a looming catastrophe. Markets tend to be self-correcting, as high prices induce suppliers to produce more and encourage consumers to look for substitutes. "We went through this in the mid-'70s, where we had a big boost in prices and then prices went down again, especially in real terms," said Dr Sheales.

Professor Brooks said: "Most of the previous Malthus-style predictions have been proven wrong by significant technological improvements in agricultural production. GM (genetically modified) crops are just a continuation on a theme that's run for a long time. Anything that leads to a technological improvement in agricultural production deals with supply-side issues."

Nevertheless, according to the United Nations' most recent food report, of the world's 6.7 billion people, a billion are undernourished. The UN has two

hunger objectives, the World Food Summit Target and the Millennium Development Goal, which aim to halve the number of undernourished people to 500 million by 2015, from a world population of 7.4 billion. How much of a hurdle will agflation be?

If climate change really sets in, said Professor Freebairn, "it is going to require big changes in the way we organise food production". But that was not necessarily a problem. "The technological potential (of GM) is quite enormous (and) if food really went expensive we'd shift from resource-intensive meat products and become more fruit and vegetable types."

The major obstacle to feeding the developing world, he said, remained political and not economic. "If you look at China and India, I think you can be optimistic. if you look at Africa and Latin America it's easy to be pessimistic. They're just not going to get their economic house in order."

This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/29/1190486635630.html

29 September 2007

EU: CODEX Paving The Way For Safety Assessment Of Products With GM Low Level Presence

Medical News Today, 29 September 2007.

European industry representatives welcome the decision taken by the Codex ad hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology to advance a proposal addressing the risk assessment of low-level presence of biotech plant materials, found in food or feed, which have been authorised in one or more countries but not yet in the importing country. The decision follows negotiations by members of the Codex ad hoc Task Force meeting this week in Chiba, Japan. The proposal which will be submitted to the CODEX Commission next July for approval will be incorporated in the Codex Plant Guidelines as an annex including information-sharing mechanisms.

This system would not substitute the full food safety assessments under the Codex Guidelines for products to be marketed in an importing country. In addition, this work will not address risk management measures, so countries subsequently will need to decide when and how to use the guidelines within the context of their regulatory systems.

We congratulate CODEX as it looks to set the international standard for low level presence. Low level presence of GM material in food and feed is recognised to be a reality for global grain production, grain handling and food handling systems today under all conditions, including where good agricultural and manufacturing practices are rigorously applied. It is an issue that all countries face as part of international trade. Especially in Europe, failure to address this issue in a preventive way results in major trade disruptions which could lead to a dramatic drop of livestock production, job losses and a significant increase of price for meat products in the coming years in Europe according to a recent Commission report (1).

"The delays in approval of biotech products in Europe compared to the rest of the world as well the absence of a science-based approach to address low level presence is already leading to trade disruption and seriously impacting the supply of feedstuffs." said Johan Vanhemelrijck, Secretary General of EuropaBio - the EU association for bioindustries. He continued, "Moreover, this unresolved issue that bears no relationship with safety is having a damaging effect on public confidence towards biotech products. In light of the Codex decisions, we hope that the EU will revisit its "zero tolerance" policy towards low level presence, speed up its approval process and define the appropriate science-based approach so that European food and feed supplies are secured",

It is important that this issue be addressed in a globally consistent way to ensure that all countries have an equal opportunity to trade food and feed materials freely with one another.

Currently 10.3 million farmers, across 63 countries are either growing or experimenting with 57 different GM crops. The vast majority of these farmers are in the developing world.

(1) EU Policy on Low-Level Presence of GM in Agricultural Commodities: Issues and Scenarios for European Farm Operators, Feed and Food Companies and Consumers
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/gmo/economic_impactGMOs_en.pdf

(2) Joint Industry Reference Document
http://www.europabio.org/articles/Final%20Low%20Level%20Presence%20Reference%20and%20Key%20messages.pdf

A low level presence of genetically modified materials in food which has been produced according to accepted agricultural and manufacturing practices is called "adventitious presence."

Due to increasing numbers of biotech plants developed and authorized for commercialization around the world, products from biotech plants may be incidentally present at low levels in shipments between producing and importing countries.

While the agricultural biotechnology industry is committed to seeking regulatory authorizations in countries with functioning authorization processes and which import significant amounts of the crop in which a biotech product has been introduced, those approvals are not reviewed or obtained simultaneously in all countries.

As such, and despite the application of good agricultural and manufacturing practices by operators in the agri-food chain, more and more countries are going to face the challenge of low-level presence of biotech plant materials that have been authorized as safe in one or more countries but not in the country of import.

Due to the vast infrastructure dedicated to moving grain from farms to consumers around the world, adventitious presence is virtually inevitable, even in the most stringent identity preservation systems.

About EuropaBio

EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, has 85 direct members operating Worldwide, 12 associate members and 5 bioregions as well as 25 national biotechnology associations representing some 1800 small and medium sized enterprises involved in research and development, testing, manufacturing and distribution of biotechnology products. http://www.europabio.org

About Codex

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

More about the Codex ad hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology see here. http://www.europabio.org

___________

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Contaminate first, leglislate later, control the food chain, and rule the world.

28 September 2007

Ireland: Calls to expand as Cork declared GM-free zone

Irish Examiner - Cork edition, 28 September 2007. By Eoin English.

CORK has been declared a genetically modified (GM) food- and crop-tree zone.

City councillors voted this week, 13 to nine, in favour of a Green Parts' motion to promote and maintain the city as a GM-free zone. The decision fol- lows similar motions adopted by Bantry and Clonakilty last year. Minister of State for Food and Horticulture Trevor Sargent said the move will help protect the economic interest of Ireland's food and farming future as a clean, green, GM-free food island.

Leading chefs and restaurateurs welcomed the decision.

"This is fantastic for Cork city," Darina Allen said. "Let's follow-up by declaring the whole of Co Cork as a GM-free zone."

Seamus O'Connell, presenter of the Soul Food TV programme, head chef at the Parknasilla Hotel and owner of the Ivory Tower restaurant, said he was proud that the city in which he lives "has stood up to the agribusiness gombeens".

Giana Ferguson of Slow Food Ireland, which protects and promotes local GM-free food and gastronomic traditions, also backed the decision.

Friends of the Irish Environment co-ordmator Tony Lowes, who is based in Allihies on the Beara Peninsula, welcomed the move as a step forward.

"GM seeds or crops would contaminate Ireland's ecosystem in perpetuity. Cork city's protective measure should be extended as soon as possible to the whole of Co Cork, in order to protect its unique biodiversity and national parks."

The motion was tabled by Cllr Chris O'Leary, who said the decision sends a strong message of support for Cork's food producers, food processors, restaurants and hotels, and will help position this whole area as an eco-tourism destination.

GM-free Ireland co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan congratulated the council, and urged all town and county councils to declare themselves GM-free zones.

GM crops are totally or partially banned by nine governments, along with 236 regional governments, local authorities, and 4,500 smaller areas in 22 EU member states, and Switzerland.

GM-free Irish zones include counties Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan, and Westmeath, the District of Newry & Mourne, and the towns of Bantry, Bray, Clonakilty, Cork city, Derry, Galway city, Letterkenny, and Navan, along with 1,000 smaller areas, representing more than one million citizens on both sides of the Border.

USA: Feeding the World Without Genetic Engineering

Press release, Kansas State Universuty, 28-Sep-2007

The work of a Kansas State University professor is challenging the assumption that genetically engineered plants are the great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population.

Newswise - The work of a Kansas State University professor is challenging the assumption that genetically engineered plants are the great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population.

Jianming Yu, an assistant professor of agronomy, is teaming with Rex Bernardo, a professor of agronomy and plant genetics at the University of Minnesota, on research with marker-assisted selection. This agricultural technology offers a sophisticated method to greatly accelerate classical breeding through genetic analysis and selection of existing natural diversity in various crops without having to resort to alien species. Currently, marker-assisted selection has been a routine in many private seed companies with large-scale fingerprinting, global germplasm assessment and comprehensive bioinformatics support.

Yu's and Bernardo's research is focused on breeding methodology, finding more efficient ways to breed better varieties of corn, sorghum, wheat or barley that yield higher, require less irrigation and are resistant to diseases in farmers' fields. The pair's work was recently published in an edition of the scientific journal Crop Science.

"With abundant molecular markers that can be routinely processed with modern genomic technology, we found it is more efficient to focus on selection based information all across the genome rather than the traditional way of genomic regions containing signals that pass a threshold," Yu said.

Their research is "a result of our constant deliberation of how to incorporate modern genomic technologies into breeding process, a more general term as genomic-assisted plant breeding, which differs from what scientists have been doing -- using markers to guide the introgression of single or multiple disease resistance genes," Yu said.

"The traditional way is to identify genome regions that show significant information," he said. "The new way is to consider all information genomewide. In other words, we strategically shifted the focus from finding the most interesting genome areas to considering all information simultaneously. This is critical, especially given that most of traits with agricultural importance are controlled by many interacting genomic regions and their individual effects are relatively small."

Yu and Bernardo plan to conduct experiments with sorghum in Kansas and maize in Minnesota.

"It will provide breeders, public or private, a powerful tool to advance their breeding practices," Yu said.

Note from GM Watch:

For more on Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS) see:

The Acceptable Face Of Ag-biotech
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/monsantomaspossibilities.htm

This crop revolution may succeed where GM failed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1931467,00.html

Nature Biotechnology paper must be retracted

Andrew Marshall
Editor, Nature Biotechnology
New York office

28th September 2007

Dear Andrew,

PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
Ref: Nature Biotechnology 25, 981 - 987 (2007) GM soybeans and health safety - a controversy reexamined http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt0907-981.html

Further to our letter of 17th September, we understand that you have now offered Dr Ermakova space for the publication of a letter in the pages of Nature Biotechnology in which she can outline her grievances against the methods employed by you and your journal, and address some of the issues raised by the self-appointed "reviewers" who set out to destroy her reputation. In our view this is an entirely unsatisfactory recompense for the deliberate and cynical damage which you have done to Dr Ermakova's good name, since you will reserve the right to edit whatever she may say, and since a letter will have virtually no status academically and will have no interest as far as the media are concerned. An effective way of "closing down" the issue........

This miserable business has distinct echoes of the sinister happenings of 2002, when your sister publication "Nature" published a peer-reviewed and important paper by Quist and Chapela on GM maize contamination, and then retracted it following sustained and intense pressure from the GM industry and from parts of the GM research community. That was an unprecedented and thoroughly distasteful episode which did immense damage to Nature's good name (1). Afterwards Philip Campbell, the Editor, sought to justify the retraction on the grounds of a "technical oversight" by the journal which led to the mistaken publication of a flawed paper (2).

Well, in the current case we have a whole series of "technical oversights" which have led "Nature Biotechnology" to publish an article which was written by the Editor of the journal and which would not have been out of place in the cheapest tabloid newspaper.

It should never have seen the light of day. To remind you:

1.

Was it through a technical oversight that you allowed four of the best-known apologists for the GM industry to have "free space" in the pages of "Nature Biotechnology" for a premeditated attack on Dr Ermakova, whose findings they happened to find distasteful?

2.

Was it through a technical oversight that you connived with them to induce Dr Ermakova to outline her findings in response to your questions, and then to publish their not-attributed responses? (I remind you that their comments were published as "joint comments" for which no particular person took responsibility, which were presumably not subject to a review process of any sort, and which were quite probably ghost written in any case?)

3.

Was it through a technical oversight that Dr Ermakova was never told the names of the four men who were out to destroy her reputation, and was never shown their comments prior to publication?

4.

Was it through a technical oversight that some of Dr Ermakova's key references were removed from the article and replaced by 20 new references brought in the bolster the case made by the four GM industry spokesmen?

5.

Was it through a technical oversight that in the correspondence we have seen, Dr Ermakova was clearly given the impression that this was to be "her" article, and was then sent a proof (the only proof she saw) which had her name on it as author?

6.

Was it through a technical oversight that she was advised by your colleague Dr Kathy Aschheim that she would not accept a paper from Dr Ermakova for consideration and peer review on the grounds that it would be more appropriate for another journal, while at the same time you were pressing on with the publication of a "feature" devoted to the destruction of her scientific reputation?

We have outlined the full story of this catalogue of lies and deceit here: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/rottweiler.htm

Possibly the most serious instance of professional malpractice we have ever seen relates to the "dummy proof" which you sent to Dr Ermakova on 20th August 2007. We gather that you have explained this away as down to a "mistake" in your office. We cannot accept that, and none of the scientists with whom we have had contact has ever encountered such a blatant example of malpractice before.

If the above instances of "technical oversight" were indeed down to administrative errors within your office, that does not say much for the efficiency and competence of you and your staff. If they were down to a deliberate and predetermined strategy to destroy the academic reputation of Dr Ermakova (and that is indeed our interpretation) that is without doubt a resigning matter.

We therefore ask you immediately to retract the paper which you published. If a retraction was deemed by your publishers to be appropriate in the case of the Quist and Chapela article in 2002, it is infinitely more appropriate in this case. We look forward to your confirmation that this will be done.

We also ask that in your retraction statement you give a full apology to Dr Ermakova for the manner in which she has been lied to and misled, and for the damage done to her reputation. We think you should specifically apologize for the dummy proof.

You should also give the aggrieved scientist space in a future edition of the journal (and not just in a letter) to defend herself and to answer the ill-considered and inaccurate points made by Giddings, Chassy, McHugh and Moses. The article should be published as a feature, with Dr Ermakova as the named author, with the following words at the head of the article: "Through an oversight the author was not given the names of her critics or shown the comments on her work before they were published. Nature Biotechnology has therefore offered her this opportunity to respond to them."

We imagine that Dr Ermakova and the rest of the "GM community" would be happt to see a further commitment to publish letters that you might subsequently receive (from scientists who may wish either to support or criticise her work) in the normal way.

We know that Dr Ermakova been advised to seek legal redress for the damage done to her reputation through the publication of your article, and no doubt matters will become clearer on that account in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru

(1) http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/ v414/n6863/abs/414541a0_fs.html
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE3/Chapela-Transgenic-Maize-Oaxaca- Nature29nov01.htm
http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/June_2002/ Food_fight.asp

(2) http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit6.html

Note from GM Watch:

It's been drawn to our attention that the Quist/Chapela article in "Nature" in 2002 was never formally "retracted" or "withdrawn" by the Editor, although he did use the word "retract" himself in later correspondence. At the time Philip Campbell said, in response to the brutal lobbying of the GM apologists: "In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper." The journal's response, involving the publication of two critiques of the original article, was widely interpreted by the media as having been feeble, confused, and highly influenced by political and commercial considerations rather than scientific ones.

Ireland: City bans genetically modified food and crops

Irish Examiner, 28 September 2007. By Eoin English.

CORK has been declared a genetically modified (GM) food and crop free zone.

City councillors voted this week in favour of a Green Party motion to promote and maintain the city as a GM-free zone.

The Minister for Pood and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent, said the move will help protect the economic interest of Ireland's food and farming future.

Leading chefs and restaurateurs welcomed the decision.

Seamus O'Connell, presenter of the Soul Food TV programme, head chef at the Parknasilla Hotel, and owner of the Ivory Tower restaurant, said he was proud the city in which he lives "has stood up to the agribusiness gombeens".

Giana Ferguson of Slow Food Ireland also backed the decision.

Friends of the Irish Environment co-ordinator Tony Lowes, who is based in Alihies on the Beara Peninsula, welcomed the move as a step forward.

"GM seeds or crops would contaminate Ireland's ecosystem in perpetuity. Cork city's protective measure should be extended as soon as possible to the whole of County Cork, in order to protect its unique biodiversity and National Parks."

The motion was tabled by Cllr Chris O'Leary, who said the decision sends a strong message of support for Cork's food producers, food processors, restaurants and hotels, and will help position this whole area as an eco-tourism destination."

GM crops are totally or partially banned by nine governments, along with 236 regional governments, local authorities, and 4,500 smaller areas across 22 EU member states, and Switzerland.

GM-free Irish zones include counties Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan, and Westmeath, the District of Newry & Mourne in counties Armagh and Down, and the towns of Bantry, Bray, Clonakilty, Cork City, Derry, Galway City, Letterkenny, and Navan, along with 1,000 smaller areas, representing over one million citizens on both sides of the border.

Canada / UK / Ireland: Corn fakes

Private Eye, No. 1194, 28 September-11 October 2007

Heavy-handed libel threats on the part of a biotech researcher have done little to silence criticism of a scientific paper claiming that shoppers prefer GM produce.

Published in the British Food Journal three years ago, the paper was based on the findings from a Canadian farm store where customers were offered a choice of GM or non-GM sweetcorn. The four researchers concluded that 50 percent more people opted for the GM crop. The journal branded the study its "most outstanding paper" of the year.

Alas, the paper did not disclose that above the non-GM corn was a sign asking shoppers: "Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?", while the GM crop was signed: "quality sweetcorn." The Canadian journalist who originally uncovered the story said there had been pro-GM literature in the shop, but nothing from GM's critics.

UK campaign group GM Watch published a photo of the wormy sweetcorn sign under the title 'Award for Fraud'. Following its expose, in May last year, the New Scientist carried demands from a researcher on scientific ethics at Cambridge University that the British Food Journal withdraw the paper.

The journal's editor refused, although he did print a letter condemning the paper alongside one from one of its authors, Douglas Powell of Kansas State University, dismissing the allegations. Powell said the signs were only up for a week, contained the language of consumers and were "not intended to manipulate consumer purchasing patterns".

Then, last month another of the paper's authors, Canadian government analyst Shane Morris, threatened a libel action against GM Watch's internet service provider.

Morris said the wormy signs had been taken down long before he joined the research team on 27 September 2000. He put two photos on his blog that he said showed the "wormy" sign had been removed and replaced.

But a computer scientist who saw the images disputed this. And a Toronto-based food policy expert, Dr Rod MacCrae, who visited the shop on September 27 2000, told the Eye: "All I can tell you is that a wormy corn sign looking very much like the one in GM Watch's photo, was there at the farm the day I visited."

Dr Richard Jennings, who lectures on scientific practice at Cambridge University, is adamant the paper should have been withdrawn. "The case is a flagrant fraud, as far as I see it. It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed." But then, if the researchers had disclosed the wormy corn labels, would any respected scientific journal have published it?

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 (see next two items below).

For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris

27 September 2007

Ireland: GM technology gives more options

Irish Farmers Journal, 27 September 2007 (dated 29 September)

DEAR SIR,

As someone who in 1997 organised the first Irish public debate on GM crops, it is interesting to see the hardened anti-GM lobby remain closed minded to the scientific facts. Even though Professor Paddy Cunningham, the Irish Chief Science Adviser, is featured in the Irish Farmers Journal saying there are no known health concerns to GM food, we still have Nick Cullen and Con Cremin making scaremongering claims on GM food. It is reassuring to see, however, that Mr Cremin has moved from providing inaccurate and false scientific claims to providing inaccurate and false personal attacks, a sure sign of his weak argument. I am no fan of patents but I find it strange that Mr Cremin cites the Percy Schmeiser case as Mr Schmeiser clearly found GM traits quite attractive as evident by the Supreme Court of Canada ruling (paragraph 87) that states:

'Mr Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres (4.2 km) of Roundup Ready (GM) Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000.'

Mr Cullen's statement that 'All independent published studies have found reason for concern with GM products' is wholly incorrect. One example is that of German Government researchers from the Federal Institute of Organic Farming and the Institute of finimal Nutrition who published a study in the peer-reviewed journal, Animal Feed Science and Technology, stating: 'In agreement with more than 100 animal studies available to date, results [from 18 German Government studies] show no significant differences in the nutritional value of feeds from GM plants of the first generation in comparison with non-GM plant varieties. To date, no fragments of recombinant DNA have been found in any organ or tissue sample from animals fed GM plants' (Flachowsky et al, 2007). Agriculture innovative technologies provide farmers with options in today's constantly shifting market conditions.

GM technology is one such technology and, ultimately, farmers will have to make their own decisions on the adoption of such innovation into their own practices. However, those who wish to force their beliefs onto all Irish farmers, often based on scientific disinformation, do so at the expense of others' freedom to farm.

Shane Morris
6 Coolkill, Sandyford, Dublin 18 /
Woodford Way, Ottawa, ON Canada

Ireland: GM food claim is grossly misleading

Kilkenny Voice, letters to the editor, 28 September 2007. (Published 27 September)

[Photo of Noel Dempsey with caption: "Positive: Noel Dempsey says there should be no risk to health or the environment from GM organisms"]

Dear Editor,

JOHN Heney's suggestion that there is a current campaign to "literally force GM food down the throats of unwilling and unsuspecting Irish consumers" (The Kilkenny Voice, Sept 7,2007) is grossly misleading.

Minister Noel Dempsey, in 1999, spent time and Irish tax payers' money to hold a public consultation on GMOs, headed by no less than the Right Hon. Dr Turlough O'Donnell, Q.C, Member of the Law Reform Commission, and former Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland and former Chairman of the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. An RTE news cast on October 9, 1999, stated:

"The Minister for the Environment, Noel Dempsey, has said that, 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. Noel Dempsey has accepted as government policy a report published today, which rules out a ban on crop trials in this country, but stresses the need for full labelling of GM foods.

"The report also said that it would not be legally possible to ban trials of such crops here. The report also warns that, if Ireland rejects or ignores biotechnology, it will not remain attractive to investors in high-tech industries or competitive in food production.

"This report had been compiled by the chairing panel for the Government's first ever national debate on GMOs held earlier this year. The debate dealt with the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, mainly through crops. Its conclusion is 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."

The question that should be asked is: Did Noel Dempsey, in his discussions with the Greens, forget the conclusions of his own tax payer-supported public consultations?

Yours etc,

Shane Morris
6 Coolkill,
Sandyford,
Dublin 18.

Africa: Alliance for a Green Revolution - a Blunt Philanthropic Arrow

Fahamu (Oxford), 27 September 2007. By Nnimmo Bassey.

Rather than proposing techno-fixes to problems of agricultural development in Africa, donors could better assist in the development of rural infrastructure such as roads and water supplies, and education to empower the younger generation in the study of useful science. African farmers, along with peasants around the world, are seeking respect for their right to decide on what to plant and how to plant it, as well what to eat and how.

It is a common saying that when a man has a hammer in his hand every problem appears to be a nail. It takes a wise man to know that a hammer is just one of the tools in the craftsman's box. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made money from technology. It is understandable that they should think that problems can always be solved with a technological fix. Nor is it surprising that the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations should plan to jointly plough $150,000,000 into their so-called Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Tragically, the biotech solutions proposed by AGRA are likely to deepen rather than solve problems of hunger, poverty and malnutrition in Africa.

The Gates Foundation has recently taken on scientists from the biotech industry. It is expected to fund projects in areas such as biotechnology to improve seeds and crop yields; fertilizer, irrigation and other farm management systems; access to markets; and advocacy for improved agricultural policies. They may claim otherwise, but the idea of AGRA is anchored around agricultural modern biotechnology or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Yet, genetically modified crops, on the admission of the US Department of Agriculture, do not give better yields than conventional crops. In addition, the plan's entire framework would turn African farm practices on their heads, wiping out local knowledge and creating more poverty, hunger and strange new diseases.

What is not being said is that people are not going hungry today because of insufficient food production. Indeed, it is generally agreed that there is enough food in the world to meet everyone's basic needs. An action plan adopted in March by ministers of the Economic Community of West African States admits that food production in West Africa has doubled over the last 20 years and that only 19 per cent of food needs are met from imports.

So what is the real reason behind the emphasis on biotechnology? The biotech industry has invested hugely in attempts to penetrate Africa - through food aid channels and other channels of assistance, as well as through commercial routes. However, the food aid channel blew up in the face of the industry and that of the World Food Programme in 2002 when Zambia rejected genetically modified corn as food aid.

AGRA's biotech thrust is wrong-headed: rather than solving problems of hunger and poverty in Africa, it will deepen them. Genetically modified crops create dependence on chemicals such as herbicides as some varieties are engineered to be herbicide tolerant, which often leads to the emergence of super-weeds. Efforts at popularising GMOs have been carried out by both USAID and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in circles that have excluded critical opinion. Wherever contrasting views have been elicited, local people and farmers generally reject this technology. AGRA's suggestion that Africa needs a 'green revolution' does not appear to have considered the many pitfalls of that revolution.

Efforts at introducing GMOs in Africa have so far yielded poor returns. To take just one example, that of cassava engineered to overcome the cassava leaf mosaic disease. This has so far failed. There are already non-GM varieties that do withstand the disease. Why waste resources that could be better used to strengthen agricultural production in Africa, drawing on the rich pool of local knowledge and ensuring food sovereignty, as demanded by farmers and civil society groups at the recent forum in Selingue, Mali? Africa is not seeking handouts in order to improve its agricultural production systems. And certainly not a push towards a so-called green revolution baptised in chemical fertilizers and other imported inputs. African farmers, along with peasants around the world, are seeking respect for their right to decide on what to plant and how to plant it, as well what to eat and how.

Agriculture means far more than the mechanical multiplication of seeds. It is the basis of the African's life. It provides the platform for cultural, religious, economic and even political relations. If the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations wish to extend the hand of fellowship to the African continent, they should move away from strategies that favour monoculture, lead to land-grabs, and tie local farmers to the shop-doors of biotech seed monopolies. Instead, they can assist in the development of rural infrastructure such as roads and water supplies, and education to empower the younger generation in the study of useful science.

This article was first published in Alliance [http://www.alliancemagazine.org/]

Nnimmo Bassey is Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria. http://www.eraction.org

EU: Cereal import duties could be suspended

Just-Food.com, 27 September 2007. By Monica Dobie.

Article summary:

The European Commission looks set to put forward a plan to suspend duties on cereal imports. EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel will shortly propose suspending EU import duties on cereals for the current marketing year - until June 30, 2008.

Read the article (requires subscription): http://www.just-food.com/article.aspx?ID=99845&lk=dm

Ireland: Cork City becomes a GMO-free zone
Minister for Food and Horticulture backs move
Top chefs and restaurants welcome recipe to protect food quality and traditions

GM-free Ireland press release, 27 September 2007.

The City of Cork is now a GMO-free zone, following a motion by Cork City Council on Monday which declares the area off-limits to the release of genetically modified seeds and crops. The decision follows similar motions adopted by Bantry and Clonakilty last year.

The Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent, said the move will help to protect the economic interest of Ireland's food and farming future as a clean green GM-free food island.

The City Council's decision was hailed by leading chefs and restaurateurs. "This is fantastic for Cork City", said Darina Allen, of Ballyamaloe Cookery School and Slow Food Ireland, adding "Let's follow-up by declaring the whole of Co. Cork as a GM-free zone".

Seamus O'Connell, presenter of the Soul Food TV programme, head chef at the Parknasilla Hotel, and owner of Cork's famed Ivory Tower restaurant, said "I am proud that the city in which I live and work has stood up to the agribusiness gombeens. It would make our children and grandchildren even prouder if Ireland as an island could have the vision to follow suit, create a haven for pure GM-free seeds and produce, and lead the way in research and management of the same".

Giana Ferguson of Slow Food Ireland, which protects and promotes local GM-free food and gastronomic traditions, also backed the decision. After hearing the news at her Gubeen Farm in Schull (famed for its organic cheese and vegetables and GM-free charcuterie), she said "We are delighted and proud of Cork City Council for taking this vital step to protect the future of Cork's artisanal food producers". Jaques and Eithne Barry of Jacques Restaurant said: "We are extremely pleased at this good news. Let's hope it helps us all to realise that Slow Food is better than fast food!"

Friends of the Irish Environment co-ordinator Tony Lowes, who is based in Alihies on the Beara Peninsula, welcomed the move as a step forward. He said "GM seeds or crops would contaminate Ireland's ecosystem in perpetuity. Cork City's protective measure should be extended as soon as possible to the whole of County Cork, in order to protect its unique biodiversity and National Parks."

The motion was tabled by Green Party Councillor Chris O'Leary, who said "this decision sends a strong message of support for Cork's food producers, food processors, restaurants and hotels, and will help position this whole area as an eco-tourism destination."

GM-free Ireland co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan congratulated the City Council, and urged all Town and County Councils to declare themselves as GM-free zones without delay, to support the Government's policy goal to declare the whole island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone, in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly.

GM crops are totally or partially banned by nine Governments, along with 236 Regional Governments, Local Authorities, and 4,500 smaller areas across 22 EU member states, plus Switzerland. GMO-free zones on this island of Ireland so far include Counties Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan, and Westmeath, the District of Newry & Mourne in counties Armagh and Down, and the towns of Bantry, Bray, Clonakilty, Cork City, Derry, Galway City, Letterkenny, and Navan, along with 1,000 smaller areas, representing over 1 million citizens on both sides of the border.

The WTO and the European Commission claim that national and regional blanket bans on GM crops are illegal. But an EU-wide campaign is underway for the European Commission to recognise the democratic legal right of member states and local authorities to have the final say in whether GM seeds and crops may be released in their areas.

Related links:

GM-free Ireland Network: http://www.gmfreeireland.org

GM-free zones in Ireland: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/map

GM-free zones in Europe: http://www.gmofree-europe.org

Contact:

Michael O'Callaghan
GM-free Ireland Network
Tel + 353 (0)404 43885
mobile: + 353 (0)87 799 4761
email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
web: http://www.gmfreeireland.org

EU: Back to the Commission for GM maize approval

FoodNavigator.com, 27 September 2007. By Alex McNally.

The European Commission will now make the final decision on whether to allow three new GM maize's onto the EU market after agricultural ministers failed to reach a majority vote in Brussels yesterday.

The stalemate highlights continued concern over GMs in Europe, and ministers are not yet won over to allowing them onto the market. The final approval will now go to the Commission to decide on later this year.

The Agriculture and Fisheries Council met to vote on whether to give the final authorisation for 59122 (Herculex), and the hybrids1507xNK603 and NK603xMON810 to come onto the market.

Previously all three had been given a favourable opinion by the European Food SafetyAuthority (EFSA) which is in charge of assessing GM products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

The three products were seeking to be placed on the market to cover all uses except cultivation.

The issue of GM approval within the EU is one of the most contentious in agriculture. Many Member States, and millions of European consumers, remain steadfastly against the introduction of GM food. But despite the stringent controls in place, it is becoming harder for Europe's regulatory authorities to deny market access to certain GM products. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was the WTO decision last year that the EU and six member states had broken trade rules by barring entry to GM crops and foods.

The world trade organisation agreed with the United States, Argentina and Canada that an effective moratorium on GMO imports between June 1999 and August 2003 had been put in place. And although Brussels again began authorising imports of GMOs in May 2004, only seven crops and foods were given the green light. Further bans were imposed by France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and Greece.

A Commission spokesperson said that for Wednesday's meeting they were unable to "disclose more information as far as the vote is concerned" when asked by FoodNavigator.com.

It is clear that Member States still need to be convinced that introducing genetically modified ingredients into food production is acceptable. The Commission has asked EU members over ten times to vote on authorising a GM food or feed product, but in the large majority of cases, there was no agreement or simple deadlock.

Luxembourg, Greece and Austria have in the past been some of the more staunch opponents consistently vote against GMO approvals.

The strains discussed yesterday are all said to be insect resistant and herbicide tolerant and were submitted by Pioneer Hibred and Mycogen for 59122 (Herculex) and 1507xNK603 and from US firm Monsanto Company for strain NK603xMON810.

Monsanto won permission last year to import and market three of its genetically modified maize types across the EU for 10 years.

The three products are GA21, a herbicide-resistant maize; MON 863, modified to be resistant to the corn rootworm insect and a hybrid cross between MON 863 and another Monsanto maize strain MON810. The strains were aimed to resits corn rootworm among other insects, which has earned the nickname the "billion-dollar pest" as the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that this pest causes $1 billion in lost revenue annually to the US corn crop alone.

The Agriculture and Fisheries council meeting was also due to discuss milk, wine and sugar production.

UK: Against the grain: 'Economics, not common sense, drives GM crops'
Dr Michael Antoniou argues that genetically modified crops are dangerous and unnecessary

The Independent, 27 September 2007. Interview by Nick Jackson.

Genetic modification technology is a great research tool but it's crude. Some scientists claim that GM is just an extension of natural evolution, a development of cross-breeding, but this is, technically, totally inaccurate. The way genetic modification has been used to manufacture GM crops causes thousands of changes in the DNA of the plants' cells, variations of a different quality and quantity to cross-breeding.

Some of these are benign, but some are going to disrupt one or more functions of the plant. So it may now be herbicide resistant, but unable to stand heat, its nutritional value may be lowered, known toxins increased, or even new toxins introduced into the plant.

This mutagenic effect is well known, research by the Food Standards Agency has found such disturbances in the patterns of gene function, but at the moment we are being too selective about what we are looking for, so the health consequences are completely unknown. The risks of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment are widely accepted.

In the research I do using genetic modification there are regulatory requirements that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are only used in "contained use" conditions and are genetically crippled, so they cannot escape and interact with the environment. It's totally bizarre that these rules do not apply for the same kind of technology used in GM crops. What we are seeing here is the irresponsible releasing of GMOs in to the environment with unknown consequences. GM crops are not performing as expected: GM cotton suffered cotton ball and root problems while GM soya has shown consistently lower yields than non-GM equivalents.

And animal feeding studies have shown the potentially damaging effects of soya, maize and potatoes. GM potatoes have caused intestinal lesions; GM soya has caused liver cell changes and premature death in the young; GM maize has caused problems with the kidneys and the blood system. Mechanistically, we do not know why this is happening or what the consequences for human health are, but there are clear physiological changes that have been recorded. Once out there we cannot contain it.

We don't need GM crops. Crop genetic diversity is enormous and can be exploited through natural cross-breeding aided by modern genetic screening technologies. The problems we have in agriculture are social and political. What is driving GM crops is economics.

Germany: Eco-test finds GMOs in soy products including baby food and organics

GN-Free-world, 27 September 2007.
Message sent by Christiane L¸st, Aktion GEN-Klage, Germany
Abstract and translation: Giuseppina Pagano, Food & Water Watch

This is the result of a test carried out by the German magazine "Focus".

33 soy products were tested (3 packages of each product). In two thirds of all products tested there was at least one package per product that contained GMOs.

The highest value was found in powder food for babies with cow milk allergy.

It has not been sufficiently demonstrated yet what the exact impacts of GMOs are on human health. However, GMOs are under the suspicion of triggering allergies or even promoting antibiotic resistance, as many plants are engineered to be resistant to antibiotics.

Read the article: http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/news/oekotest_aid_133726.html

USA: Monsanto corn technology approved for innovative crop insurance program
Risk premiums could be up to 24 percent lower for farmers in four-state pilot

PR Newswire, 27 September 2007.

ST. LOUIS - A new pilot program recently approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) will provide farmers an opportunity to pay lower premiums if they plant a majority of their corn acres using hybrid seeds that feature YieldGard Plus(R) with Roundup Ready(R) Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple(TM) technology from Monsanto Company.

The insurance product will be offered as a pilot program in cooperation with Western Agriculture Insurance Company and will be called the Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE). Western Agriculture Insurance will make the program available to all other approved insurance providers to offer to their farmer customers.

The pilot program will be initially available in four states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota. Implementation of BYE has yet to be determined pending available resources and priorities for the deployment and administration of the program by the Risk Management Agency (RMA).

To be eligible for the program, a farmer must plant 75 to 80 percent of their corn acres with seeds featuring YieldGard Plus with Roundup Ready Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple technology. Refuge requirements must also be respected. Depending on the grower's production history, amount of coverage purchased and other criteria, the farmer may be able to reduce the yield component of their premium up to 24 percent.

"As a technology provider, our goal is to create technologies that help farmers consistently deliver better yields, manage their production risk and capture more value from their corn fields," said Robb Fraley, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto Company. "This program recognizes the consistently high yields that farmers using our technologies are able to deliver. We're pleased farmers will be able to take advantage of this new insurance product."

Under adverse conditions, Monsanto "triple stack" technologies, or seeds that feature three biotechnology genes, have exhibited higher yields and lower yield risk than conventional hybrids without the technology. These triple stack technologies are widely available to farmers and can be purchased through more than 250 corn seed companies that license the technologies.

According to 2006 harvest figures from the National Corn Growers Association, the four pilot states accounted for more than 50 percent of the corn acres harvested for grain in the United States. In 2007 there were more than 90 million acres of corn planted overall, representing the largest crop since 1944.

Monsanto Company is a leading global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity and food quality. For more information on Monsanto, see http://www.monsanto.com.

Global enzyme growth driven by innovation

NutraIngredients.com, September 27 2007. By Lorraine Heller.

The global market for food and beverage enzymes is forecast to slow but remain strong, resulting mostly from expanding markets and applications, according to a new report by The Freedonia Group.

World Enzymes says the market will reach almost $1.2bn by 2011, following annual growth of almost eight percent.

The report divides the food and beverage enzyme market into three main categories: dairy, bakery and 'other food and beverage'.

In the dairy market - the largest category for food enzymes - the ingredients are used mainly for the production of cheese and the removal of lactose. However, this sector is expected to see only "moderate gains". In contrast, bakery enzymes will continue to post above average growth, along with other smaller applications such as fat and oil processing.

In the food and beverage industry, processors use enzymes as a 'natural' way to improve production efficiency, as well as food quality and consistency.

For example, they can be used as processing aids, where they may be directly involved in food transformation as with the use of chymosin for cheese production, or indirectly involved as with the use of pectinase for fruit juice clarification. Enzymes may also be added to processed foods to enhance certain characteristics or to act as flavor modifiers.

Although the report does not provide a break-down of the different enzymes within the food and beverage categories it examines, it nevertheless considers all of the major enzymes used by the industry today, said Freednoia analyst Ned Zimmerman.

These include naturally-occurring rennet enzymes, synthetic rennet enzymes (or chymosin), and lactase in the dairy sector, as well as amylase, lipase and xylanase in the bakery sector. In the 'other' sector, Freedonia includes protease (for meat, fish and high protein goods), pectinase (for fruit and vegetable products), lipase (for oilseed extraction), and a number of enzymes for alcoholic beverage production, such as alpha amylase, beta amylase and glucoamylase.

Zimmerman told FoodNavigator-USA.com that although the report does not examine enzyme prices, there is an overall trend of downward pricing pressures.

This is because of increasing competition, increasing consolidation in the food and beverage industry, particularly in developed regions, and constant pressure from customers to keep prices down, he said.

According to Freedonia, the use of enzymes allows food and beverage processors avoid using traditional chemical additives viewed as 'artificial' by consumers.

However, another challenge faced by food companies is a growing consumer resistance to any GMO-derived ingredients, and this is forecast to restrain market growth as processors "proceed cautiously", says the report.

The same concerns have led to a resurgence in demand for naturally-sourced enzymes, that can avoid the "GMO stigma". For example, in the case of the dairy enzyme chymosin, which is used to coagulate cheese, the natural enzyme in the form of rennet (derived from calves' stomachs) has experienced a resurgence in popularity in several parts of Western Europe, including Germany, said Freedonia.

The new report reveals that one primary driving force for growth of enzymes is expanding demand from manufacturers seeking more effective ingredients for specific applications.

However, Freedonia notes that enzymes that have undergone some form of optimization to improve performance or properties - such as stability at higher temperatures or greater activity at lower temperatures - cannot exist in a naturally-derived version.

"Such enzymes are inherently derived from GMOs, and despite their great value and usefulness, would also be considered undesirable food ingredients by many consumers," writes the report.

Freedonia's new report, which examines the global market for enzymes used in all industries, is divided into two main sectors: Specialty Enzymes - which includes pharmaceutical, diagnostic and biocatalyst enzymes - and Industrial Enzymes - which includes food and beverage enzymes, and enzymes for detergents and bioethanol.

The total food and beverage enzyme market makes up just under 40 percent of the Industrial Enzyme category, which in turn constitutes 57 percent of the overall enzyme market.

The leading global enzyme manufacturer is Novozymes, which holds 26 percent of the total enzyme market and 46 percent of the industrial enzyme market.

Other enzyme producers are Danisco, Genzyme, Roche, Allergan, DSM, and BASF, with a combined 36 percent share of the market.

26 September 2007

EU: Biotech maize blocked in Europe

Associated Press, 26 September 2007

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM - Agriculture ministers from 10 EU countries on Wednesday blocked approval of three genetically modified varieties of maize for use on the European market, reflecting continued deep divisions among EU nations over whether biotech crops pose a risk to human or animal health.

The products had been given the all-clear by the EU's food safety authority, EFSA, which said they would not have adverse effects on health or the environment.

Diplomats said Austria, Malta, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg voted against, while France and Italy abstained, ensuring a deadlock. Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden led the group of biotech crop supporters.

The failure to reach agreement means it will be left to the EU's executive commission to approve the three products, which it is expected to do in the coming weeks.

Two of the GM crops were jointly developed and marketed by U.S. companies Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., a division of Dupont Co., and Mycogen Seeds.

Their maize products are designed to resist insects like the corn rootworm and be tolerant to herbicides. The third maize product, developed by U.S. biotech firm Monsanto Co., is also insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant.

All three products are meant to be used in food and animal feed production but not used for cultivation in the EU.

The European Commission has been trying to get all EU governments on side to open up the EU market to more biotech crops, something the United States, Canada and others have demanded.

The EU ended a six-year moratorium on accepting applications for new biotech products in May 2004, introducing strict approval procedures and labeling regulations, but several EU nations remain reluctant to authorize biotech crops because of public health and environmental concerns.

EU: Biotech lobbies against environmental protection laws

The Ecologist, 26 September 2007.

The GM industry is lobbying against EU directive which would make polluters pay for damage caused to biodiversity and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, a leading protester has revealed.

Writing in the Guardian's 'Society' supplement, GeneWatch researcher Becky Price reports that biotech companies have lodged complaints against closing two loopholes in the proposed Environmental Liability Directive (ELD).

The first loophole would allow a biotech company whose crop had caused environmental damage to claim that they had obtained a 'permit to release' the organism, and the second, that the state of scientific knowledge at the time of the crop trial did not predict a dangerous outcome.

'If the biotech companies have confidence in their industry,' writes Price, '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?'

Since the ELD would only legislate against 'significant adverse effects' upon species, Price argues that the new lobbying indicates a fear within the biotech industry itself over the potential harm its products may cause.

UK: GM industry should put its money where its mouth is

The Guardian, Wednesday September 26, 2007. BY Becky Price/

One of the big issues around the introduction of GM crops is people's lack of trust in biotechnology companies. During the farm-scale evaluations, representatives of companies such as Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto attended hundreds of meetings in village halls and told the British public that genetically modified crops and foods were safe, that they should not be scared of new technology. The people who attended those meetings are entitled to be puzzled. Why is the industry now refusing to take responsibility for the safety of their products?

In 2004, the EU signed up to a new environmental liability directive (ELD), the main aim of which was to make the polluter pay for damage caused to biodiversity and protected nature sites. Many of the arguments during its development have been about the definition of environmental damage and under what circumstances the polluter would actually have to pay. The directive is now in the process of being incorporated into UK law by the government. There has been a first consultation, and the government's response is expected soon, with a second consultation on technical aspects of implementation. The government's initial reluctance to go beyond the minimum requirements was widely criticised by MPs, regulators and environmental groups. It now seems likely that ministers will give more weight to the environment - for example, by including harm to nationally important sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs).

However, biotech companies are fighting hard to keep two important loopholes in case GMOs cause environmental harm. They would be able to argue that, first, they held a permit to release the GMO and, second, that the state of scientific knowledge did not predict a harmful outcome at the time the crop was planted. Allowing these defences would mean that the taxpayer, not the company, would pay if GM crops damaged a protected site or species.

And this is where we are confused: the industry has spent 10 years trying to win over a distrustful public, and yet in the latest Europe-wide opinion poll on biotechnology, 52% of people in the UK still oppose GM crops (Eurobarometer 2005). 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?

The ELD covers only serious harm to important habitats and species - for example, "significant adverse effects on reaching or maintaining the favourable conservation status" of an already protected species. Furthermore, it would have to be demonstrated that the harm was caused by a specific GM crop. Under the European regulations on GM crops, applicants must also submit a monitoring plan that should identify any "unexpected" problems at an early stage.

GeneWatch can conclude only that, despite the rhetoric, the biotech industry - as shown in a recent report by the UK's Central Science Laboratory - recognises that we don't yet fully understand the long-term, cumulative effects of GM crops on our environment. It appears to be happy to tell us that its crops are safe, but not to put its money where its mouth is.

- Becky Price is a researcher with GeneWatch UK

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

EU ministers deadlocked on three GMO maize approvals

Reuters, 26 September 2007. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS - EU farm ministers fell short of a consensus agreement on Wednesday to allow imports of three genetically modified (GMO) maize types, again revealing their deep differences on GMO crops and foods, officials said.

The three biotech maize types, two of them hybrids, would be imported for processing, for all food and feed uses. They are not meant to be cultivated within the 27-country European Union. Since the ministers failed to achieve the required majority under the EU's weighted voting system, the decision now passes to the European Commission, which should issue a rubberstamp authorisation according to EU legal procedures.

This usually means a 10-year default approval is issued within a few weeks, although EU officials said the authorisations might take a little longer this time.

"There was no change in the positions ... the authorisations revert to the Commission for a final decision," a Commission official told reporters on the margins of the meeting.

"The Commission will in the coming weeks revisit the issue and take a decision. It may take a couple of months," he said.

The first GMO maize, known commercially as Herculex RW and also by its code name 59122, is jointly made by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co. (DD.N: Quote, Profile, Research), and Dow AgroSciences (DOW.N: Quote, Profile, Research) unit Mycogen Seeds.

Herculex is designed to protect against larval stages of corn rootworm, which eats through plant roots and so reduces yield and nutrients. It also resists the active herbicide ingredient glusofinate ammonium.

The same two companies also developed a maize hybrid called 1507/NK603, engineered to resist field pests like the European corn borer, and also the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate. Corn borers, which attack the plant stalks and kernels, are found across Europe and thrive in warmer climates in southern EU countries such as Spain and Italy.

The third GMO maize is also a hybrid, developed by U.S. biotech company Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and called MON810/NK603. The maize plants resist certain insects and also glyphosate -- the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Industry urges quick approval

For many years, EU countries have not been able to gain the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval under the EU's weighted voting system. But that may be slowly changing. Analysis of recent GMO voting patterns shows that the consistent blocking minority of EU governments may be eroding as some smaller countries are opting to abstain rather than reject an application outright -- so weakening the anti-GMO camp. "It is heartening that the great majority of member states representing a large and significant majority of the EU population are consistently voting positively for approving biotech products that have been evaluated as safe by the EFSA (EU's food safety authority), said Mike Hall, Pioneer's communications manager for Europe.

"We urge the Commission to move swiftly in giving the final approval ... so that European farmers can import grain and other products containing these safe biotech events," he said. Some countries, like Britain, Finland and the Netherlands, almost always vote in favour of approving new GMOs. They are offset by a group of GMO-sceptic states like Austria, Greece and Luxembourg, which vote against and force a stalemate.Ý

Argentina Pampas Crops Threatened By Glyphosate-Resistant Weed

Dow Jones Newswires, September 26 2007

BUENOS AIRES -(Dow Jones)- Glyphosate-resistant weeds have spread throughout much of Argentina's Pampas, threatening to drive up the cost of growing soybeans and other crops genetically modified for resistance to the herbicide, Daniel Ploper, plant pathologist for the national food and animal health inspection service, or Senasa, in Tucuman Province said Wednesday.

"Isolated cases have been confirmed in Salta, Tucuman, Corrientes, Santiago del Estero, Cordoba and Santa Fe provinces," Ploper said. The glyphosate- resistant weed, known as sorghum halepense, or "Johnson Grass," had previously been confirmed only in Salta and Tucuman provinces.

The government has launched a number of projects to control the spread of the weed, including the use of herbicides other than glyphosate and attempting to mandate cleaning of harvest machinery to prevent spreading the weed between fields, Ploper said.

In addition, Cordoba province Congressman Alberto Cantero introduced a bill this week aimed at eradicating the glyphosate-resistant weed.

Last year, some 120,000 hectares were effected by the resistant weed, according to Cantero. "The invasion is developing rapidly and we are possibly in the beginning phases of the (widespread presence) of this plague," Cantero said in the bill.

The spread of the resistant Johnson Grass could increase agricultural production costs by 500 million to 3 billion Argentine pesos ($160-$950 million) per year, according to Cantero. Combatting the strain will require the use of 25 million liters of herbicides other that glyphosate each year, he said.

"This could double herbicide costs in the effected areas," Senasa's Ploper said.

Around 98% of Argentina's soy crop comes from seeds developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto Company (MON). The soybeans have been genetically modified to resist the herbicide Roundup, generically known as glyphosate. The herbicide is applied to eliminate competing plant species and thus increase output per hectare.

In addition, at the end of August the government approved Monsanto's bundled MG and RR2 transgenic corn seed variety for planting in the 2007-08 season. The seeds are genetically modified to produce a substance toxic to corn borer parasites and for glyphosate resistance.

Monsanto has a small amount of the seeds ready for this year's crop, which will be used to test the technology, Monsanto Argentina spokesman Federico Ovejero said.

The company claims the new variety may boost corn yields by 5-7%. The seeds are expected to be widely used across the Pampas, further adding to the country's heavy reliance on glyphosate.

Monsanto's shares hit an all-time high Wednesday after a top executive said that within the next decade, the agriculture and biotechnology giant could triple the number of acres outside the U.S. being planted with its genetically engineered seeds.

"Strong global adoption of our proven traits coupled with recent approvals paves the way for expanded growth and sets the stage for new growth, as we look to stack and upgrade these products in the coming years," said Brett Begemann, executive vice president of Monsanto's global commercial business.

Argentina figures big in those plans, despite a bitter conflict over royalty fees. The company has been struggling for years to collect royalties on soybean seeds containing its gene for glyphosate resistance, which it introduced in 1996. However, the company has been unable to obtain a patent on the seeds or collect royalties from the majority of farmers.

The company has vowed not to make the same mistake with its second generation of Roundup Ready soybeans, which are easily held over and replanted. Transgenic corn seeds tend to lose their traits through the generations, ensuring that farmers will return to the company for seed supplies.

Only the U.S. produces more genetically modified crops than the South American country. Argentina has more than 17 million hectares dedicated to the production of transgenic crops, according to the International Service for the Acquisition Agri-Biotech Applications, or Isaaa, a non-governmental organization dedicated to the promotion of agricultural biotechnology.

After their introduction, Monsanto's beans quickly came to dominate Argentina's crop as they allowed more no-till farming, thus conserving topsoil and moisture and boosting yields. The country is now the world's third-ranked soybean producer and exporter and the leading soymeal and soyoil exporter.

However, there are concerns that other weed varieties resistant to glyphosate will develop due to the repeated use of the herbicide across Argentina's Pampas each season.

"We were actually surprised that it took so long (for the resistant Johnson Grass) to appear," Ploper said.

Signs of glyphosate-resistant sorghum halepense were first detected in 2004, according to the Argentine Fertilizer and Agrochemical Industry Chamber, or CIAFA.

The glyphosate-resistant strain developed through the process of natural selection following years of glyphosate spraying, according to Armando Allinghi, agricultural engineer at CIAFA.

Sorghum halepense may have originated in the Mediterranean area. The plant is known as "Johnson Grass" in the U.S., named after Col. William Johnson, who introduced it to Alabama in the 1840s for use as animal feed. It was introduced to Argentina for the same reasons and rapidly became a pest as took to the Pampas with a vengeance.

"It is one of the worst weeds ... (affecting) ... the subtropics throughout the world," according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.

- By Shane Romig, Dow Jones Newswires; 54-11-4314-2757; shane.romig@ dowjones.com

Ireland: Sargent's major opportunity

Irish Farmers Monthly, 1 October (published 26 September) 2007.

A former school teacher whose interest in environmental issues led him to join the Green Party in 1982, Trevor Sargent was first elected to the Dublin North constituency in 1992. Later becoming leader of the party, he stepped down from the position in 2007 to make good a pre-election promise that he would not lead his party into coalition with Fianna Fail. Now Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Minister Sargent's priorities in office reflect his interests outside it, particularly with regard to organic and local food and the environment. He recently spoke to Donal Nugent about his vision for Irish agriculture over the coming five years.

Is the learning curve of being a minister of state what you expected?

It is really. I've been in opposition, dealing with agncuture for many years. The development of agriculture, particularly given the challenges we face as a country, is a particular passion of mine. Agriculture is extremely dependent on us being able to work within the new reality of oil not being availble to us as it has been, and the impact that this will have on agri-chemical inputs, on transportation and now the race to produce as much biofuel as the Americans are looking for - and how that effects feed prices. This informs my passion for local food, for local markets and for organic farming which doesn't require the same level of agri-chemical input and energy consumption. I'm also concerned about using water more efficiently given that it's going to be a major player in the future of agricultural development.

With that in mind what specific policy goals have you set for yourself over the term of office?

First and foremost, there's a Government commitment to grow the acreage of farmland in organic production - which currently is 0.8 per cent - to five per cent and that ambitious target would take us just above the European average. Austria currently has about 11 per cent so it's not an overly ambitious target but it does require changes and a greater level of conversion, and part of REPS will help farmers considering going organic to convert with the necessary financial supports.

What is fundamentally stopping Irish farmers from copying their Austrian counterparts? Is it a cultural issue or a financial one?

It's quite complex and I suppose there are as many reasons as there are people. Role models are very important. When a number of larger farmers convert to organic, other farmers who look up to those farmers start to take note and that's what's happening. It's a fact of life, and it's a good thing, that you have to be a good farmer to be an organic farmer. It is the top farmers who are the best organic farmers and I can see that happening when I go around on the Teagasc farm walks. Organic famers are getting a good premium for their products because the markets are there. The meat factories cannot get enough organic lifestock to meet demand. So there are opportunities.

Green Party agricultural policy talks about legislating for supermarkets to buy locally produced food. But in an open market that isn't a realistic proposition. Besides encouraging consumers to shop locally there isn't much more you can do, is there?

1 agree that persuasion is probably a better route and persuading people that it's in their own interest as retailers to support local producers, that's probably a better way of supporting the local economy. And I have been doing that. I have been directly contacting the main supermarkets and have met with a number of them to date and, particularly in the wake of the bad weather this summer, a lot of the vegetable growers in the country have had a very difficult time. The price being paid to growers needs to be realistic given that there will be a lower yield. The point I've been making is that a larger percentage of the shelf price has to go to the grower if there is to be a grower in the future. That point has to be got across, and I think it is getting across, but it requires the consumer's support as well. We live in a free market and the customer is king. If the customer decides they are going to be buying strawberries and tomatoes in January then they are indirectly saying they can do without the Irish grower and that means they are completely vulnerable to the import price What I'm saying - and I've been putting out statements to this effect - is that this month (September) there is no excuse for Irish people not to be buying all Irish produce. The full range is there and they should be checking that labelling reflects that.

It's a very positive message from our perspective but how do you square that with the fact that Ireland needs to be a successful exporter in the global market?

Ireland has a climate which makes it possible to be an exporter. Other countries have climates that require them to be importers, as well as large populations that need to be fed, and so it's quite normal for us to be taking advantage of that. I'm adamant we should take advantage of the high end of the market and ensure our exports get a good price. As an island country we should be playing to our strengths.

The supermarkets in France like Carrefour and Monoprix, for example, are indicating clearly that their top lines, in the area of meat for example, are fed on non GM [genetically modified] feed. This is an issue of strategic importance if Ireland is to maintain its strength as a food exporting country in competition with the cheaper products coming from South America for example.

Your perspective on GMOs hasn't changed over the years then? You are adamant that Ireland should remain GM free?

I genuinely bebve that, in the interests of this country and farming in this country, we need to focus on the high end of the market and to ensuring we get the maximum premium for our food. If we slip into an acceptance that we'll take whatever is cheapest as inputs then we cannot sell our products at the highest level of the market, because we will be found wanting if others can deliver an even higher standard. I don't want to compromise Ireland's ability to benefit from the high premium price that's paid for non GM produce. I realise the market is dominated by the US which, because of its policy to produce biofuels will, by 2020, no longer be in a position to export grain. If we lock ourselves into a policy of accepting that we can no longer be GM free, then other countries that have managed to stay GM free will overtake us in terms of the top price being paid for GM-free produce by retailers like Coop Italia and Monoprix and some of the UK chains.

Support for biofuels is part of Green policy but does the downside of it concern you ? that it will lead to increased food prices?

Worldwide, it's certainly going to increase the cost of food. Grain is going to be syphoned off for biofuel production and land is going to be used for biomass production. It really points to an urgent need for us to grow more tillage. I know grain prices are leading a lot of famers in that direction, where they have the opportunity and their land is suited to tillage. I've met with a number of the farm organisations. I'm looking to support farmers that are able to grow more tillage so we have have a greater capability for self reliance in grain. Ultimately, imports in food are going to go up in price. Energy is getting more expensive and transport is getting more expensive. It really does point to a need lor greater self reliance in our own food supply and a greater diversity in food production which we can substitute for imports.

We have in Ireland a huge waste management issue both in the food industry and other sectors of society. In some cases we're exporting waste to Germany to be incinerated. The Green Party is opposed to incineration but this is how it's ultimately being dealt with. What proposals do you have to solve this problem?

Most agricultural waste is easily disposed of if the proper disposal techniques are used, such as anaerobic digestion, composting and it can turn waste ito a resource if it's properly done. We did have a bit of a set back in the anaerobic digestor sector following BSE because there was a ban on using SRM but anaerobic digestion, over all, taking account what can be put in, is very under-utilised in this country. There's a huge amount of nitrogen-rich waste that could be used to make methane.

Does your Department have a role in guiding policy in that and, if so, will you play it?

I certainly will and I'll be working closely with the Minister for the Environment who has a regulatory role in that regard too. It is in everyone's interest, farmers included.

I've been going around the country looking at best practice in this regard. In Camphill in Kilkenny, a number of farms are feeding slurry into a methane digestor and it's a great bonus to the community.

The locals are getting heating and the farmers are getting a product which can be returned to the land. I'd say, in relation to incineration, one of the principles behind good waste management is the proximity issue, essentially that can mean composting taking place close to home, in the case of someone in the town or city in their back garden if they have one. An incinerator needs a far larger quantity of waste and it is not prudent to have a large number of incinerators around the country that need a critical mass in order to stay efficient. A number of the incinerators that are taking Irish hazardous waste overseas actually want that waste to have a critical mass to work efficiently. If we had a similar type of toxic incinerator we also, from time to time, would be importing waste and how does that tie in with our stated national objective as marketing Ireland as a clean, green country? I have to protect that status and I make no apologies for it.

France is one of the key users of incinerator technology in mainland Europe. I don't think anyone would criticise French food as a result of it. Do you think the two are necessarily opposed to one another?

France is not principally a food exporter. We are. Whereas the French may be happy to eat their foods and have great markets and a lot to teach us about marketing food locally, we, as a food exporting country, have to be very careful that we maintain market advantage. There are food buyers who will specify that the source of food needs to be be beyond reproach so we can compete better when we can give these assurances about our dioxin levels and so on.

There are a lot of success stories in our prepared food sector but local food producers often have suspicions about processed food. You as a Green minister might have your sympathies somewhere in between. How do you support the industry as it progresses?

A great deal of food safety legislation rests with the Food Safety Authority. The area that I would be pushing strongly to make sure it is enforced is labelling legislation. Last July, legislation came in requiring labelling ot country of origin in relation to beef. There are still many examples of restaurants around the country that don't have the country of origin of beef on their menus. I'll be writing to the Minister of Health asking that the FSA redoubles its effort to enforce labelling regulations.

I am a great supporter of the artisan sector and there has been progress made to be ensure that food safety standards are high, while not being unrealistic. It has to be within what is feasible for someone on a small operation. The French have a lot to teach us in this regard in being pragmatic rather than over-regulating.

The farmers' market sector and the artisan sector are exciting and offer an alternative but can they ever be as significant a channel of food as the supermakets?

There is a place for both. What a farmers' market does is not just satisfy customer desire to know where food comes from but also offers a knock-on effect to retailers. They create a buzz above and beyond the normal retailing enviroment. They also, which is often easy to forget, provide a very useful market research opportunity for farmers who are able to assess from customer reactions how they might develop their business in other ways. Quite a few people who started off in farmer's markets have developed businesses out of that and I really think that is an important element of the sector.

Both BIM and Bord Bia are among the state agencies earmarked for decentralisation. In the former, there is certainly resistance within the organisation to the proposed move. Is decentralisation something you support?

I support negotiated change so there is no loss of efficiency in the organisations and so they are able to develop and people can work where they choose to work but that's the essence of it - it should be negotiated. Decentralisation as a policy needs to, first and foremost, focus on the decentralisation of decision making and that's something that needs to happen at a local authority level more than any other level.

My colleague John Gormley as Minister for the Environment is spearheading reform in that area that will be the most genuine kind of decentralisation at local authority level.

Is there any particular goal you feel you will have had to achieve for your term of office to be a success?

There are a few. I would like to see direct sales and farmers' markets being available to all farmers in towns and villages throughout Ireland and a much greater sense of an Irish and regional food culture which, in turn, would be the catalyst for value-added food production and a greater number of artisan food producers and a greater amount of producer development that would keep us competing in the high value end of the international maker. I would also hope that would be helped by advocacy of our GM free island status as we would have some advantage over countries whose consumers may want to be GM free but whose industry may find it difficult to gurarantee that status. As part of the genuine marketing of Ireland as a clean, green food island I'd hope a larger amount of food could be grown organically to satisfy the organic markets, which is far greater than we can supply at the moment.

Monsanto Wants to Triple Biotech Acres

Associated Press, September 26 2007

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Monsanto Co. predicted Wednesday it could triple the amount of farming acres planted worldwide with its genetically engineered seeds.

The world's biggest seed maker has seen its overseas sales hindered over the last decade as countries resist biotech crops, derided as franken foods by critics who have blocked their export from the United States.

But Monsanto is paving the way to increase acres planted with its biotech seeds from 95 million today to 270 million, said Brett Begemann, Monsanto's executive vice president of global commercial business.

"Strong global adoption of our (seeds) coupled with recent approvals paves the way for expanded growth and sets the stage for new growth as we look to stack and upgrade these products in the coming years," Begemann told a group of stock analysts and investors at the Credit Suisse Chemicals Conference held in New York.

Monsanto's stock jumped $2.91, or 3.6 percent, to close at a new 52-week high of $83.75 Wednesday.

The overall number of acres planted in biotech seeds has increased in recent years, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group. Global biotech crop acreage increased 13 percent between 2005 and 2006, growing from 222 million acres to 252 million acres, according to the group.

That doesn't mean grass-roots resistance to the crops will stop, said Laurel Hopwood, chairwoman of the Sierra Club's biotechnology committee. Hopwood said she gets e-mails from activists around the globe who want to slow the spread of biotech seeds.

"It's very clear that people don't want it," Hopwood said. "I would call Monsanto's press release industry spin."

Hopwood said the Sierra Club will continue to lobby in Washington for more safety testing of biotech crops along with labeling any foods that contain them. She said the group's ultimate goal is to win a moratorium on any biotech crops being planted.

In outlining Monsanto's growth opportunities, Begemann highlighted Monsanto's corn seed business, which has gained market share in 2007 in Europe, Argentina, India and South Africa. He said Monsanto continues to expect international corn seed sales to grow at a rate of 1 to 2 percent annually through the end of the decade.

Begemann said Brazil will be a hot spot for sales growth after Monsanto's purchase of the Agroeste seed company. The acquisition boosts Monsanto's market share in Brazil to 40 percent. That will give Monsanto the outlets it needs to introduce new strains of crops like YieldGard Corn Borer, he said.

Monsanto has increasingly invested in "advanced breeding" techniques to develop new crops without genetic engineering. Instead, the company uses gene markers and advanced computers to rapidly breed plants with desirable traits.

The new breeding program could make it easier to introduce crops in countries where resistance to genetic engineering remains strong.

UK: Bluetongue top of agenda at EFSA visit

National Farmers Union press release, 26 September 2007.

BLUETONGUE was top of the agenda when National Farmers' Union vice-president, Paul Temple, visited the European Food Standards Agency this week.

Genetically Modified food and pesticides were also discussed at the EFSA headquarters in Italy on Thursday.

The visit came soon after EFSA published a key statement about food produced by animals fed on genetically modified feed. The research showed there was no DNA from GM feed in the final meat, milk and eggs products tested.

The report, welcomed by the NFU, is the result of research called for following a petition on GM food labelling to the European Commission. It reinforces the current EU legal position.

Mr Temple said: "We welcome this clear, unequivocal statement from EFSA. It gives us strong justification for our own policy on food labelling - products that do not contain any transgenic material from GM feed should not be labelled as GM, just because the process involved GMOs.

"Such labelling could be dangerous and misleading. Tests show DNA from GM plants fed to animals can not be detected so labelling could not be verified."

24 September 2007

Ireland: Letter to Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food - Mary Coughlan
and Minister of State for Food and Horticulture - Trevor Sargent

From Oisín Ó Conail, Wexford Flower and Foliage Producers Group

24 September 2007

As an Irish farmer (and member of the IFA), I would like to strongly encourage you to continue to act against GMO's becoming State-sanctioned here, in any form.

This is not simply about possible health effects down the road; the entire patenting system in this area is becoming little more than a form of transnational protectionism in favour of corporate, oligopolistic cartels.

I am not against technology, nor against entrepreneurs or companies reaping a reward for introducing worthwhile innovations. However, as both a farmer and a businessman, I severely question the motives, methods and results of current "innovation" by biotech and agribusiness companies. These seem to have more to do with "locking in" agricultural producers (e.g. farmers) into what economists would call "path dependency" - a production system determined by previous choices; in this case, by choices of seed, chemical supplies and physical and financial capital investment (often promoted forcefully by State and institutional actors). And these choices are becoming increasingly rigged; for example, we are not even allowed to save seed - even if the variety is a common heritage belonging to no one!

This has less to do with offering choice, and more to do with making it difficult for producers to operate outside of the increasingly vertically-integrated corporate giants of food production world-wide. And I am not against "bigness" in itself; but the term "economies of scale" has become a clichÈ - it is not an iron law, only a variable tendency; if "bigness" is effectively subsidised by Single-Farm payments that are almost entirely passed-on to pay for patented, licensed and path-dependent (or petroleum-based) inputs, it is more likely that we are witnessing state-protected diseconomies of scale. This is not even counting socially- (i.e. tax-) funded transportation infrastructure such as motorways which enable lower average costs for "scaled up" distribution networks.

But if corporate giants are operating in a fixed market (e.g. No competing traditional varieties of seed allowed to be saved and sold),  reand legally empowered to bully and threaten anyone whose seed stock is invaded - even by natural processes! - by patented genetic material, this cannot be regarded as an open market; this instead is arguably just high-tech feudalism.

Aside from health issues, aside from political economy: at a time of ballooning debt, climate change, and at the mid-point of global oil production, is this really wise? To effectively promote decreasing diversity in food production techniques, against long-established and sturdy strains, and in favour of high-bred and engineered varieties that cannot survive in the wild without intense inputs of cartelised seed, petrochemicals, and borrowed capital?

Oisín Ó Conail
email: oisin(at)wexfordfoliage(dot)com

EU: Grain prices could fall as EU mulls reform

Just-Food.com, 24 September 2007.

Grain input prices could fall for European food manufacturers because of a European Commission proposal to temporarily scrap EU limits on grain production.

See full article (requires subscription): http://www.just-food.com/article.aspx?ID=99721&lk=dm

21 September 2007

Ireland: Public still views GM foods with suspicion
The Chief Scientific Adviser highlights the sharp divergence between the scientific evidence and the public perceptions of GM foods.

Irish Medical Times, 21 September 2007.

The Chief Scientific Adviser highlights the sharp divergence between the scientific evidence and the public perceptions of GM foods.

Scientific research to date has uncovered no significant negative health effects from GM foods - despite ongoing public concern that such foods may be harmful, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, Prof Patrick Cunningham, said last week.

"Repeated surveys show that over 70 per cent of European citizens are against Genetically Modified (GM) food. This reality cannot be ignored," Prof Cunningham said at the National Conference of the Agricultural Science Association in Trim.

"At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe.

"GM crops and GM foods continue to be one of the most contentious public issues in European society," Prof Cunningham continued.

Obvious benefits

"While there are obvious technical and economic benefits, there is widespread apprehension about the technology due to concerns over the perceived risk to human health, environmental impact, potential to increase the power of multinational corporations, deterioration in food quality, threat to traditional farming and rural society, and general moral acceptability."

He noted the contrast between scientific and public opinion. "Three key sources of scientific research results in relation to GM foods are the Royal Society (UK), the Academie des Sciences (France) and the National Research Council (US). All of these have concluded that GM foods are safe.

Believed danqerous

"However, a Eurobarometer survey of 2003 showed that 56 per cent of Europeans believe GM foods to be dangerous, 70 per cent 'do not want this type of food' and 95 per cent want labelling and the right to choose.

"While scientific research has not uncovered any health impact, very little of the literature actually deals with health effects," the professor continued.

"Most of the published research on GM - over 30,000 papers - concerns development of the technology with less than i per cent dealing with health aspects."

Furthermore, no research on safety aspects of GM has yet been conducted in Ireland. "We could take a lead in Europe by commissioning additional research to address this. Prof Cunningham pointed out that we already have in place a framework to support such scientific research, the Food Institutional Research Measure (FIRM). FIRM is the primary national funding mechanism for food research in third level colleges and Teagasc food research centres. Ireland is working to become a European leader in scientific research, and this area offers an excellent opportunity to provide a valuable service to the Irish and European public on an issue of real public concern."

Referring to the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free, he said: "This could possibly have advantages in marketing the ?8 bilion of food products that we export.

"However, in order to realise this objective, a number of formidable challenges would have to be overcome. The first is that, as Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown.

"The second is that, with effectively open borders between North and South, it would require a declaration in two jurisdictions. And the third is that with GM corn and soybean constituting a growing proportion of global supplies of these two crops, and with Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply."

20 September 2007

France moves towards a freeze on growing GM crops

Le Monde, 20 September 2007. By Christophe Jakubyszyn and Herve Kempf.

The French government is planning to seriously reduce the spread of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). In the context of the "Grenelle of the environment" it is preparing a freeze on the commercialisation of GM seeds, whilst authorising the continuation of laboratory research.

Jean-Louis Borloo, minister for ecology, development and sustainable management, confided this information to a group of majority parliamentarians whom he invited on Monday 17 September. The minister confirmed to Le Monde : "Everyone is in agreement on the GM issue: it is not possible to control their spread. So we will not take the risk."

This decision is one of the elements which will allow M. Borloo to obtain a general compromise during the Grenelle round-table which will take place at the end of October.

Although this position is still not official, it demonstrates the progress made by the group "OGM du Grenelle de l'environnement". This group, which will meet again on 21 September, is led by Jean-Francois Le Grand (UMP senator for la Manche). He has already been working on the principles of a new law on GMOs which would make growing them more difficult and restrict authorisations more rigorously than at present.

"I have had several conversations with Jean-Louis Borloo", says Jean-Francois Le Grand. "He told me clearly that there would not be a moratorium but that all authorisations are currently frozen and this situation will continue until the law is voted on."

Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, secretary of state for ecology, explained to Le Monde: "The question of a moratorium is being actively discussed and envisaged but the word covers different legal realities : on growing, on trials in open fields, on this or that GMO, by non-renewal of authorisations, etc. Nothing is yet definite."

Interviewed by Le Monde, Michel Barnier, minister for agriculture, defends research on GM crops "when it is conducted in a modest, limited, controlled manner for the purpose of research in open fields." But "there is a second question which must no longer be taboo, that is of the commercial growing of GM crops - 22,000 hectares of maize during 2007 in France. This is an open question, which deserves evaluating after ten years of authorisation, to question the overall benefit for our society."

The freeze will be implemented through the refusal of new authorisations from the point at which the law is voted in. This is made easier by the fact that the only GM crop grown in France is MON 810 maize. Its authorisation expires in 2007 and must be renewed at European level.

Other plants are currently going through the authorisation process. France could refuse to give its agreement which would prevent the large scale growing of transgenic maize from the next farming season.

Creation of a High Authority

The law will reinforce checks on the growing of GM crops. It will create a new High Authority on biotechnology including a broad range of scientific disciplines and associations. "Today", said M. Le Grand, "the scientific evaluation of GMOs is one-sided and is only carried out by biotechnology engineers. It is necessary that this be widened to a multi-disciplinary approach."

The High Authority would give its advice to government on new GMOs, integrating a more stringent toxicological analysis but also the examination of the social and economic interests of the transgenic product.

The law would also see a regime of responsibility in case of contamination and a public register of GM cultivation applications. Coexistence will be determined according to the principle that "the choice of some should not impact the choice of others", says M. Le Grand. "There must not be pollination of organic fields by GMOs."

The government has sent another positive signal to those who oppose GMOs. José Bové and four others appeared in court in Carcassonne on 19 September for having carried out an action at the Monsanto factory in the Aude during 2006. The prosecutor, Jean-Paul Dupont, recommended that the case be postponed.

The tribunal at Carcassonne has gone further, as, at the request of the defence, it decided to postpone "sine die" [Latin: without day], meaning that they are dropping the case.

In other cases, due at Toulouse and Chartres, prosecutors have also requested postponement. This attitude shows that the government would like to appease the debate on GMOs.

Ireland: Pay attention to economic reality

Irish Farmers Journal, 20 September (dated 22 September) 2007. Letters to the editor:

Dear Sir,

Shane Morris complains about "inaccurate media coverage" and "moral panic" regarding patented GM crops. Not surprising, since Morris is an agent of the Canadian government agency, Agri-food Canada.

Canada is the world's second largest producer of GM crops. Canada first tried to use the WTO to force EU member states to accept its unwanted GM produce. When that attempt failed, Canada adopted a strategy to spread misinfor mation and lies about the GM critics, even resorting to threats of legal action after GM watch and GM-free Ire land exposed the fact that a "scientific" paper, co- authored by Morris, was so biased that it triggered an international controversy re ported in New Scientist ma gazine.

Irish farmers should pay attention to the economic reality of GM crops:

1. GM-labelled food is re fused by Europe's leading food brands and food retailers and by the vast majority of consumers.

2. This market refusal is spreading to meat, poultry and dairy produce derived from livestock fed on GM animal feed.

3. GM seeds are patented: under WTO and EU patent laws, farmers contaminated by GM pollen or seeds no longer own their produce, are required to pay annual patent royalties and can be sued for patent infringement if they save and plant their own seeds ó as happened to Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser.

Irish farmers don't want to end up like their counterparts in Canada and Brazil, working as Monsanto serfs to produce dodgy GM animal feed, containing virus and bacterial DNA, which nobody in their right mind would even feed to their dog.

Our farming future lies in producing top quality safe GM-free food which EU consumers demand.

Con Cremin
Ardagh, Co. Limerick.

Ireland: Consult objective and scientific data

Irish Farmers Journal, 20 September (dated 22 September) 2007. Letters to the editor:

Dear Sir,

Mr. Morris (Irish Farmers Journal, 8 September 2007), begs that the science be kept factual in the GM debate. Here are some of what I understand to be facts.

The forty year old belief that one gene is responsible for one inheritable characteristic, the fundamental assumption upon which the aspirations of the agricultural biotechnology industry were based, has been shown to be incorrect. Rather, many genes appear to achieve their ends by working together in ways not yet understood.

What happens as the invading gene mixture establishes itself within the host DNA is also an area about which little or nothing is known.

GM plants routinely differ from their parent plants in unexpected ways, which our current understanding of genetics does not allow us to explain or forecast.

These difficulties are common to all current GM crops and will be encountered in every 'case by case' study deemed essential by Mr. Morris.

The only GM crop which was subjected to the comprehensive animal testing normally employed before the introduction of a new medicine found that the GM pea was unfit for consumption. All independent published studies have found reason for concern with GM products, while industry studies frequently use methods which may predetermine the studies outcome, for example, in a study of fertility rates in cows given GM milk yield promoting hormone, cows already in calf were used. In the absence of valid safety assessments, pro GM commentators seem to be excusing GM irregularities as they continue to appear by pointing out what they say are similar mutations found occasionally in nature.

To take a mechanical analogy, the fact that occasionally new cars can develop problems with electronics, brakes, or maybe inclined to go on fire, is not used as an excuse by other manufacturers to incorporate such flaws into their designs, particularly in cases where recalling the product is not an option. The ag-biotech companies are not making themselves financially liable for any damage GM crops cause to farmers, farmland or consumers. Insurance companies who have analysed the risks involved either refuse to cover GM crops or offer cover in such limited circumstances as to render the cover meaningless.

The currently unquantifiable risks inherent in GM crops and the damage to the reputation of Irish agriculture won't be borne by those cosseted in pensionable security who call for our acceptance of GM crops. It will be farmers and the consumers of our produce who will be putting themselves and businesses at risk.

Should a future generation of GM crops introduced when all aspects of genetics are understood, prove to be safe and useful, we may well be barred from participating in its benefits because of our premature acceptance of this polluting crude first generation, the introduction of which I see no urgency for.

Farmers aware of developments in relation to the implementation of the nitrates directives should know the wisdom of consulting objective scientific data rather than relying on the opinions of individual and unaccountable scientists.

Yours sincerely

Nick Cullen
Ballysax
The Curragh
Co. KIldare

Ireland: Herculex to be approved by default shortly

Irish Farmers Journal, 20 September (dated 22 September) 2007. By Pat O'Keefe.

THE genetically modified maize variety, Herculex, is expected to be approved in the coming weeks ó but not by Europe's politicians. The continued ban on the GM maize variety will come be fore EU Agriculture Minis ters next Wednesday, 26 September.

Ireland's voting intention has yet to be confirmed, although Farmers Journal sources suggest we are likely to abstain.

Despite the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) giv ing the product the all-clear, it appears unlikely that the product will be approved by the Council of Ministers.

However, the EU Commis sion is likely to approve the product in the coming weeks. This has been the pattern for previous approvals of GM material.

Speaking to the media at the Agricultural Science Association (ASA) conference in Trim last Friday, Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, said that Ireland had yet to decide a voting stance. "We haven't decided yet. We need to look at the overall picture on feed ó we're big importers."

The Minister added that "the price rise might concentrate minds".

Interestingly, the Minister also clarified that the Programme for Government stated that "Ireland would look towards the establishment of a GM-free Island". This did not mean a definite policy had been decided, she indicated.

The Minister also pointed out that 50,000 tonnes of maize by-products were successfully imported in the past 10 days.

Given European consumer resistance to GM food, there may be marketing advantages to Ireland developing a so called "GM-free zone". However, due to the wide-spread adoption of GM crop varieties across the world, such a move could lead to unsustainable increases in feed costs in this country. Furthermore, as more and more GM varieties come on stream, we risk being left at a major competitive disadvantage.

Speaking at the ASA conference, Professor Cunningham, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser said: "Repeated surveys show that over 70 per cent of European citizens are against Genetically Modified (GM) food. This reality cannot be ignored. At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food de rived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe.

Referring to the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free, he said: "This could possibly have advantages in market ing the €8bn of food products that we export.

"However, in order to realise this objective, a number of challenges would have to be overcome. The first is that, as Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM-free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown. The second is that, with effectively open borders between North and South, it would require a declaration in two jurisdictions. And the third is that with GM corn and soybean constituting a growing proportion of global supplies of these two crops, and with Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply."

In early July, the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health voted to reject imports of GM maize. Despite a commitment that Ireland would be voting in favour of allowing imports of 'Herculex' maize, a last minute intervention by Minister of Food and Green Party TD, Trevor Sargent, led to a reversal of this commitment and Ireland abstained in the vote.

Ireland: Agricultural Science Association highlights the future of food

Meath Chronicle, 22 September 2007 (published 20 September).

[Photo caption: Mairead McGiunness, MEP with Padraig Walshe, President of the IFA at last Friday's Agricultural Science Association conference at the Knightsbrook Hotel, Trim.]

THE future for food is likely to look very different from the past, said Ireland East MEP Mairead McGuinness at an Agricultural Science Association national conference held last Friday at the Knightsbrook Hotel, Trim.

"The real world for agriculture globally is now one where food and energy compete for the production from the land. This factor, coupled with the impact of climate change, unseasonal weather patterns and rising global demand for commodities is already filtering down to the inevitable increase in food prices," said Ms McGuinness.

She said that consumers may have to get used to higher food prices into the future. "In the past we have grown accustomed to spending an ever-declining proportion of our incomes on food. "This may be about to change. Supply and demand factors will be the determinant of prices, with greater fluctuations in prices more likely in the future than the past.

"The fundamental problem for those involved In agriculture policy is to determine if competing and conflicting factors can be reconciled to ensure that there is enough food to feed the rising world population and we need to consider whether the move to a less intensive agriculture in the EU is consis tent with the global food needs of the future."

She said that this year's grain prices, particularly for wheat, have increased dramatically on the back of lower world stocks and lower production and that this increase will impact on virtually all food products.

"Leading supermarkets are also acknowledging that their customers are displaying a fundamental shift in the priority they place on food," she said. "Within the EU there are con- cerns about environmental issues, a rise in interest in organ- ics and a negative reaction to GM foods. These factors will also impact on food supply and demand and ultimately price."

France considers 'freezing' commercialisation of GMOs

EU Observer, 20 September 2007. By Elitsa Vucheva.

The French government is preparing to "freeze the commercialisation" of genetically modified seeds until the adoption of a new law on the issue.

French ecology and development minister Jean-Louis Borloo has "confided" this to a group of parliamentarians from the centre-right majority, Le Monde writes in its Friday (21 September) edition.

"Everybody agrees" that the dissemination of genetically modified organisms - or GMOs - cannot be controlled, he told the French daily. "Therefore, we will not take the risk", he added.

The decision is not official yet and would not affect laboratory research on GMOs. Mr Borloo hopes to get a "general compromise" on the issue during a French roundtable on environment planned for the end of October.

"The question is not settled", French agriculture minister Michel Barnier confirmed. It will be decided upon by president Nicolas Sarkozy after the environment roundtable, he told AFP.

Mr Borloo said in August that a new law on GMOs would soon be submitted to the French parliament, and that an independent body would be established to evaluate the risks carried by genetically modified organisms.

France has been looking into GMOs for some time and its experts have been raising concerns on how to control the contamination of non-GMO fields by genetically modified cultures, regardless of the security zone between them.

The European Commission declined to give a specific comment on France's intention before having studied the move more closely.

But it said that "normally, it is not possible under European legislation to have a general banning of GMOs".

Brussels has authorised some GMOs in the EU which must then be allowed to freely circulate under the bloc's free movement of goods principle.

Recent surveys have shown that around 70% of Europeans are against GMOs.

France heading towards a ban on GMOs

Le Monde, 20 September 2007.

In the context of the national summit on the environment, the Minister for Ecology, Development and Sustainable Regional Planning, Jean-Louis Borloo, is going for appeasement on the transgenic crops issue. The Government is preparing a ban on the commercial release of GM seeds, while allowing indoor laboratory research.

France mulling freeze on GM crops

AFP News, September 20 2007

France is reportedly planning a freeze on commercial genetically modified crops, which cover less than one percent of farmland in Europe's top agricultural producer.

According to Le Monde newspaper, the government is preparing to announce a halt to sales of GM seeds at a national conference on the environment taking place next month, involving farmers, business and advocacy groups.

Quoting Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, Le Monde said the government wanted a freeze while working on a new law on GM crops, after ruling that it is impossible to stop the genes of GM crops spreading in the environment through pollination. Growing crops for research would be allowed to continue.

Borloo's office refused to confirm or deny the report, which was greeted as a victory by environmentalist groups including Greenpeace.

But Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier -- speaking at a congress of cereal farmers who largely support the use of GM crops -- said the question was "not settled."

Cereal farmers meanwhile accused the government of "caving in" to public opinion, which is extremely hostile to GM crops, an issue kept in the headlines by high-profile anti-GM activists such as the farmer José Bové.

The FNSEA farmers' union warned it could pull out of next month's environment conference if the report proves true.

As elsewhere in Europe, GM crops are tightly controlled in France: with the exception of crops planted for research purposes, the only authorised GM crop is a single type of maize, called MON 810 and manufactured by the US agrochemical giant Monsanto. Its licence expires this year.

Some 22,000 hectares of GM maize were planted in France in 2007 -- four times more than in 2006 -- representing 0.75 percent of land under cultivation.

Since 2004, about 10 GM strains have been cleared for the European Union market, mainly maize destined for human or animal consumption.

New Zealand authority faces court battle over GM

AP Foodtechnology, 20th September 2007. By By Charlotte Eyre.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) will face a court hearing in March 2008, after an anti-GM group claimed that it has illegally approved the field testing of genetically modified brassica.

Food manufacturers who are interested in pioneering GM products in New Zealand face strong opposition, as regulators yet again clash with the vocal anti-GM crops campaigners who are very active within the country.

Genetically Engineered Free New Zealand (GE Free NZ) first announced its decision to file court papers against the regulatory body last year, after ERMA allowed Crop and Food Research to field-test a brassica crop, the mustard family genus that includes cabbages and turnips.

The anti-GM group claimed that the possible outcome of the trial had not been examined in enough detail, and so could possibly damage New Zealand's economy, as well as the public and animal health.

"GE Free NZ has decided that flawed decision making cannot go unscrutinised," said Claire Bleakley, GE Free NZ spokesperson.

"The lack of necessary research protocols and experimental procedures over the ten years of the trials means that little knowledge of value will come out of the field tests," she added,

According to New Zealand news portal Stuff, the challenge has gained widening support in recent weeks, with Organic Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ), BioGro NZ, and the Biodynamic Association also filing in support of the appeal.

The case follows hot on the heels of complaints that ERMA had also allowed Crop and Food Research to carry out illegal field trials of GM onions.

Earlier this month, suspicions were raised that the research institute were importing GM Seeds from the US, a practice currently illegal in New Zealand.

ERMA was forced to investigate the alleged breach of security rules, concluding that the institute had not acted illegally, but had merely used the wrong form, which was "a minor clerical error."

According the Ministry of Environment (MOE), it is illegal to grow GM crops for commercial use in New Zealand, and there is no GM fresh fruit, vegetables or meat on the market.

If a field trial of a GM crop is approved, strict conditions are set to ensure that to reduce any potential risks to humans, our environment, plants or animals.

"The genetically modified plants or animals are not allowed to escape or to be released outside of the trial area, access to the facility must be restricted and scientists must ensure that heritable material, eg. seeds or cuttings, from plants does not escape from the field test site," the MOE said.

However, some processed foods in the country, such as soy-based products, may contain approved GM ingredients that have been imported, the MOE added

Ireland: Scientist selling out over GM food

Irish Independent, 20 September 2007. Letters to the editor.

I was amused to see Professor Patrick Cunningham, a scientist, doing exactly what I wrote about (Letters, September 15). That he could pretend that GM foods pose no health risk and provide anybody, except Monsanto, with any benefit is only possible if he is trying to sell something.

There is ample evidence that GM foods pose a health risk. Not only have many cases of severe allergies been noted but GM foods will contain far more pesticide residue (mostly Roundup, Monsanto's toxic weedkiller) because one of the only reasons for the GM modification is to render the chosen crop immune to Roundup.

As for the "obvious technical and economic benefits", the economic benefits are solely to Monsanto.

Their terminator gene means that poor farmers in the third world have to buy seeds every year instead of using seeds from the previous crop, thus leading to greater poverty ...except for Monsanto.

Dick Barton
Consultant in Nutritional Medicine
Tinahely, Co. Wicklow

19 September 2007

EU must wake up to biofuel warnings

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 19th September 2007.

Brussels -- Friends of the Earth Europe today accused the European Union of ignoring key warnings about the environmental and social problems of agrofuels - also called biofuels. The environmental group today published a list of recent cautions from prominent organisations and launched an email campaign urging the public to write to their politicians.

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Recent cautionary reports about the darker side of agrofuels appear to be falling on deaf ears in Europe. It is essential that the political system wakes up to these warnings and re-evaluates the use of agrofuels. There is a big danger that the use of crops and trees to fuel our cars and power stations will come with a high social and environment cost."

The list of warnings includes:

The OECD, which raised concerns last week that the environmental impact of agrofuels could be even worse than that of petrol and diesel and that food will get increasingly expensive for at least the next ten years. [1]

The World Land Trust, writing in the journal Science in August, claimed that the EU's target of ensuring 10 percent of petrol and diesel comes from agrofuels by 2020 is not an effective way to curb carbon emissions. [2] This followed a similar warning from the International Transport Forum in June claiming that agrofuels were an expensive way of addressing climate and oil security concerns. [3]

The United Nations, which warned in April that transition to agrofuels could be especially harmful to the world's poor - who are net buyers of food - and to farmers who do not own their own land. They also warned that at their worst, agrofuels would result in concentration of land ownership that could drive the world's poorest farmers off their smallholdings and into deeper poverty. [4]

Adrian Bebb continued:

"The EU should put the brakes on agrofuels by dropping its proposed target and instead put its efforts into forcing the automobile industry to clean up their cars."

Friends of the Earth Europe today launched an email action targeted at members of the European Parliament asking them to call for the EU's mandatory 10 percent target to be dropped (http://www.foeeurope.org/cyberaction).

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Co-ordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +49 802 599 1951, Mobile : +49 1609 4901163, Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 25 42 6105, Mobile: +32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Notes

[1] Round Table on Sustainable Development: BIOFUELS: IS THE CURE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE? http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/OECD_Biofuels_Cure_Worse_Than_Disease_Sept07.pdf

[2] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5840/902

[3] http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Press/PDFs/releases2007/2007Biofuels.pdf

[4] http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf

Additional warnings about the detrimental impacts of agrofuels can be found at http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/warnings/warnings.html

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The Irish Government's Agriculture and Food Authority - Teagasc - which is spending millions of Irish taxpayers' money to promote the release of patented genetically modifed seeds and crops, will try to hijack our government's current biofuel strategy to push for legalisation of GM biofuel crops including GM maize, GM beet, GM oilseed rape and low-lignin GM trees that have been "redesigned" for agrofuel production. Unless Teagasc's GM policy is terminated once and for all, Ireland's monoculture forestry plantations (as well as contaminated native trees and crops) would end up belonging to giant corporate patent owners like Monsanto, BASF, Syngenta, and BayerCropScience.

Why Iraqi Farmers Might Prefer Death to Paul Bremer's Order 81

AlterNet, September 19 2007. By Nancy Scola.

Heard about the thousands of farmer suicides in India? Well, Iraqi farmers may be next thanks to the work of U.S. diplomat Paul Bremer and his Monsanto friends.

Anyone hearing about central India's ongoing epidemic of farmer suicides, where growers are killing themselves at a terrifying clip, has to be horrified. But among the more disturbed must be the once-grand poobah of post-invasion Iraq, U.S. diplomat L. Paul Bremer.

Why Bremer? Because Indian farmers are choosing death after finding themselves caught in a loop of crop failure and debt rooted in genetically modified and patented agriculture -- the same farming model that Bremer introduced to Iraq during his tenure as administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the American body that ruled the "new Iraq" in its chaotic early days.

In his 400 days of service as CPA administrator, Bremer issued a series of directives known collectively as the "100 Orders." Bremer's orders set up the building blocks of the new Iraq, and among them is Order 81 [PDF], officially titled Amendments to Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law, enacted by Bremer on April 26, 2004.

Order 81 generated very little press attention when it was issued. And what coverage it did spark tended to get the details wrong. Reports claimed that what the United States' man in Iraq had done was no less than tell each and every Iraqi farmer -- growers who had been tilling the soil of Mesopotamia for thousands of years -- that from here on out they could not reuse seeds from their fields or trade seeds with their neighbors, but instead they would be required to purchase all of their seeds from the likes of U.S. agriculture conglomerates like Monsanto.

That's not quite right. Order 81 wasn't that draconian, and it was not so clearly a colonial mandate. In fact, the edict was more or less a legal tweak.

What Order 81 did was to establish the strong intellectual property protections on seed and plant products that a company like the St. Louis-based Monsanto -- purveyors of genetically modified (GM) seeds and other patented agricultural goods -- requires before they'll set up shop in a new market like the new Iraq. With these new protections, Iraq was open for business. In short, Order 81 was Bremer's way of telling Monsanto that the same conditions had been created in Iraq that had led to the company's stunning successes in India.

In issuing Order 81, Bremer didn't order Iraqi farmers to march over to the closest Monsanto-supplied shop and stock up. But if Monsanto's experience in India is any guide, he didn't need to.

Here's the way it works in India. In the central region of Vidarbha, for example, Monsanto salesmen travel from village to village touting the tremendous, game-changing benefits of Bt cotton, Monsanto's genetically modified seed sold in India under the Bollgard® label. The salesmen tell farmers of the amazing yields other Vidarbha growers have enjoyed while using their products, plastering villages with posters detailing "True Stories of Farmers Who Have Sown Bt Cotton." Old-fashioned cotton seeds pale in comparison to Monsanto's patented wonder seeds, say the salesmen, as much as an average old steer is humbled by a fine Jersey cow.

Part of the trick to Bt cotton's remarkable promise, say the salesmen, is that Bollgard® was genetically engineered in the lab to contain bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that the company claims drastically reduces the need for pesticides. When pesticides are needed, Bt cotton plants are Roundup® Ready -- a Monsanto designation meaning that the plants can be drowned in the company's signature herbicide, none the worse for wear. (Roundup® mercilessly kills nonengineered plants.)

Sounds great, right? The catch is that Bollgard® and Roundup® cost real money. And so Vidarbha's farmers, somewhat desperate to grow the anemic profit margin that comes with raising cotton in that dry and dusty region, have rushed to both banks and local moneylenders to secure the cash needed to get on board with Monsanto. Of a $3,000 bank loan a Vidarbha farmer might take out, as much as half might go to purchasing a growing season's worth of Bt seeds.

And the same goes the next season, and the next season after that. In traditional agricultural, farmers can recycle seeds from one harvest to plant the next, or swap seeds with their neighbors at little or no cost. But when it comes to engineered seeds like Bt cotton, Monsanto owns the tiny speck of intellectual property inside each hull, and thus controls the patent. And a farmer wishing to reuse seeds from a Monsanto plant must pay to relicense them from the company each and every growing season.

But farmers who chose to bet the farm, literally, on Bt cotton or other GM seeds aren't necessarily crazy or deluded. Genetically modified agricultural does hold the tremendous promise of leading to increased yields -- incredibly important for farmers feeding their families and communities from limited land and labor.

But when it comes to GM seeds, all's well when all is well. Farming is a gamble, and the flip side of the great potential reward that genetically modified seeds offer is, of course, great risk. When all goes badly, farmers who have sunk money into Monsanto-driven farming find themselves at the bottom of a far deeper hole than farmers who stuck with traditional growing. Farmers who suffer a failed harvest may find it nearly impossible to secure a new loan from either a bank or local moneylender. With no money to dig him or herself out, that hole only gets deeper.

And that hole is exactly where farmers have found themselves in India's Vidarbha region, where crop failure -- especially the failure of Bt cotton crops -- has reached the level of pandemic.

In may be that Bt cotton isn't well-suited to central India's rain-driven farming methods; Bollgard® and parched Vidarbha may be as ill-suited as Bremer's combat boots and Brooks Brothers suits. It may be the unpredictable and unusually dry monsoon seasons that have plagued India of late. But in any case, the result is that more and more of India's farmers are finding themselves in debt, and with little hope for finding their way out.

And the final way out that so many of them -- thousands upon thousands -- have chosen is death, and by their own hands. Firm statistics are difficult to come by, but even numbers on the low end of the scale are downright horrifying. The Indian government and NGOs have estimated that, so far this year, at last count more than a thousand farmers have killed themselves in the state of Maharashtra alone. The New York Times pinned it as 17,000 Indian farmers in 2003 alone. A PBS special that aired last month, called "The Dying Fields," claimed that one farmer commits suicide in Vidarbha every eight hours.

But let's not be so pessimistic for a moment, and say that Iraqi farmers see the risks of investing in unproven GM seeds. Let's say they reject the idea that the intellectual property buried inside the seeds they plant is "owned" not by nature, but by Monsanto. Let's say they decide to keep on keeping on with nonengineered, nonpatented agriculture.

The fact is, they may not have a choice.

Here is where Order 81 starts to look a lot like the forced and mandatory GM-driven agricultural system that cynics tagged it as when it was first announced. Read the letter of the law, and the impact of Order 81 seems limited to using public policy to construct an architecture that's simply favorable to a company like Monsanto. The directive promotes a corporate agribusiness model a lot like the one we have in the United States today, but it doesn't really and truly put Monsanto in the driver's seat of that system.

Actually handing the keys to Monsanto is instead biology's job.

Biology -- how so? That's a good question for Percy Schmeiser, the Saskatchewan farmer featured in the film The Future of Food, who found himself tangled with Monsanto in a heated lawsuit over the presence of Roundup® Ready canola plants on the margins of his fields.

The Canadian farmer argued that he had purchased no Monsanto canola seeds, had never planted Monsanto seeds, and was frankly horrified to find that the genetically modified crops had taken hold in his acreage. Perhaps, suggested Schmeiser, the plants in question were the product of a few rogue GM seeds blown from a truck passing by his land?

Monsanto was uninterested in Schmeiser's theory on how the Roundup® Ready plants got there. As far as the company was concerned, Schmeiser was in possession of an agricultural product whose intellectual property belonged to Monsanto. And it didn't matter much how that came to pass.

Monsanto's interpretation of the impact of seed contamination is, of course, a good one if its goal is to eventually own the rights to the world's seed supply. And that goal may well be in sight. In fact, a 2004 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that much of the U.S. seed pool is already contaminated by GM seeds. If that contamination continues unabated, eventually much of the world's seeds could labor under patents controlled by one agribusiness or another.

In one agricultural realm like Iraq's, GM contamination could in short order give a company like Monsanto a stranglehold over the market. Post-Order 81 Iraqi farmers who want to resist genetically modified seeds and stick to traditional farming methods may not have that choice. Future generations of Iraqi growers may find that one seed shop in Karbala is selling the same patented seeds as every other shop in town.

And when that happens, what had been a traditional farming community -- where financial risk is divided and genetic diversity multiplied through the simple interactions between neighboring farmers -- finds itself nothing more than the home to lone farmers caught up in the high-stakes world of international agribusiness.

It's a world not unfamiliar to former CPA honcho Bremer, if the company he keeps is any indication. Robert Cohen, author of the book Milk A-Z, talks about the Bush administration as the "Monsanto Cabinet."

Among the many connections between that company and the current White House: Former Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman served on the board of directors of Calgene, a Monsanto subsidiary; one-time Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld had an eight-year stint as president of Searle, another Monsanto subsidiary; Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney in Monsanto's pesticide and agriculture division before coming to the Supreme Court as a George H.W. Bush appointee.

Those connections, as much as anything else, might help to explain the impetus behind and timing of Order 81. Let's suppose for a minute that GM-driven globalized agriculture is, indeed, in the long-term best interests of the new Iraq. Even in the best of circumstances, such a significant policy shift in so core an economic sector can be expected to cause short-term pain. When Bremer issued the directive, Iraq was hardly in a good place: It had recently been invaded, its government dismantled. Considering the desperate need for immediate stability in Iraq in April 2004, Order 81 begins to look like the triumph of connections and ideology over clear-headed policymaking.

In India, seed activists like Vandana Shiva are working to weaken the connection between that world of U.S. agribusiness and the farmers in villages and towns across India. Shiva, featured in the PBS special The Dying Fields, implores local farmers to stop forking over their money to commercial seed producers and return to the days of homegrown seeds. While Monsanto sells seeds that become India's corn, rice, potatoes, and tomatoes, it's cotton where Monsanto is king, as Shiva well knows. "You have become addicted to Bt cotton," she chides farmers. Though if the perpetuation of the GMO-seed/crop-failure cycle is any indication, few Indian farmers are listening.

Will Iraqi farmers making their way in the new post-Order 81 agricultural world fare any better? Maybe. Can they manage to reap the benefits of genetically modified farming, trading their newfound dependence on Monsanto and other corporate behemoths for the increased yield their patented and IP-protected seeds promise? Hopefully.

But it's possible that Iraq's farmers will indeed find themselves in the same predicament that India's farmers have ended up in -- a world where growers no longer rely upon their fields and their communities to meet their needs but in a world in which, when hard times strike, the only way out seems like the final exit. A world in which, in a twist perhaps worthy of Shakespeare, the farmer borrows one last time from whatever bank or moneylender will hand over a few last rupees, buys one last bottle of Roundup&, and -- as has happened so many times in India -- ends it all by drinking it down.

Monsanto to the end.

UK Climate of change for supporters of GM crops

The Guardian (Letters), September 19, 2007

So the biotech industry is having another try. Having been defeated comprehensively in 2004 after the GM field-scale trials I set up, they have the gall to suggest (like the nuclear industry) that climate change might provide the way back in. Your report says an unnamed "senior government source" claims the tide will turn because, allegedly, GM crops are higher-yield and hardier to help feed the world's increasing population and will help provide biofuels to limit climate change. These claims are bunkum.

The most authoritative study on crop yields - by Charles Benbrook, an independent US scientist - found that over a five-year period yields actually fell and pesticide use increased to deal with superweeds. The real answer to feeding a growing world population, in addition to more widespread family planning, is reversing the gross maldistribution of land in developing countries, phasing out the US and EU agricultural subsidies that wreck the market for developing-world farmers, and ending the rich countries' discriminatory trade policies. Any role for GM is, by comparison, piffling.

The claim that GM will assist production of biofuels is equally mischievous. If it did this (which is unlikely), it would actually diminish the world's food supply, given the competition for land. If government officials were genuinely concerned about combating climate change, they wouldn't be making Monsanto's case to raise biotech's profits by cornering the world's food supply; they would be increasing the use of renewable energy, not expanding airports, and signing up industry to much tighter annual CO2 reductions.

Michael Meacher MP
Former environment minister

Ireland: WTO biggest threat to Irish meat sector

Farming Life Newsletter, 19 September 2007. by Richard Halloran.

THE future of the beef sector on the island of Ireland will not be lim- ited by the industry's capabilities but by how it deals with external threats to its business, Cormac Healy, director, Meat Industry Ireland, told the Agriculture Science Association National Conference.

"At production level, we have strength and expertise built around our core asset, the national suckler herd. Ireland also has world class processing companies with the know-how and professionalism to develop the sector further. This does not mean that improvements are not needed at both production and processing level, but the ability to improve is in our own hands," he said.

"However, it is how Ireland Inc. deals with some of the external threats to our beef sector that will have greatest impact on our future development."

He also pointed out that the sin- gle biggest threat to the beef sector is the potential for an extremely negative outcome from the WTO negotiations.

"We cannot slash import tariffs by 70 per cent and expect domestic Irish and European beef produc- tion to compete on a viable basis with unlimited volumes of import- ed beef from South America.

"Politicians cannot have it both ways - on the one hand espousing a desire for their food to be eco- friendly, sustainable and generat- ing low food miles while at the same time relentlessly pursuing a cheap food policy."

He condemned the EU negotiat- ing tactics on the WTO deal that, to date, have resulted in one give- away after another on European agriculture and nothing to show in return. He said it was not too late for the Irish Government to get tough on WTO and for our EU negotiator to get real.

"No deal is better than a bad deal," he said.

Professor Patrick Cunningham, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Irish Government, told delegates that scientific research to date has uncovered no significant negative health effects from GM foods, in spite of ongoing public concern that such foods maybe harmful, the said today.

"Repeated surveys show that over 70 per cent of European citizens are against Genetically Modified food," he said. "This reality cannot be ignored. At the same time, the sci- entific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe.

"GM crops and GM foods contin- ue to be one of the most con- tentious public issues in European society," said Prof Cunningham. "While there are obvious techni- cal and economic benefits, there is widespread apprehension about the technology due to concerns over the perceived risk to human health, environmental impact, potential to increase the power of multinational corporations, deteri- oration in food quality, threat to tra- ditional farming and rural society, and general moral acceptability."

He noted the contrast between scientific and public opinion. "Three key sources of scientific research results in relation to GM foods are the Royal Society in the UK, Prance's Academie des Sciences and the National Research Council in the United States. All of these have concluded that GM foods are safe. However, a Eurobarometer survey of 2003 showed that 56 per cent of Europeans believe GM foods to be dangerous, 70 per cent 'do not want this type of food' and 95 per cent want labelling and the right to choose," he pointed out.

"While scientific research has not uncovered any health impact, very little of the literature actually deals with health effects. Most of the published research on GM - over 30,000 papers - concerns develop- ment of the technology with less than 1 per cent dealing with health aspects. Furthermore, no research on safety aspects of GM has yet been conducted in Ireland.

"We could take a lead in Europe by commissioning additional research to address this."

Referring to the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free, Prof Cunningham said this approach could possibly have advantages in marketing the £8 billion of food products exported form the island of Ireland.

"However, in order to realise this objective, a number of formidable challenges would have to be over- come. The first is that, as Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown. The sec- ond is that, with effectively open borders between North and South, it would require a declaration in two jurisdictions. And the third is that with GM corn and soybean constituting a growing proportion of global supplies of these two crops, and with Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply."

18 September 2007

Romania: GM Crops Unearthed, But Not Uprooted

International Press Service, 18 September 2007. By Claudia Ciobanu.

BUCHAREST, Sep 18 (IPS) - Greenpeace has launched a major attack against production and marketing of genetically modified cereals in Romania.

The environmental organisation announced earlier this month that it had discovered illegal plantations of genetically modified (GM) soya and corn over 110 hectares in Insula Mare a Brailei, a wide stretch of land in county Braila, 200 km east of capital Bucharest.

"Both soya and corn seeds used in Braila have been produced by U.S. company Monsanto," Gabriel Paun, coordinator for Romania of the Greenpeace anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) campaign told IPS.

Cultivation of GM soya is illegal in the European Union (EU), and starting this year in Romania as well. But cultivation of MON810, the type of genetically modified corn found in Braila, is allowed in some EU states.

Greenpeace argues that the MON810 plantation found in Braila was illegal because the company had failed to obtain proper authorisation for cultivation from Bucharest.

But representatives of Monsanto told IPS that European legislation valid in Romania since Jan. 1, 2007 -- the date when the country joined the union -- allows them to plant MON810 in the country.

Cristina Cionga, spokesperson for Monsanto, argues that European Commission (EC) Regulation 1829/2003, directly applicable in the member states, allows the U.S. company to plant the GM corn seeds in Romania as well as in the EU. However, the text of the regulation invoked refers to the placing of GM products on the European market, not to their initial introduction in an EU country.

Monsanto does have authorisation by the European Commission to commercialise MON810 under the framework of R1829.

Still, the conditions under which a GM crop can be planted in a new ecosystem are legislated by EC Directive 18/2001, not the Regulation. The directive asks GM producer companies to submit a notification to the competent national authorities before releasing the GM in a new ecosystem.

In May, the Romanian ministry of environment had declared that, to date, Monsanto had not submitted any request for authorisation of GM plantations in Romania. Corn is normally planted in April and May.

Apart from the dispute over the legality of the MON810 plantation, Greenpeace and Monsanto also disagree whether the soya plantations in Braila indeed used GM seeds.

"The commissioner for environment in Braila guaranteed that what Greenpeace found was conventional, not GM soya," Cristina Cionga told IPS. She added that representatives of Monsanto had investigated thoroughly the situation in Braila because GM soya had been planted there in the previous years and they expected that this year, with Romania a member of the EU, the area would be monitored closely.

Romanian officials have not yet intervened to clarify the dispute between Greenpeace and Monsanto. One reason is that the authorities do not have the means to run their own tests. Another is the lack of coherence between the ministries of agriculture and the environment, the former being known for its pro-GM stand and the latter having been more supportive of ecologists.

On Sep. 5, Greenpeace activists went to the exit point of Insula Mare a Brailei to check all the cars coming out of the area in order to prevent GM cereals from spreading. But Gabriel Paun said that when Greenpeace got there the plantations of GM soya and corn they had detected earlier had already been picked. "They were gathered during one night," Paun said. "Now we just have to see how far they reached."

A few days later, Greenpeace visited the headquarters of processing plant Expur Urziceni to check whether the GM cereals had already made it to the stage of processing for commercialisation. "The soya at Expur tested positive for GM. Even more, the factory does not have separate lines for GM and conventional cereals," Gabriel Paun told IPS Sep. 11, one day after the Greenpeace visit to the factory.

Whether the information provided by Greenpeace will be confirmed officially or not, the organisation has managed to draw attention to an undisputable fact: for several years, Romanians have been consuming GM cereals against their will and without being notified.

According to a study conducted by the independent group Mercury Research in June 2007, 67 percent of Romanians would not voluntarily consume genetically modified foods. Moreover, according to the Association for Consumer Protection, 98 percent of Romanians demand aliments containing GMOs to be clearly labelled.

European legislation calls for adequate labelling of products containing GMOs. But Greenpeace warns that "at the moment, Romania does not have the necessary infrastructure to ensure the traceability and labelling of GMOs."

The supermarkets operating in the country take advantage of this situation. An inquiry made by Greenpeace in June showed that, from 15 retailers operating in Romania, only four could guarantee their shelves are free of GMOs. Five others have declared that they do not use GMOs in their own branded products, while the rest either did not want to respond to the questionnaire or refused to guarantee the absence of GMOs from their shelves.

Rather than wait for clarification of legislation on GMO use, ecologists argue that such products should be banned completely, given their potential major negative impact on human health and environment.

A sign of hope in this direction was given last week by Gheorghe Albu, secretary of state for agriculture. During a press conference, he declared that his ministry might agree to a complete ban on GMOs in Romania "if the ministry of environment, as the authority in charge, also agrees to such a ban."

UK: Source of error

The Guardian (Comment is free), Sept 18 2007. By Peter Melchett.

The Guardian's GM article yesterday was a shameless plug from a source who is not even a government minister.

The front page of Monday's Guardian announced firmly "Return of GM: ministers back moves to grow crops in the UK". The story alleges that ministers have suddenly decided we will all love GM crops and want them grown in the UK. This is nonsense.

It is based on an anonymous briefing by one individual, who, because he or she is described as being "a senior government source" (code for a civil servant) is not actually a minister at all. The story by the Guardian's science correspondent neatly coincides with the departure of one of the government's longest standing pro-GM campaigners, Professor Howard Dalton, who finishes his job as the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' chief scientist this week. I've no idea if Howard Dalton is the Guardian's source. But the story certainly contains enough pro-GM fantasy and inaccuracies to indicate that it came from someone inside the government with a very strong desire to impose GM on the British public, and maybe even a burning resentment that they have so far miserably failed to do so.

For example, the anonymous source of the story is quoted as saying that it is a fact "that some GM crops can produce higher yields in more difficult climatic conditions". I know of no published science that supports this assertion. Indeed, some years ago, the US government's strongly pro-GM department of agriculture said that existing GM crops had not increased yields. As for "difficult climatic conditions", the only evidence we have is that some GM crops have done particularly badly when stressed, for example by drought. Genetically engineered cotton has gone brittle and lost its cotton buds when subject particularly dry and hot weather. The article also claims that the small-scale trial of GM potatoes currently under way in the UK "could lead to the potato being the first in a line of GM crops grown in the UK". Again, absolutely no evidence is produced for this assertion. In fact, every large-scale buyer of potatoes, in both North America and the UK, has said for many years now that they would not countenance buying GM potatoes. That's true, for example, of McCain's in the US and McDonald's in Europe. The GM potato trials are even opposed by the body representing British potato farmers, the British Potato Council. The article says that GM crops were barred by supermarkets "such as Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer" - in fact GM was, and still is, barred by all supermarkets, in response to their customers' views.

What the article omits to say is as telling as what is included. For example, we are told that in 2004 GM crops fell foul of "poor public relations". No mention that this was the result of the government-sponsored "GM debate", organised by the scrupulously neutral (because it contained strong scientific representation from both the pro- and anti-GM camps), government appointed, Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. The source says this was a "bad public consultation", presumably because it did not deliver the answer the source wanted. How inconvenient of the public! The article says that GM potatoes are modified to resist blight: "the fungus that devastated Ireland's potato crop and caused famine back in the 1840s". No mention of the surely relevant fact that these trials came to the UK because they were banned in Ireland. We are also told that the field scale trials of GM "assessed their impact on the environment" - but there is no mention of the important fact that the results showed that most of the crops trialled had even more negative effects on farmland wildlife than the industrial crops they were compared to.

Reading this nonsense left me with two questions. First, how on earth could the Guardian give over its front page to a story based on the musings of one anonymous source, claiming to speak on behalf of ministers but clearly not a minister? Second, how many other commercial products could expect to get a huge plug on the front page of a national newspaper on the basis of one anonymous briefing? If some unnamed person working in or "close to" the government rang up the Guardian science correspondent and told them that ministers had decided that Sir Clive Sinclair's C5 electric three-wheeler was needed in the UK to help combat climate change, would the product get a front page free ad? I know the Guardian likes to wind up its anti-GM readers, but in future I really think it should have a bit more evidence to back up a free plug for Monsanto's and BASF's products.

UK: GM crops must not be allowed

UK Green Party press release, 18 September 2007.

The Green Party yesterday responded to news suggesting that Government ministers have given their backing to a renewed campaign by farmers and industry to introduce genetically modified crops to the UK.

Green Party Principal Speaker Derek Wall said:

"Despite overwhelming public opposition to GM, we face a constant battle on this issue.

"If government ministers have, as suggested, given in to the vested corporate and misguided economic interests seeking to force GMOs upon us, then we must renew our campaign of opposition.

"I believe that decisions on the future of GM may be the most important made in my lifetime.

"GM crops will, in all likelihood, cross-pollinate with conventional and organic crops; GM genes are likely to be transferred to wild relatives of domestic crops, GM genes will also transfer to soil bacteria and to gut flora in the stomach lining of human beings.

"We must do everything we can to prevent this.

"Once we begin widespread GM agriculture there will be no return. Until we know for certain if GM crops are safe then we must apply the precautionary principle, and not introduce them into our diet."

"I took part in non violent direct action against GM oil seed rape at Watlington, Oxfordshire in 1999 with my family. I am prepared to take part in similar action in the future."

Rapeseed: GM Contamination Scandal in Germany
BAYER product found in conventional seeds / European authorities urged to pull back approval

Coalition against Bayer Dangers, Press Release, September 18 2007.

German authorities have found genetically modified rapeseed in conventional crops. A spokesperson for the environmental minister of North Rhine-Westphalia stated that consignments from the company Deutsche Saatgutveredlung contained seeds tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate. Glufosinate is sold by the German company Bayer CropScience under the trademarks LIBERTY and BASTA. About 1500 hectares have already been planted with the genetically modified crops. The origin of the contamination is unclear.

Jan Pehrke from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers comments: "Neither seed merchants nor farmers are responsible for this mess. Bayer must take responsibility for the organisms it created and must pay for the damage." Bayer is the world market leader for pesticides. The company sells a variety of crops resistant to glufosinate, including rice, cotton, corn and soybeans. "The incident shows that risks linked with modified crops cannot be controlled in the long term", Pehrke continues. "We call for a stringent application of the precautionary principle. Contamination will continue to spread unless strict controls are enforced and zero contamination of seed is the norm."

The European Union approved imports of rapeseeds tolerant to glufosinate in March 2007. An application to grow modified oilseed rape was, however, rejected in 2004 on environmental grounds. Bayer also applied for permission to import genetically modified rice and soybean. In a similar way to the recent contamination of American long-grain rice, the current case probably goes back to field trials conducted in the late nineties.

Since the cultivation of GM rapeseed is forbidden in Europe, German authorities ruled that the plants have to be destroyed immediately. As the contamination probably was not detected for several years it is highly probable that further areas are affected. The Coalition against Bayer Dangers demands that no further GM crops be approved and demands a cancellation of the import approval for glufosinate resistant rapeseed.

Further information:

EU Removes Five GM Corn and Rapeseed Varieties
http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1878.html

Australian Approval of Bayer's GM Canola Stalled by States
http://www.cbgnetwork.org/371.html

Bayer's GM Oilseed Rape: Negative Impact on Wildlife
http://www.cbgnetwork.org/467.html

EU-wide application to grow Bayer¥s GMO oilseed rape rejected on environmental grounds
http://www.cbgnetwork.org/343.html

Coalition against BAYER Dangers
www.CBGnetwork.org
CBGnetwork@aol.com
Tel: (+49) 211-333 911 Fax: (+49) 211-333 940

Advisory Board

Prof. Juergen Junginger, designer, Krefeld,
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rochlitz, chemist, former member of the Bundestag, Burgwald
Wolfram Esche, attorney, Cologne
Dr. Sigrid M¸ller, pharmacologist, Bremen
Eva Bulling-Schroeter, member of the Bundestag, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, biologist, Neubeuern
Dorothee S–lle, theologian, Hamburg (died 2003)
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, historian, Berlin
Dr. Erika Abczynski, pediatrician, Dormagen

Ireland: Any negative effects of GM foods yet to be uncovered

Irish Independent, 18 September 2007.

SCIENTIFIC reseach has yet to uncover significant negative health effects from GM foods, despite ongoing public concern that such foods maybe harmful, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, Professor Patrick Cunningham, told the ASA conference.

"Repeated surveys show that over 70pc of European citizens are against genetically modified (GM) food. A Euro- barometer survey of 2003 showed that 56pc of Europeans believe GM foods to be danger- ous, 70pc 'do not want this type of food' and 95pc want labelling and the right to choose. This reality cannot be ignored. At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe," he said.

Professor Cunningham said GM crops and GM foods continue to be one of the most contentious public issues in European society.

He said the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free could possibly have advantages in marketing the € 8bn of food products that we export.

"However, a number of formidable challenges would have to be overcome. As Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM-free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown. Also, with effectively open borders between north and south, it would require a declaration in two jurisdictions."

He added that GM corn and soybean constitute a growing proportion of global supplies of these two crops.

"With Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply," he said.

Meanwhile, Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, said she has yet to decide on how she will vote on the Herculex debate at next week at the meeting of the EU Council of Farm Ministers

The EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health failed to come to a definitive decision regarding GM maize variety Herculex in June, and final approval for the maize variety was delayed for the last three months as a result.

Minister Coughlan said Ireland was a big importer of feed and, as Minister for Agriculture, she also has a duty to protect the welfare of livestock, which means that, at the very least, they must be fed, she said.

UK: GM seeds of discontent

Letters, The Guardian, September 18 2007

The government should take a close look at the how poorly GM crops have performed before getting into bed with the biotech industry and the NFU. The GM industry is no closer to tackling the urgent challenges facing the environment than it was 10 years ago. Having failed to convince the public to accept GM in our food, the industry is now turning to concerns over climate change to launch a new PR offensive. But this is still the same industry dominated by a few global players, like Monsanto, that after 30 years of research has produced only a handful of commodity crops, which are used for animal feed. Since the introduction of GM crops, pesticide use in the US has increased after resistant weeds have emerged, Monsanto has sued farmers when their crops have been found to contain the company's patented traits, and GM contamination of our food is increasing.

Instead of backing this risky technology, the government should promote safe and sustainable farming methods, such as organic and locally produced food. And we should ensure that communities around the world have access to land where they can grow food, and that diversity in seeds is maintained so that crops adapted to changing local environmental conditions can continue to be developed.

Clare Oxborrow
GM campaigner, Friends of the Earth

_______

The government's farm-scale trials proved that three out of four GM crops tested harmed UK wildlife, backing the fears of the RSPB and others. The fourth crop produced marginal benefits but part of this test used a powerful herbicide that is now banned. New seeds must be tested individually and, while a blight-resistant potato might not harm wildlife, other GM crops may still do so.

Dr Mark Avery
Director of Conservation, RSPB

_______

I would like to make it clear that there is no change in the government's position on GM crops. Our policy has always been that the sensible approach is to consider GM crops on a case-by-case basis provided the evidence shows that they are safe for human health and the environment. Any proposed crop would go through a detailed risk assessment involving careful scrutiny by independent scientists.

Our GM policy remains precautionary, evidence-based and sensitive to public concerns, and our priority is safeguarding health and the environment. That's why we have strict controls. Ultimately it will be for farmers and consumers to decide whether they want GM products.

Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of state, Defra

_______

It is extremely worrying that an anonymous minister is backing GM biofuel crops when world grain reserves have reached their lowest point for 50 years, partly because of the "biofuels rush" generated by George Bush's plans to reduce US dependency on foreign oil imports. Ministerial backing for GM, based on claims that the biotech industry can produce crops to cope with all kinds of environmental stress, is also misplaced. Recent unpredictable weather in Africa and the UK illustrates the problems of second-guessing growing conditions - should drought-tolerant or flood-tolerant crops be planted?

In fact, dependency on GM seeds with their limited genetic diversity would be foolish. Instead, government ministers should be giving more backing to plant-breeding programmes aimed at producing seeds with a broader genetic base which are more capable of adapting to whatever nature throws at them.

Pete Riley
Campaign director, GM Freeze

_______

Julian Little of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council asks why on earth we in the UK would not be interested in GM crops when millions of farmers around the world are growing them.

Instead of following the crowd, Britain would do better economically to produce GM-free foods and landscapes, which not only would be in high demand, but would also provide a "control" for all those scientists who enjoy experimenting with nature.

Simon Fairlie
South Petherton, Somerset

17 September 2007

USA: Monsanto, Dow join forces for new GM corn

FoodNavigator.com, 17 September 2007.

Biotechnology companies Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences have teamed up to launch what they claim to be the industry's first eight-gene stacked combination in corn, which the firms say will further expand their presence in the GM market for the crop.

SmartStax, which is designed to be the "all-in-one" answer to yield protection from weed and insect threats, could be commercially available as early as the end of the decade, the companies said last week.

"The combination of these trait technologies signals the start of the next generation of products with improved plant protection and yield increases for the farmer," said Jerome Peribere, president and CEO of Dow AgroSciences.

The new variety will incorporate eight different herbicide tolerance and insect-protection genes from both of the companies.

The insect protection technologies include Dow AgroSciences' Herculex I and Herculex RW technologies, and Monsanto's YieldGard VT Rootworm/RR2 and YieldGard VT PRO technologies, as well as the two established weed control systems, Roundup Ready and Liberty Link.

Every trait included in SmartStax to date is already either available commercially or in advanced stages of regulatory review, according to the companies. Monsanto and Dow said they will make regulatory submissions and expect their new variety will be commercially available in the US by the end of the decade.

Initial proof of concept testing on SmartStax aimed at feasibility of trait integration and viability of enhanced performance has returned "on target" results, which will be used to prepare regulatory submissions.

According to Monsanto, the product will represent an expanded business opportunity for its seed and traits business.

"We believe this multi-stack will enhance the growth of our branded and licensed cornseed businesses and accelerate our penetration of the potential trait acreage opportunities," said Carl Casale, executive vice president of strategy and operations for Monsanto.

Dow's Peribere also said that the company expects the new agreement to accelerate its plans to build a leading seed and biotechnology platform.

Under the terms of the agreement, both companies will cross-license, under royalty-bearing agreements, their respective above- and below-ground insect protection systems as well as the two weed control systems. Monsanto will represent SmartStax for both parties for joint third-party licensing.

In addition, both parties said they will cross-license germplasm to their seed brands for a ten-year period under royalty-bearing agreements to create new hybrid combinations which would not otherwise exist. These brands include: Monsanto's national corn seed brand, Dekalb, and regional seed brands sold by American Seeds, Inc, as well as Dow AgroSciences' Mycogen corn seed brand.

These agreements are expected to enable the companies' brands to develop new higher-yielding hybrid combinations.

Both Monsanto and The Dow Chemical Company, parent company of Dow AgroSciences, have posted presentations on their websites to provide an overview of SmartStax.

UK: Return of GM: ministers back moves to grow crops in UK
Climate concerns will reduce chance of new public backlash, says industry

The Guardian, September 17 2007. By Alok Jha, science correspondent.

Government ministers have given their backing to a renewed campaign by farmers and industry to introduce genetically modified crops to the UK, the Guardian has learned.

They believe the public will now accept that the technology is vital to the development of higher-yield and hardier food for the world's increasing population and will help produce crops that can be used as biofuels in the fight against climate change.

"GM will come back to the UK; the question is how it comes back, not whether it's coming back," said a senior government source.

Attempts to introduce GM to Britain in the late 1990s met a wave of direct action from activists tearing up crops. At the same time supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer barred GM ingredients from their ranges for fear of provoking a consumer backlash.

In 2004, the government announced that no GM crops would be grown in the country for the "foreseeable future", prompting Lord Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association to declare: "This is the end of GM in Britain."

Recent polls also revealed that about 70% of the European public remained opposed to GM foods.

However, ministers are confident that the technology's virtues will be more apparent this time because of increased public awareness of pressing environmental concerns.

"The ability to have drought-resistant crops is important not only for the UK but for other parts of the world," said the source. "And the fact that some GM crops can produce higher yields in more difficult climactic conditions is going to be important if we're going to feed the growing world population."

Ministers are reluctant to publicly back the effort at this stage, admitting that a previous attempt to introduce GM crops to the UK in 2004 fell victim to poor public relations. "We had a bad consultation on GM and it set research back in the UK a very long way indeed," the source added.

In that year, scientists published the results of several field scale trials of GM crops, which assessed their impact on the environment. Although the technology was subsequently cleared by the government, biotech companies in the UK decided to lie low after backlashes from the media, NGOs and consumers.

But industry attempts to reverse the situation are now gathering momentum. Earlier this year, the plant science company BASF began field trials in Cambridge and Yorkshire of a potato that has been genetically modified to resist blight, the fungus that devastated Ireland's potato crop and caused the famine of the 1840s. A successful result could lead to the potato being the first in a line of GM crops grown in the UK.

"We have absolutely every confidence that GM will be used in the UK," said Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which represents several major biotechnology companies that produce GM crops.

"It's worth remembering that there are approximately 100m hectares (247m acres) of GM crops being grown around the world by about 10 million farmers. There is absolutely no question at all that this is technology that is being seen to work in other countries and why on earth would you not want to be interested in the UK?"

Farmers have been lobbying ministers over a way to bring back GM technology. Peter Kendall, the president of the National Farmers Union (NFU), has written to ministers asking them to have a national debate to highlight the benefits.

Helen Ferrier, chief scientist at the NFU, said: "We have written to ministers on various topics related to GM - including the more general issues of we've got to look at this more sensibly and try and have a conversation about it based on what's happening and not on emotions and what happened five years ago."

Environment groups accused the government yesterday of putting industry wishes above the concerns of the public. "Unfortunately the public and media have thought we've won the battle and GM's gone away and people aren't really worrying about it at the moment. It certainly hasn't gone away," said Clare Oxborrow, a GM campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

Graham Thompson, of Greenpeace UK, said the government still saw GM as a public relations issue. "The population has comprehensively rejected GM in the UK and over most of Europe so they're constantly having to be as bullish as possible.The purpose of the crops primarily is to give intellectual property rights to biotech companies. They're fulfilling their purpose perfectly in those terms. But they're not really doing much for the farmer."

But Mr Little said environment campaigners had misled the public into fearing GM. "All of the suggestions that they've made about the horrible things that could happen, nothing's happened."

He pointed to Australia as a place where public opinion on GM technology was turned around. "There's a country that has gone through the moratoriums, has gone through the we're-not-sure, the NGOs have been in there and caused mayhem, and come out the other end saying this is a useful technology and the public support it."

"There is no question in our minds that we'll win," said Mr Little. "This is a safe, high-quality technology that's been proven to work."

UK: The GM years: raids, reviews and a princely protest
- Widespread concerns led to voluntary moratorium
- Study highlighted risks to farmland wildlife


The Guardian, September 17 2007. By Ian Sample, science correspondent.

Dawn was breaking over the Norfolk farmlands when Eddie Brigham steered his tractor into the path of an oncoming mower that had been let loose to damage his six-acre crop of maize.

To the disappointment of 28 Greenpeace activists, the collision crumpled the mower, but the events at Walnut Tree Farm left an indelible mark on the history of anti-GM crop campaigning. The year was 1999 and the raid targeted one of the most controversial experiments Britain has seen: field-scale trials of GM crops.

Eight years on, the government is paving the way for GM crops to be planted once again. Ministers believe that the case has been strengthened by the global food shortage and the need to grow crops for biofuels to combat climate change.

Strong opposition to GM emerged in Britain in the early 1990s as crop varieties created by multinationals such as Monsanto began to clear regulatory hurdles.

Pressure groups seized on the issue and English Nature was worried that herbicides to be used with GM crops would be so effective that they would leave no weeds or seeds for bugs or butterflies on the farmland margins. If they took a hit the knock-on effects further up the food chain could be devastating, they feared.

In 1997 it became clear that GM soya from Monsanto had reached British supermarkets unlabelled, in processed food. A year later the Prince of Wales suggested consumers boycot GM entirely.

In the face of growing opposition, Michael Meacher, then environment minister, negotiated a voluntary moratorium with the GM industry, which agreed not to plant crops until broad farm-scale trials had been carried out to assess the ecological impact. Europe imposed its own moratorium, banning the import or growing of GM crops. In spring 1999 the first GM trial began in Wiltshire.

Before the trials were complete the government commissioned two reviews Sir David King, the chief science adviser, gathered 24 scientists to sift through scientific literature, looking for dangers. The Cabinet Office, meanwhile, conducted a costs and benefits assessment.

In July 2003 the science review concluded that weedkillers posed a potential threat to wildlife and that if GM crops were planted widely throughout Britain traditional and organic farms could become contaminated because GM pollen would carry on the wind. The Cabinet Office report concluded that any benefits for consumers would be minimal.

The government launched a public debate on GM, involving 675 public meetings and nearly 40,000 written responses. The consultation was dominated by groups firmly for or against GM, and found that 86% were unhappy to eat GM and 91% feared for its effects on the environment.

When results from the farm-scale trials were published later in the year they revealed that the powerful weedkillers used with some GM crops led to drops in farmland bees and butterflies.

In 2004 the government approved GM maize for planting, but by this time many biotech companies had scaled down their plans in Britain or pulled out entirely.

But it now appears that the industry was biding its time in the hope that anti-GM sentiment would die down. Last year the German company BASF gained permission for the first GM crop trial in Britain since the government's own Its blight-resistant potato will be planted at two fields as part of a five-year evaluation.

Timeline

1983 Scientists genetically modify a plant, creating tobacco that is resistant to an antibiotic.

1992 The phrase "Frankenfood" is coined by Paul Lewis, an English professor at Boston College.

1994 The first GM food, the Flavr Savr tomato, is approved in the US.

1996 GM tomato paste arrives on British supermarket shelves.

1999 The field scale trials of GM crops begin across Britain.

2003 Farm scale trials conclude that herbicides used with some GM crops can reduce weeds and seeds for farmland wildlife.

2004 GM maize is approved for planting in Britain.

2006 German biotech firm BASF gets permission to plant blight-resistant GM potatoes at two trial sites in Britain.

2007 Government backs call from industry and farmers to bring GM to Britain.

UK: Nature Biotechnology facilitates premeditated GM Rottweiler attack
How a well-known scientific journal "set up" an honest scientist through a conspiracy of lies and deception

GM Free Cymru (GM Free Wales), 17 September 2007.

Jeremiah 11:19:
But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me..........

Background

When Russian scientist Irina Ermakova revealed the results of her studies of rats which had been fed on a diet of GM soy in 2005, there was immediate and widespread press coverage, since her findings indicated that the fertility of animals fed on the GM material was compromised, and that the survival rates of offspring were dramatically reduced (1). Her results were seized upon by anti-GM campaigners and consumer groups, since they seemed to confirm other published research showing damage to the vital organs of animals fed on GM plants of various kinds (2). The GM industry and the regulatory bodies in Europe and elsewhere were not best pleased, and over the past two years they have sought to marginalise and vilify Dr Ermakova, to demonstrate that her research methods were fundamentally flawed, and to spread the message that her findings were anomalous and untrustworthy. One of their on-going criticisms has been that the research cannot be trusted because it is not peer-reviewed and published in a "respectable" scientific journal. However, Dr Ermakova has admitted over and again that her facilities in Moscow and her research design are not perfect, and that there may be aspects of her work that can be improved. She has had no cooperation whatsoever from Monsanto or from the Russian Academy of Science, and indeed they have sought to block her research by starving her of funds and refusing to supply her with GM soy for the feeding experiments. Against all the odds, she has repeated her experiments five times, with very similar results on each occasion. And she has repeatedly called for others to replicate or improve her experiments -- a call which has gone unheeded thus far. It does not take a genius to work out that the GM industry is very scared that any new research will simply confirm Ermakova's findings. For the same reason, Pusztai's controversial research involving GM potatoes (3) has never been repeated. So the instinct of the GM industry, when shown research results which are uncomfortable, is to do what it has always done -- shoot the messenger.

The set-up

The key events are as follows. We have in our possession the crucial documents to support every single point.

1. In the summer of 2007 a group of four scientists (Bruce M Chassy, L. Val Giddings, Alan McHughen and Vivian Moses) contacted the Editor of Nature Biotechnology and asked him if he would facilitate an opportunity for them to attack the research methods and findings of Dr Irina Ermakova (4). He agreed to this request (5).

2. The Editor of the journal wrote to IE on 25th June 2007. Extracts: "I am writing to you because the journal has been approached by a group of authors wishing to critique the results of your work that have been discussed in public forums." "......... the journal would, however, prefer to provide you with an opportunity to present your own findings and conclusions in your own words, rather than a critique from one side. I was therefore wondering whether you be willing to answer (via e-mail or telephone) a set of questions about your work, with a view to their questions and answers being published as part of an article?"

3. In a letter dated 28 June the editor stated: "I envisage an article that would present the results and conclusions you previously discussed at the NAGS symposium on genetic modification in Russia, together with community feedback." (6)

4. In the exchange of correspondence between June and September 2007 IE repeatedly asked if she could submit a paper in the normal way, presenting her results for consideration, peer review, and eventual acceptance / rejection (6). But the Editor (letter dated 29 June) indicated his reluctance to accept a submission on the grounds that the research results "have already been published publicly and discussed widely in the media". He indicated that the results were "no longer eligible for peer review at Nature Biotechnology under our policies." On the same day IE responded that, having repeated her experiments five times, she had new data to report. The Editor then agreed to accept a short "presubmission enquiry", but continued to encourage her to participate in a question and answer session.

5. On 19 July the Editor sent his list of questions to IE, and she sent her responses to him on 2nd August. Her text was edited and finalized on 14th August after the provision of certain additional information requested by the Editor. With the text she provided 12 references.

6. On 7th August Ermakova's offer to submit a paper entitled "Comparison of effects of different kinds of maternal diet with soy modified by gene CP4 EPSPS on rat offspring" was turned down by Dr Kathy Aschheim, Senior editor of Nature Biotechnology, on the pretext that it would be more appropriate for another journal.

The betrayal

7. On 20 August the Senior Production Editor of Nature Biotechnology sent IE a "dummy proof" in PDF format (7), with the title "GM Soybeans and health safety -- a controversy reexamined" and with Irina V Ermakova listed beneath the title as author. Eight of the original 12 references had been deleted. In the introductory paragraph (presumably written by the Editor) were the words "Nature Biotechnology approached Ermakova to ask for a detailed account of her work in her own words. Her answers are presented below together with comments solicited from a group of researchers working in the field." The comments from the group of researchers were NOT included in the dummy proof, which was referred to as a "publication proof." (8)

8. On 12th September, without any further reference to IE, the article was published on the Nature Biotechnology web site. It was now a totally different article, with Andrew Marshall listed as author, with 20 new references (all chosen to bolster the case made by the "group of four"), with photos and biographical notes on Val Giddings, Bruce Chassy, Alan McHugh and Vivian Moses, and with lengthy critiques by the group inserted after every one of the answers provided by IE.

9. The critiques printed in the article are not attributed to individuals, but appear to be the "agreed positions" of the four of them working together. There must have been considerable communication between them before the wording of each critique was finalized for publication.

10. On the day of publication, IE asked for a copy of the published article, and it was sent to her in PDF format (9). This was the first time she had seen it in its final form, and the first time she had seen the comments from the "group of four." She was surprised to see that her name had been replaced by that of Andrew Marshall as author. On the same day the Editor sent an Email to IE to explain the rationale behind the change of attribution at the head of the article. He wrote: ......."it was decided to present the article from a neutral point of view of an editor, with both your viewpoints and those of the other authors presented together."

The cunning little plan

It is clear from the early correspondence that the initiative for this extraordinary piece of deception and duplicity came from the "group of four". At no time was IE told who these people were, or what sort of "community" they represented. Had she been told, she would certainly not have cooperated in this exercise, in view of the known reputations of the "group of four" as spokesmen for the GM industry and as researchers with no expertise in her research field (10). She was not told at any stage what final form the article would take, and as we can see from the above she was led to believe that the "other side" would ask the questions, and she would be able to provide the answers.

The statement in the article referring to "comments solicited from a group of researchers" is patently untrue, since the Editor's letter dated 25 June makes it clear that the researchers made the first approach to him, and that he responded favourably to their suggestion.

Throughout the correspondence, IE was cooperative and trusting, and clearly assumed that the Editor was intent upon publishing an honest discussion of assorted scientific issues (6). As recently as publication day (12th September 2007), she was under the impression that this was "her" article, and that her name should have been on the piece as author. Indeed, this was a natural conclusion, given the nature of the "dummy proof" which she was sent.

The sending of this "dummy proof" is in our experience absolutely unprecedented, and is in total contravention of good academic practice. It is also unethical, and can only be interpreted as a deliberate (and successful) attempt to lead an honest scientist into a sordid trap laid by academics who should know better, with the connivance of a supposedly respectable journal. The actions of this group of five men are doubly reprehensible when one considers that English is not Dr Ermakova's first language and that she was not in a position to interpret the subtleties of wording in the Editor's letters to her.

The liaison between the "peer reviewers" in this case also raises serious questions, since traditionally peer reviewers should be acknowledged experts in the field; they should be chosen by the Editor; they should act independently, without reference to one another; they should be prepared to put their names to their own comments; and they should be willing to communicate with the author prior to publication with a view to improving the quality of the submitted material. But the most crucial point of all is that reviewers should always assume that the colleague whose work is being scrutinized is honest and sincere; and the comments from the "group of four" are singularly lacking in respect for an honest scientist who has been working under very difficult conditions.

Since none of the comments in the final article is attributed to any individual, there is a distinct possibility that they were written either (a) by a "ghost writer" or (b) by a much larger group of individuals from the GM industry working together.

As a piece of crude character assassination, this is on a par with what happened to Arpad Pusztai in 1999, and there are some VERY serious questions that now need to be asked about the editorial practices, affiliations and motives of a journal which used to be a serious scientific publication (11). This is "tabloid academic publishing" involving deception, lies, duplicity and editorial malpractice. What we effectively have in this article is a piece of very brutal and biased (and inaccurate) peer reviewing by a self-selected and ill-qualified group of GM proponents (12), in print and on the record, and published without the vilified scientist being given any opportunity to defend herself.

References

1. http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html

2. A selection of articles:

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/ermakova.htm
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=298
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/monsanto2.htm
http://www.greenplanet.net/Articolo9833.html
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5989
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/suspicions.htm
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6499
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/arpad.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16216809&ordinalpos=1
&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15718213&ordinalpos=2
&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14706936&ordinalpos=3
&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

3. Ewen SWB and Pusztai A, Lancet, 354, 1353-1354, 1999
http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/464416.stm
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172031

4. None of these scientists is an expert in the field of animal physiology, toxicology or laboratory-based animal nutrition studies, and none of them would have been qualified to peer review any article that might have been submitted by Irina Ermakova. Further information here:

Val Giddings
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=23

Bruce M Chassy
http://www.thefutureofscience.org/veniceconference2005/speakers/chassy_b.htm
Bruce Chassy has received research grants from major food companies and has conducted seminars for Monsanto, Genencor, Amgen, Connaught Labs and Transgene.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1400

Alan McHughen
http://www.facultydirectory.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/pub/public_individual.pl?faculty=1912
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=88

Vivian Moses
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=91

5. Letter from Dr Andrew Marshall to Dr Irina Ermakova dated 25 June 2007.

6. GM Free Cymru is in possession of the full file of correspondence between Dr Irina Ermakova and Dr Andrew Marshall, June - September 2007.

7. This dummy proof is in the possession of GM Free Cymru.

8. Email message from Ingrid McNamara, Senior Production Editor, to Irina Ermakova, dated 20 August 2007

9. The published version of the article, as sent to Dr Ermakova on 12th September 2007 following her request, is in the possession of GM Free Cymru.
The abstract is here:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt0907-981.html

10. This point is admitted in the critical comments by the "group of four" on page 985 of the published article.

11. Nature Biotechnology was also implicated in the attempts in 2002-2005 to discredit Prof Ignacio Chapela's work on GM maize in Mexico, and to get him sacked from his position in UC Berkeley.
http://www.gmwatch.org/print-profile1.asp?PrId=23
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5282
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4837

12. In the declaration of competing interests accompanying the published article, there is only one declaration -- from Vivian Moses. He describes CropGen (of which he is Chairman) as "an information service directed at informing the UK public about agricultural biotechnology." However, on the appropriate web site, CropGen's mission statement includes these words: "....CropGen's mission is to make the case for GM crops and foods..."

USA: The tragedy in India's cotton: Surely there's a better way

Delta Farm Press (USA), 17 September 2007. By Hembree Brandon.

Nearly 9,000 miles away, in a place almost no one has ever heard of, and probably couldn't locate on a map, an ongoing tragedy, born of poverty and desperation, is taking place.

Unlike the widespread media and WTO attention focused on another little-known nation, Burkina Faso, and claims its cotton farmers are being ruined by U.S. government farm subsidies, this far more tragic story of farmer misfortune has had scant attention by the mainstream media.

In the middle of India, the world's second most populous country, over 4,000 farmers in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra state have committed suicide in the past four years ó more than 1,000 in 2006 alone. Even now, the deaths continue, often several a day.

A great number of the dead were cotton farmers, many who drank fatal doses of pesticide.

They were driven to take their lives, we are told, because of crop failures (made worse by ongoing drought), declining world cotton prices and inability to compete in the global market, huge debts related to the boring of wells and the higher costs of GMO seeds (now widely used), and the failure of India's government to make good on promises of relief.

In this case, huge debt is a relative term ó most of the dead farmers owed less than $1,000 to money lenders. Even the largest debts were less than $10,000.

America's Public Broadcasting System recently showed a documentary, "The Dying Fields," focusing on the farmer suicides, and noting the irony that, while India, led by Maharashtra state, is enjoying a soaring economic boom, two-thirds of its rural area population remains impoverished.

The sadness in this story is not that these farmers, trying to make a living in the meanest of circumstances, are unable to compete in the world market against unfairly subsidized U.S. cotton, as is alleged in the mainstream media. Rather, the greater sadness is that they are growing cotton at all.

To see women and children stooping and scratching holes by hand in fields that look to be little more than rocks with a bit of soil in between, dropping seeds into those holes and covering them, is absolutely heart-wrenching. Whatever crop survives the drought or other weather calamities is, of course, hand-harvested.

That the government, in effect, encourages this futile effort is even more disturbing.

It is one thing to rail against the U.S. and "corporate agriculture," big farms, government subsidies, etc. It is another to encourage people to grow cotton ó or any crop ó under conditions totally unsuited to its production. No farmer in the U.S. would consider for a moment growing cotton in such soils.

Surely, there is something better. Surely, there is in the world agricultural community enough resources and brainpower to send knowledgeable people to assist them in finding other, more effective ways to support their families.

If a Norman Borlaug can save millions from poverty and death by teaching more effective grain production techniques, is it not possible to find ways to help these people earn a living other than trying to grow cotton where cotton shouldn't be grown?

e-mail: hbrandon@farmpress.com

15 September 2007

Ireland: More than 70% of Europeans are against GM food, say surveys

Irish Examiner, 15 September 2007. By Ray Ryan Agribusiness Correspondent.

SCIENTIFIC research has uncovered no significant negative health effects from genetically modified foods, the chief scientific adviser to the Government said yesterday.

Professor Patrick Cun ningham, speaking at the national conference of the Agricultural Science Asso ciation in Trim, Co Meath, said surveys show more than 70% of Europeans to be against GM food.

"This reality cannot be ignored. At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe," he said.

While there are obvious technical and economic benefits, there is widespread apprehension about the technology.

He said this is due to concerns over the perceived risk to human health, environmental im pact, potential to increase the power of multinational corporations, deterioration in food quality, threat to traditional farming and rural society, and general moral acceptability.

Mr Cunningham noted the contrast between sci entific and public opinion: "Three key sources of scientific research results in relation to GM foods are the Royal Society (Britain), the Academie des Sciences (France) and the National Research Council (US).

"All of these have concluded that GM foods are safe. However, a Euro- barometer survey of 2003 showed that 56% of Euro- peans believe GM foods to be dangerous, 70% do not want this type of food and 95% want labelling and the right to choose.

"While scientific re search has not uncovered any health impact, very lit tle of the literature actually deals with health effects."

Mr Cunningham pointed out that no research on safety aspects of GM has been conducted here.

"We could take a lead in Europe by commissioning additional research to address this," he said.

He pointed out that we already have in place a framework to support such scientific research, the Food Institutional Research Measure.

Referring to the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free, he said it could be advantageous in marketing the € 8 billion of food product exports.

However, in order to re alise this objective, a num ber of challenges would have to be overcome.

"The first is that, as Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM-free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown.

"The second is that, with effectively open borders between north and south, it would require a declaration in two jurisdic tions.

"And the third is that with GM corn and soy bean constituting a grow ing proportion of global supplies of these two crops, and with Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply," he said.

Ireland: Science chief calls for more research into GM foods

The Irish Times, 15 September 2007. By Sean Mac Connell, Agriculture Correspondent. Research to date on GM foods had uncovered no significant neg ative health effects on humans, but less than 1 per cent of that research had dealt with health aspects, the chief scientific adviser to the Government said yesterday.

Prof Patrick Cunningham told the annual conference of the Agricultural Science Association in Trim, Co Meath, that Ireland should take the lead in Europe in commissioning additional res earch into the health aspects of genetically-modified food.

"Repeated surveys show that over 70 per cent of European citi zens are against GM food. This reality cannot be ignored. At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe."

He said that the issue con tinued to be one of the most con tentious in European society. While GM offered obvious tech nical and economic benefits, there was widespread apprehen sion about the technology due to concerns over the perceived risk to human health and the environ mental impact.

In addition, there was concern over the potential to increase the power of multinational corpora tions, deterioration in food qual ity, the threat to traditional farm ing and rural society and general moral acceptability.

Prof Cunningham said that three key sources of scientific research - the Royal Society in Britain, the Academic des Scien ces in France and the National Research Council in the US - had all concluded that GM foods were safe. However, a Eurobarometer survey in 2003 had shown that 56 per cent of Europeans believed GM foods to be dangerous, with 70 per cent saying they "did not want this type of food" and 95 per cent calling for labelling and the "right to choose".

"While scientific research has not uncovered any health impact, very little of the literature actu ally deals with health effects. Most of the published research on GM - over 30,000 papers - con cerns development of the tech nology, with less than 1 per cent dealing with health aspects," Prof Cunningham said.

He pointed out that no res eaich on the health and safety aspects of GM foods had been conducted in Ireland and he sug gested that the State could take a lead in Europe by commissioning research to address this through the Food Institutional Research Measure, the primary national funding mechanism for food research in third-level colleges, and through Teagasc.

Ireland's Chief Scientific Adviser highlights sharp divergence between the scientific evidence and public perceptions of GM foods

Finfacts,17 September 2007.

[Photo caption: Chief Scientific Advisor, Prof Patrick Cunningham, pictured in May 2007 with the winner of the Irish Times Science Speak 2007 competition, TCD student, Shane Bergin and RTE Broadcaster, Pat Kenny.]

Ireland should take the lead in conducting research on the issue says Government adviser

Scientific research to date has uncovered no significant negative health effects from GM foods, despite ongoing public concern that such foods may be harmful, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Irish Government, Professor Patrick Cunningham said today.

Speaking at the National Conference of the Agricultural Science Association in Trim, Professor Cunningham said: "Repeated surveys show that over 70 per cent of European citizens are against Genetically Modified (GM) food. This reality cannot be ignored. At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe.

"GM crops and GM foods continue to be one of the most contentious public issues in European society", said Prof Cunningham. "While there are obvious technical and economic benefits, there is widespread apprehension about the technology due to concerns over the perceived risk to human health, environmental impact, potential to increase the power of multinational corporations, deterioration in food quality, threat to traditional farming and rural society, and general moral acceptability."

He noted the contrast between scientific and public opinion: "Three key sources of scientific research results in relation to GM foods are the Royal Society (UK), the Academie des Sciences (France) and the National Research Council (USA). All of these have concluded that GM foods are safe. However a Eurobarometer survey of 2003 showed that 56 per cent of Europeans believe GM foods to be dangerous, 70 per cent 'do not want this type of food' and 95 per cent want labelling and the right to choose.

"While scientific research has not uncovered any health impact, very little of the literature actually deals with health effects. Most of the published research on GM - over 30,000 papers - concerns development of the technology with less than 1 per cent dealing with health aspects". Furthermore, no research on safety aspects of GM has yet been conducted in Ireland.

"We could take a lead in Europe by commissioning additional research to address this. Professor Cunningham pointed out that we already have in place a framework to support such scientific research, the Food Institutional Research Measure (FIRM). FIRM is the primary national funding mechanism for food research in third level colleges and Teagasc food research centres. Ireland is working to become a European leader in scientific research, and this area offers an excellent opportunity to provide a valuable service to the Irish and European public on an issue of real public concern."

Referring to the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free, he said: "This could possibly have advantages in marketing the ?8bn of food products that we export.

"However, in order to realise this objective, a number of formidable challenges would have to be overcome. The first is that, as Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown. The second is that, with effectively open borders between North and South, it would require a declaration in two jurisdictions. And the third is that with GM corn and soybean constituting a growing proportion of global supplies of these two crops, and with Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply."

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

For information about the health risks of GM food, see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/

Prof. Cunningham is a member of the Irish National Council on Biotechics, whose 2005 report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" is a masterfully crafted work of biotech industry spin which concludes that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself". Prof. Cunningham is also the Chairman of the EU Advisory Committee on the Future of Biotechnology (2005-2007), and a former member of the European Group on Life Sciences (2002-2004). Moreover, Cunningham has also recently worked as a consultant for the US company Elanco (a division of the US pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Company, that markets Monsanto's Bovine Somatotrophin growth hormone Posilac, which is illegal in the EU.

•

Act with skill and care, keep skills up to date

•

Prevent corrupt practice and declare conflicts of interest

•

Respect and acknowledge the work of other scientists

•

Ensure that research is justified and lawful

•

Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment

•

Discuss issues science raises for society

•

Do not mislead; present evidence honestly

"The seven points in this code are part of what separates researchers from charlatans" – Dr Evan Harris

Code endorsed

The scientific profession generally has high standards of integrity, and many scientists have a social conscience, according to Professor King. But there is no formal code of ethics.

"It's important to look at the relationship between science and the public," he said.

"If we have a breakthrough, and society is not accepting of that, then we have a problem; so what we need is for scientists to accept the code and follow it."

The code has been adopted by scientists working in the UK government - and Professor King has invited researchers in UK universities and industry to join them. Next year it will be launched internationally.

The idea was swiftly backed by Lib Dem science spokesman Dr Evan Harris.

"The seven points in this code are part of what separates researchers from charlatans, medicine from quackery and science from supposition," he said.

"It deserves the full support of the science world and policy-makers from the UN down to university governing bodies and company boards."

The Royal Society of Chemistry also approved, issuing a statement saying: "We are proud that all of our 44,000 members across the world, including Sir David King himself, have already signed up to such a code and subject themselves to independent regulation and scrutiny of their professional duties."

Professor King conceded that the code could create conflicts between employers and individuals, but suggested it could also help resolve them.

"Place yourself in the position of a scientist who works for a tobacco company, and the company asks you to counter evidence about the health impacts of tobacco.

"That scientist would be able to look at the code and say, 'I can't do that'."

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Will Ireland's Chief Scientific Advisor, Patrick Cunningham (Professor of Animal Genetics at TCD), set up a universal ethical code for scientists similar to the one announced yesterday by his UK counterpart, Prof. David King?

A similar code is certainly needed. If Prof. Cunningham were to follow the lead of his UK counterpart, a priority issue which urgently needs to be addressed is whether it is ethically acceptable for Irish scientists employed by the agri-biotech industry and/or its lobby groups to counter evidence about the health impacts of GM animal feed and food, particularly in relation to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's role in our national and European policy-making on GMOs

But Prof. Cunningham is unlikely to do so, because of his own ties to the agribiotech industry. He is a member of the Irish National Council on Biotechics, whose 2005 report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" is a masterfully crafted work of biotech industry spin which concludes that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself". Prof. Cunningham is also the Chairman of the EU Advisory Committee on the Future of Biotechnology (2005-2007), and a former member of the European Group on Life Sciences (2002-2004). Moreover, Cunningham has also recently worked as a consultant for the US company Elanco (a division of the US pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Company, that markets Monsanto's Bovine Somatotrophin growth hormone Posilac, which is illegal in the EU.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is legally required to give its approval for all Irish EC votes regarding the placing on the market of GM animal feed and food products in the EU. The conflict arises from the fact that the current CEO of FSAI. Dr John O'Brien, is a (now former) boardmember of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) based in Washington, DC, and of its European branch based in Paris. ILSI is a biotech-funded lobby group which Greenpeace accused of downplaying the evidence of links between high levels of sugar in junk food and childhood diabetes, in scientific panels at the World Health Organisation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

When challenged about the growning scientific evidence of the health risks of GM feed and food in Irish parliamentary committees, Dr O'Brien's FSAI has claimed "there is no evidence"!

Prof. Cunningham's predecessor, "Dr." Barry McSweeney, was appointed by Mary Harney in 2004 without public advertising or competition, following his prior role as CEO of the EC Joint Research Centre. While head of the latter in 2002, McSweeney attempted to suppress the publication of the EC's official "Scenarios for Co-existence" report on the agronomic and economic risks that GM crops would pose to farmers in EU member states (133-pages 1.3mb PDF file: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/gmcrops_coexistence.pdf). The report concluded that GM crops inevitably contaminate conventional and organic crops and may cause 40% higher production costs for EU farmers. McSweeney wrote to the EC recommending that the report should not be made public, stating "given the sensitivity of the issue, I would suggest that the report be kept for internal use within the Commission only..." (see related press releases http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/mcsweeney1.pdf).

These conflicts of interests in Ireland's regulatory bodies make the need for a universal ethical code for scientists all the more urgent. But as the 1st century Roman poet Juvenal said, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" - "Who will guard the guards?"

UN body, Food & Agriculture Organisation, comes out in favour of organic farming
FAO Report says organic farming fights hunger, tackles climate change, and is good for farmers, consumers and the environment.

Westender.com.au, 12 September 2007. By Sam Burcher.

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has come out in favour of organic agriculture. Its report Organic Agriculture and Food Security explicitly states that organic agriculture can address local and global food security challenges. Organic farming is no longer to be considered a niche market within developed countries, but a vibrant commercial agricultural system practised in 120 countries, covering 31 million hectares (ha) of cultivated land plus 62 million ha of certified wild harvested areas. The organic market was worth US$40 billion in 2006, and expected to reach US$70 billion by 2012.

Nadia Scialabba, an FAO official, defined organic agriculture as: "A holistic production management system that avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and genetically modified organisms, minimizes pollution of air, soil and water, and optimises the health and productivity of plants, animals and people".

The strongest benefits of organic agriculture, Scialabba said, are its reliance on fossil fuel independent, locally available resources that incur minimal agro-ecological stresses and are cost effective. She described organic agriculture as a åneo-traditional food systemÇ which combines modern science and indigenous knowledge.

The FAO Report strongly suggests that a worldwide shift to organic agriculture can fight world hunger and at the same time tackle climate change. According to FAOÇs previous World Food Summit report, conventional agriculture, together with deforestation and rangeland burning, are responsible for 30 percent of the CO2 and 90 percent of nitrous oxide emissions worldwide. Organic agriculture overcomes paradox of conventional food production systems.

Read the full article: http://www.westender.com.au/stories.php?s_id=711

USA: Transgenic public relations: Why is it so hard?

Salom.com, 12 September 2007. By Andrew Leonard.

If only scientists had better media training. Then maybe the "public" wouldn't be so distrustful of agricultural biotechnology. This lament doesn't appear just once in the special September issue of Biotechnology Journal, "Talking Biotech with the Public." It pops up again and again, a tragic leitmotif. If scientists could more effectively communicate the rational reasons why there is nothing to fear from biotech, then there would be no resistance to the further spread of genetically modified organisms. But alas, science is hard, the public is limited in its ability to comprehend, and agenda-driven activists are always muddying the waters.

Science is hard. Most people aren't going to understand the ins and outs of recombinant DNA technology. And there is certainly no shortage of disingenuous activists, of all stripes and colors, doing their best to spin every data point in their own chosen direction.

But if those scientists who are furrowing their brow at public intransigence on GMOs want to better understand such irrational belligerence, a close reading of the very first editorial in this special issue offers a big honking clue.

In "Talking with the public: challenging the public scare," Dr. Kristina Sinemus, the CEO of Genius, a German public relations consultancy with "many years of experience in communicating controversial aspects of technology," writes:

"Especially in the light of economic prosperity, which is highly dependent on science, hostility to innovation is counterproductive. The question is not whether societies want new technologies -- there is simply an economic requirement for them. This in turn means that public understanding and a thorough exchange with scientists need to be methodically enforced."

Now, there may well be an irresistible mandate for new technological innovation if nine billion people are going to survive on this planet. But if you're wondering why, as one commentator after another notes in "Talking Biotech with the Public," popular faith in the pronouncements of scientists appears to be on the decline, then look no further than this declaration of "economic" requirements.

Time and again, the authors in Biotechnology Journal divide the world into a drama with just two actors: Science and The Public. (One even makes an even more derisory distinction, suggesting that the debate is between "modernists" who believe in progress, and postmodernists who don't even believe in truth.) But there's a third player: Capital.

For your average muckraking journalist, it's a no-brainer. One's starting point is to always be skeptical of assurances coming from anyone who has a financial stake in the proposition at hand. In a world in which the corporate capture of regulatory agencies is routine, top academic scientists enjoy a steady stream of income from corporate entities, and huge multinational corporations require the constant introduction and distribution of new products to generate the profits demanded by their shareholders, you don't have to be a Marxist to be suspicious. You need merely be prudent.

The essays in Biotechnology Journal do not completely ignore these factors, although most do their best to belittle them. One writer notes that opponents of GMOs cleverly take advantage of the "market-skeptical resentments of the middle class." (To which I might respond, if only! The most formidable offering, -- indeed, the only contribution that need be taken seriously -- University of California at Riverside's Alan McHughen's "Public perceptions of technology," notes in passing that 34 percent of the online respondents to a U.K. television story on a genetically modified safflower strain designed to produce pharmaceutical grade insulin argued that "agricultural biotech is primarily driven by corporate greed." But McHughen's essay also betrays the fundamental tone-deafness that so many scientists display when the public expresses doubt that they're receiving the straight dope.

"Biotechnology is not new in this regard, everything from automobiles to barbecues warrants appropriate experts working in the public interest to assure safety, and typically these experts are employed by government agencies.

But where do we find such experts? Industry certainly employs scientists with appropriate expertise. But industry scientists are usually prohibited from public outreach -- thatÇs the job of the sales force. And when they do engage in public education, their presentation must conform to the company line. In addition, activists are sure to point out that industry people cannot be trusted, as their loyalty is to the shareholders, not the public. Similarly, government employs many capable scientists and their loyalty should be to the taxpayers. But, again, activists quickly criticize and challenge the loyalty of government scientists, as public service experts exchange jobs with industry on a regular basis, the "revolving door policy with big industry," thus undermining their allegiance and credibility. The other major source of scientists with appropriate expertise is academia, as both public and private universities engage in broad research into the issues. But here again, the credibility and loyalty of even public academics is challenged by some activists who point out that many academic research programs are funded by industry, and question whether the academic scientist can be truly objective if their research program is tied to the industry in question."

What's so astonishing about this quote is that, in context, McHughen is clearly bemoaning how unfair these "activists" are being, bandying about their accusations of monetarily influenced bias. Whereas I look at that paragraph, and say, yes, exactly, you've hit the problem on his head! How can you possibly expect me to trust the words of men and women who stand to profit from the commercial deployment of the products that they are telling me are safe?

And you call me irrational?

Brazilian firm purchased

St. Louis Today, 12 September 2007

Monsanto Co. said Tuesday that it paid $100 million to acquire a leading Brazilian corn seed company, Agroeste Sementes.

The acquisition gives Creve Coeur-based Monsanto control of brands that were planted on approximately 40 percent of Brazil's 30 million corn acres in the 2006-20007 growing season.

Monsanto said it will use seeds owned by Agroeste to breed higher-yielding corn for Brazil, the world's third-largest corn production area. These seeds also will provide a platform for the introduction of biotech traits such as Monsanto's insect-resistant YieldGard Corn Borer, which last month passed an initial regulatory hurdle with the Brazilian government.

11 September 2007

USA: Have You Eaten Your Genetically Modified Food Today?

Wired News, September 11 2007. By Alexis Madrigal.

Monsanto, the real and symbolic leader in genetically modified crops, is a company that environmental groups love to hate. A 'Monsanto +antichrist' Google search turns up 53,000 hits. The virtual hate carries over into the real world, too. Last month, Monsanto claimed that activists damaged 65 percent of its test fields in 2006. And yet, in the last 5 years, Monsanto's stock price is up over 700 percent, and the company's directors keep snapping up more shares.

But Americans don't eat GE specialty crops, which include vegetables and fruit. As a 2004 USDA workshop found:

Relatively few GE specialty crop varieties have been submitted to regulatory agencies for clearance, and most of those that have been approved are not available in the marketplace today. The number of products in development is approaching zero.

In August 2006, the Center for Food Safety released a factsheet that stated, "the depth of market rejection of GE foods is arguably unparalleled by any other consumer product." It's hard to square these statements with Monsanto's $689,000,000 in net income during 2006.

There are two parts to the explanation of this seeming paradox. One is that American public opinion is not nearly as hard-edged as the CFS statement suggests. Scores of polls and surveys by both sides can be reduced to three simple ideas. One, American consumers know just about nothing about genetic engineering, more than ten years after its introduction into the market. Two, American consumers intuit that they don't really want their food genetically modified. Three, that belief is not very strong for most people, i.e., one study found that only 2 percent of respondents had done something or "taken action" because of their concerns over biotechnology.

The other part of the explanation is that US consumer attitudes don't actually matter very much to the current GM food business. All Monsanto needs is for you to love Twinkies and Coca-Cola, the food machinery of this country does the rest. Monsanto's model is business-to-business (B2B), like server sales or logistics. Monsanto is more like Oracle than Apple. To the average consumer, GM crops are invisible, especially because you don't have to label them in the US. The attitudes towards GMO that matter to Monsanto are those held by big agribusiness seed buyers and corporate farmers, not Joe Six Pack. And the IT managers of the farming world love Monsanto. The chart is of US GE crop adoption of their big three products, corn, soybeans, and cotton, which just happen to compose 75 percent of the revenue generated from non-fruit and vegetable cash crops.

If you're an opponent of GM foods, here comes the scary punchline. A big chunk of all that genetically modified corn and soy go right into our processed foods and into feed for the animals we eat. So chances are, unless you are a raw or organic foodista, you ate a GM food derivative this very day.

Comment from Robert Vint:

The $689,000,000 income for Monsanto comes purely from sales of unlabelled produce - from GM feed (possible only because produce of GM-fed animals is not labelled as such) and from sales of GM food in the USA (where it is not labelled) and biofuel crops (which are not labelled GM and, by their nature, are not a direct health threat to customers). It still seems true that virtually no-one knowingly buys and eats GM products - whether they are in the USA, EU, Japan or Africa.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The statement that "Monsanto's model is business-to-business (B2B)" also applies in Ireland. Apart from the IFA management, and the Irish Farmers Journal (which receives advertising revenue from Monsanto, BASF and other agri-biotech corporations) the only bodies which oppose our Government's GM-free policy are a handful of big agribusiness seed buyers, animal feed importers / compounders, and the Animal and Plant Health Association (whose members sell Monsanto's weedkiller). These GM enthusiasts pale in comparison to the more than one million citizens whose elected representatives have already declared their areas off-limits to GM seeds and crops.

Wales: Report on future of farming published

Welsh Assembly press release, 11 September 2007.

A major independent report on the future of farming in Wales up to the year 2020 has been published today [Tuesday, 11 September] and presented to the Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones.

The Report was presented by William Legge-Bourke, chair of the Sustainable Farming and Environment: Action Towards 2020 Group. ÝThis independent group was established in April 2006 to inform the Welsh Assembly Government on longer-term options for supporting the sustainability of farming and the countryside.ÝÝ

The Report sets out a radical vision with an emphasis on three main priorities:

•

Farming connecting to the market

•

Farming delivering environmental goods and services; and

•

Farming contributing to the sustainability of rural communities.

The Report stresses the importance of farmers collaborating, and that farmers should be given professional training to successfully manage co-operatives. ÝThe report also focuses on how farmers can respond to the challenge of climate change and that the agriculture industry must work towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2020.

Elin Jones said:

The Group has produced a major piece of work that will be influential in shaping the Welsh Assembly Government's longer term strategy for farming and the countryside.

The Report sets out 67 recommendations to the Welsh Assembly Government and our partners across Wales aimed specifically at delivering the comprehensive vision set out in the Report.ÝÝ

Since "Farming for the Future" was published in November 2001 as the first strategic policy document for Welsh agriculture, much has changed. ÝIÝam clear that it is necessary to revisit the strategic direction set out in "Farming for the Future" and the detailed actions that underpin it. That process will be informed by the 2020 Report.

The new strategy will aim to face up to the challenges of the future, and there will be extensive consultation as it is taken forward. ÝIÝwill study the Group's report and its recommendations in detail as part of this work. ÝIn the meantime I would like to thank the members of the Group once again for their sterling work which I know will make a significant contribution to the debate on the future of farming and the environment in Wales towards 2020.ÝÝ

Note:

Copies of the full report and summary are available on the Welsh Assembly Government website: www.wales.gov.uk

The Sustainable Farming & Environment: Action Towards 2020 Task & Finish Group was established in April 2006 to inform the Welsh Assembly Government on longer term options for supporting the sustainability of farming and the countryside.

The Group was fully independent and its members were chosen for their personal farming, countryside / environment and food chain interests. ÝThe members are listed below:

William Legge-Bourke (Chair) - Farmer
John Avizienius - RSPCA Cymru
Rob Cumine - Marks & Spencer
Jeff Davies - RSPB Cymru
John Rhys Davies - Farmer
Peter Davies OBE - Sustainable Development Commission/ Business in the Community UK
Clive Faulkner - Wildlife Trust
Alan Gardner - Farmer / Former Director Hybu Cig Cymru
Richard Jarvis - Cynnal Cymru
Gareth Edwards-Jones - Professor of Land Use & Agriculture
Gareth Jones - Farm Manager
Dafydd Lewis - Farmer supplier/Past Chair of Wales Young Farmers Clubs
Ionwen Lewis - Farmer/President of Women'sÝFood and Farming Organisation
Peter Midmore - Professor of Applied Economics
Brian Pawson - Countryside Council for Wales
William Prichard - Farmer/Past Chair of Future Farmers of Wales

The Group has taken account of upland and lowland farming and the needs of the environment, rural communities and the public in producing a model for sustainable farming and land management for 2020. The Group was required to submit a report outlining the way forward for agriculture and rural Wales in the future (towards 2020) with policy recommendations towards achieving the objectives of economic, environmental, social and cultural sustainability. ÝSpecifically they have projected a model on the future structure of farming in 2020, taking account of key developments likely to emerge within the context of Wales, the UK and EU levels. Ý

USA: Seed dealer closes after 15 years

Commercial Appeal, 11 September 2007

Delta King transfers wheat, soybeans to Cullum Seeds

Delta King Seed Co., the seed dealership that promoted itself as the Soybean of the South, has gone out of business.

The office in McCrory, Ark., has closed and employees, including the regional sales force, were given two weeksÇ severance.

Delta King, established in 1992 by Noal Lawhon, owed millions of dollars in technology fees to Monsanto Co. after the company apparently overestimated the amount of seed it could sell and was forced to take a loss, sources said.

Full story: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2007/sep/11/b11delta/

USA: Biotech startup Chlorogen shuts down, starts selling off its technology

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11 September 2007

Chlorogen Inc., once one of the region's most promising plant science startups, has ceased research operations and is selling off its technology, said President and Chief Executive David Duncan on Monday.

Chlorogen won acclaim at industry conferences and in Missouri for its novel approach: It genetically modified the chloroplasts of tobacco plants to produce therapeutic proteins that could be purified into drugs - and did so in a way that eliminated the possibility of those protein genes accidentally cross-pollinating with other plants.

Venture capital funds, including Clayton-based Prolog Ventures, invested $12 million in the company.

The region's biotechnology industry leaders held up Chlorogen as a success story, and state officials offered incentives to help fund its growth.

Full story: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/
0/DC74DF6BF165EE1886257353000D4A5B?OpenDocument

Ireland: GM Herculex up for status approval

Irish Independent, 11 September 2007.

The GM maize variety Herculex could return to centre stage later this month as its approval status is due to be discussed at the next meeting of the EU Council of Farm Ministers.

The meeting is scheduled for September 26 and 27 and a spokesperson for the EU Commission confirmed that Herculex is on the agenda.

The EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health failed to come to a definitive decision regarding Herculex in June, and final approval for the maize variety was delayed for the last three months as a result.

Ireland abstained in the Food Chain and Animal Health Committee vote, a move which has led to an outcry from Irish feed importers and compounders.

Feed importers maintain that they have been forced to pay inflated prices for scarce supplies of non-GM material due to the EU committee's failure to approve Herculex.

There were also strong indications that the decision to abstain from the crucial EU vote was driven by political considerations.

As a consequence, Ireland's stance at this month's gathering will be watched with interest.

Meanwhile, since Herculex received a positive safety assessment from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in April, the Commission has confirmed that the maize variety will be cleared for use on foot of this decision should the Council of Ministers fail to reach a final decision on its status.

Ireland: Corr disappointed with Fingal Councillors' rejection of GM ban
Labour and FF members oppose motion to declare Fingal a GM-free zone

Green Party Councillor Joe Corr has criticised fellow members of Fingal County Council who last night defeated his motion to have Fingal deemed a 'GM-free zone'. Cllr Corr said the door has now been left open for large multinational companies to grow genetically modified produce in the county.

Speaking after a full council meeting yesterday evening, Cllr Corr said, "I am very disappointed with last night's vote. I believe it is a major setback for both local farmers and consumers.

"I am even more disappointed that Fianna Fáil councillors Darragh Butler and Eoghan O'Brien voted against the motion ‚ even though it is in their own party's Programme for Government. The Programme, which was agreed between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, calls for the establishment of an 'all Ireland GM-free zone.' The councillors have displayed a certain level of ignorance as to what is their own party's national objective.

"I was also surprised that Labour councillor Peter Coyle rejected the motion. Considering he is a councillor who prides himself in supporting the community, he clearly doesn't see any merit in protecting the farming industry in Fingal from large multinational companies like Monsanto. Perhaps he should consult with his Party colleague in Brussels Proinsias De Rossa before making any similar votes, as the Labour line in the European Parliament would seem to be strongly opposed to genetic modification," concluded Cllr Corr.

Information: Cllr Joe Corr: 087 681 5811

OECD questions EU rush to boost biofuels

EUobserver.com, 11 September 2007. By Lucia Kubosova.

The EU's aim to boost the use of biofuels as part of wider plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has received a serious blow from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), grouping the world's 30 most developed countries.

The Paris-based body argues that state subsidies for biofuels could lead to food price hikes and damage to forests and natural habitats while its impact in terms of the fight against climate change may be only limited.

"The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits," an OECD study to be unveiled on Tuesday (11 September) says, according to the Financial Times.

The document is set to be discussed by ministers and government experts from the member countries - among them 19 EU states.

It puts a serious question mark over the union's agreed commitment to secure that 10 percent of transport fuels comes from biofuels by 2020.

The goal is part of a key climate change package agreed by EU leaders in March, with German chancellor Angela Merkel - chairing the talks as the bloc's then president - suggesting that state subsidies as well as clearly set thresholds are crucial for the new sector and environment-friendly technologies to develop.

But according to the OECD report, biofuels would cut energy-related emissions by a maximum of 3 percent while they would most likely mean a huge cost for taxpayers.

The EU could end up paying ten times more than the US for incentives to boost the production of ethanol.

At the moment, Washington puts aside $7bn a year meaning it costs over $500 for each tonne of carbon dioxide that is avoided.

The authors of the study point out that state subsidies - instead of adequate prices for biofuels in the market - would subsequently create pressure to replace forests or wetlands with farms for bio-energy crops.

Moreover, the experts predict that any global shift towards biofuels would lead to soaring food prices, something that would most strongly affect developing countries.

Instead, they urge governments to phase out biofuel subsidies, using "technology-neutral" carbon taxes so that the markets find the best ways of reducing greenhouse gases.

OECD slams agrofuels
Friends of the Earth Europe urges EU to scrap 10 percent target

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 11th September 2007.

Brussels, 11 September 2007 - Today Friends of the Earth Europe called for the EU to scrap its target for using plant-based agrofuels for transport, after a leaked paper revealed the OECD's [1] grave concerns about their social and environmental effects.

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said:

"Hurtling headfirst down the agrofuels path will be a big mistake, and the OECD is the latest of a series of respected international bodies to warn against it. The EU risks stimulating further destruction and poverty in developing countries if it sticks with its current agrofuels target."

The report appears as a background document ahead of today's Roundtable on Sustainable Development - which will be attended by a number of European Ministers. [2] The report raises numerous concerns, including:

•

The environmental impact of agrofuels can be even worse than that of petrol and diesel. Natural forests, wetlands and pasture land will be replaced with dedicated crops grown for energy.

•

Large scale expansion of agrofuels will significantly impact on the wider global economy. Food will get increasingly expensive for at least the next ten years.

Within the background document are two critical recommendations:

•

Governments are failing to respond to the growing concerns about agrofuels. They should not create new mandates for agrofuels and should instead phase out their current support.

•

More attention should be focused on reducing energy demand and improving vehicle efficiency as this will cost less than subsidising inefficient new sources of supply like agrofuels.

European Heads of State agreed in March this year to a target that 10 percent of transport fuels should be met by plant-based agrofuels by 2020. The target however is conditional on agrofuels being produced sustainably and also on the successful commercialisation of so-called 'second generation fuels', which are produced by converting biomass to liquid. The OECD paper questions whether either are possible.

Mr Bebb continued: "The EU should put the brakes on agrofuels by dropping its recently-adopted target and forcing the automobile industry to clean up their cars. Agrofuels are a false substitute for actually improving vehicle efficiency and taxpayers money should instead be used to support real solutions to our climate and energy problems."

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Co-ordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel :+49 802 599 1951, Mobile : +49 1609 4901163, Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel:+32 25 42 61 05, Mobile: +32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Notes

[1] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

[2] Round Table on Sustainable Development: "Biofuels: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?"
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/OECD_Biofuels_Cure_Worse_Than_Disease_Sept07.pdf

France: Background on the case Greenpeace vs. French AG Ministry

Message from Guy Kästler, Réseau Semences Paysannes (Peasant Seeds Network), 11 September 2007.

The official registry of the French Ministry for Agriculture only indicates the total surface of GMO cultivations in each region.

Greenpeace has shed light on the existence of a GMO parcel of land that the Ministry's registry failed to publish. Thereby Greenpeace has demonstrated the government's incapability in ensuring public information, surveillance on GMOs and coexistence.

This action made a lot of noise as Greenpeace has good communication services. But this is only one among the many actions that were organised in France this Spring and Summer:

Field clearings, symbolic clearings that deposited GMO plants in front of police stations or Monsanto offices, pollination of GM fields with non-GM pollen, occupation of official plant protection offices, experiments showing the reality of contaminations ...

We (Réseau Semences Paysannes) are currently preparing the second stage (mid-October) of the moratorium - I (Guy) will keep you updated and soon send you infos about it.

Greenpeace discovers an illegal GM field, files a suit and calls for an immediate moratorium on open-field cultivation

Press release - source not indicated), September 5th, 2007

Bézéril (Gers), France

Starting this morning at 9h30, Greenpeace activists mark an illegal GM corn field with red food colorant: this field is not published on the public registry of the Agriculture Ministry, as current rules in force would require.

According to the official registry, the Samatan region is supposed to be totally GM free. Through this action, Greenpeace demonstrates that GM corn cultivations are uncontrollable - in terms of contamination, toxicity and legality. The Government must immediately impose a moratorium on open-field cultivations.

"We have come to denounce a crime and to file a suit with the State Attorney of Auch," declares Magali Ringoot, Greenpeace GMO campaigner. "We are asking Government Authorities to ascertain the infraction, to open an inquiry and to proceed with an immediate preventive harvest."

Since last March, GM cultivations - that is of MON810 maize, the only GM crop authorised in France - must compulsorily be declared at the Ministry of Agriculture in order for them to be inventoried by region on a public registry (accessible at: http://ogm.gouv.fr).

The deadline for declarations was May 15th, 2007.

"Regarding open-field GM cultivations, France is currently in a total legal vacuum: the decrees issued last March make no mention in terms of liability, information transparency or the obligation to inform one's neighbours - not even on the distances to keep between GM and non-GM fields," an indignant Arnaud Apoteker reports, Greenpeace GMO campaigner. "The Government is totally incapable of making sure the rules it has established are kept, that is the obligation to declare one's GMO parcel of land."

It was possible to detect this illegal field thanks to the marking work carried out on the terrain by Greenpeace's "field detectives". "By marking this illegal field with red colour, our goal is not to attack the field owner, but to put an end to this enormous hypocrisy that keeps repeating that GMO are controllable in open fields," continues Magali Ringoot. "GMOs are not controllable: on the one hand, because GMOs contaminate the environment, and on the other, because one would need to place a police person in each field to know where GMOs are planted exactly."

"This summer, under the pretext of not wanting to reconsider the decisions taken before the elections, the government allowed the cultivation of over 20'000 hectares of GM maize. Result: the ill-ease in the countryside grew and the climate of trust necessary to prepare the traditional government-CSOs meeting on environmental issues (Grenelle de l'environnement) was spoiled too," notes Arnaud Apoteker. "Given the massive public opposition, new emerging scientific analyses showing toxicity risks and this latest evidence that GMOs are not controllable, it would be absurd if the Government did not immediately decree a moratorium on open-field cultivations, even before the traditional Grenelle meeting."

Furthermore, at the European Union level, France is increasingly isolated. Italy, Greece, Poland, Austria and Hungary have already banned open-field GM cultivation on their territories. Apart from Spain, France is the only European country today with large scale GM cultivations. In Romania, Greenpeace activists are today blocking access to an illegal GM soy field. Romania banned open-field GM soy cultivation in February 2006, after granting authorisation for eight years.

10 September 2007

UK: The double-standards agency?
The Food Standards Agency must tackle its stance on GM foods and give proper guidance on additives or it risks losing all credibility.

The Guardian website (Comment is Free), 10 September 2007. By Peter Melchett.

Last week research commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) confirmed what was already a virtual certainty - that the cocktails of artificial additives used in many non-organic processed foods are a threat to children. Given the history of this study, the FSA's bizarre reaction left many of us dumbfounded. As the Guardian reported, scientists have been saying that additives are a threat to children and a cause of hyper-activity for more than 30 years. In 2000 a study on the Isle of Wight confirmed the risk from additives. The FSA's advisers, the Committee on Toxicity, said the study wasn't good enough to be conclusive. All of us opposed to the use of these additives responded by telling the FSA that they should commission a study that they were happy would provide a "definitive" answer.

After years of delay they did so. In the meantime, research by Professor Vyvyan Howard, sponsored by the organic baby food company Organix, and published last year, highlighted the danger of particular cocktails of additives. Then last week the Southampton study did indeed confirm the conclusions of the Isle of Wight study. What came as a surprise was that the FSA, having commissioned a study to give them a "definitive" answer, had the barefaced cheek to announce that the results were not definitive. They were. The lead researcher, Professor Jim Stevenson, said it provided clear evidence that children who consume a mix of additives can suffer changes of behaviour and that this could affect children in the whole population.

These artificial additives should be banned from all food. Organic food manufacturers produce good quality, wholesome food using around 40 natural additives (such as salt, sugar and baking soda) compared to over 400 additives, almost all artificial chemicals, used in non-organic food. The fact that these artificial additives, preservatives and colourings, are a threat to children's health is also a threat to the multi-billion pound food-manufacturing industry. They depend on these additives to give colour and taste to the cheap, mass-produced ingredients they use, and to give their products the long shelf life that global distribution systems require. But this does not excuse the FSA abandoning its principles of openness and impartiality, as it appears to have done when it received Professor Stevenson's report.

The FSA has admitted they had a secret meeting with the food industry before the research was published. As far as I can tell, no independent public interest groups were involved in these discussions. The FSA's reaction when they find scientific evidence that ingredients in processed food are harmful to health, as with salt, sugar and fat, has been to insist on new, clear labelling, for example with a traffic-light scheme. In the face of scientific evidence of harm from additives, the FSA have told worried parents to look at the ingredients list. They have already said that harassed shoppers can't be expected to spot salt, sugar and fat in such lists, so how on earth can we be expected to remember which of the 400 additives are particularly dangerous, whether it's E102, E122, E211 or E110? Worse, we need to be briefed on both the common and scientific names of these additives, and their American names, as all of these can appear on labels in British supermarkets.

The creation of the FSA was one of those early reforms of Tony Blair's New Labour government originally intended to mark a radical change from the past. Gone would be the days when food safety played second fiddle to the interests of big food companies and industrial agriculture. Secrecy, private commercial lobbying and the unethical combining of political policy on food and regulation of food safety in one department, would be swept away. The FSA does score high marks for public trust, it has stood up to the food industry over excessive salt, sugar and fat in processed food, and clamped down hard when illegal additives like Sudan I were found in processed food. It holds its board meetings in public, in general consults widely, and usually takes great trouble to talk to a wide range of interests before reaching decisions.

Two years ago, the FSA asked Baroness Dean to conduct an independent review of their operations, and her report confirmed this positive assessment - with just two qualifications. Lady Dean said that in two areas - GM and organic - the FSA was seen by many of those she consulted as having departed from its objective of relying on scientific evidence. The FSA were widely regarded as pro-GM and anti-organic. Given the strong personal views on these issues of the FSA's first chairman, Sir John Krebs, which he insisted on bringing to his work at the FSA, the reputation was well deserved. Lady Dean's report apparently had a significant impact on the FSA's board, clearly annoyed that their good work had been undermined by Krebs' personal crusade.

The appointment of Dame Deirdre Hutton to replace John Krebs was widely welcomed as an opportunity for the FSA to clean up its act in these two areas. Significant staffing changes at senior levels in the FSA followed. The agency, formed in large part from the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), had been dominated by a number of old MAFF staff who carried the pro-agribusiness attitudes of that department with them to the FSA. In some meetings with FSA officials you could sit and watch younger staff react with open-mouthed (but silent) horror at the bias being displayed by their bosses. Since Deirdre Hutton's appointment, the FSA has adopted a far more neutral attitude to organic food, but it seems that there are still areas where the Krebs and old MAFF legacy persists. The Committee on Toxicity, which advises the FSA on additives, has a long and distinguished record of being completely wrong on the cocktail effect of both pesticides and additives, and the advice it gives seems designed to try and salvage its own reputation in the face of growing evidence that its critics are right, and have been for decades.

GM is another area where the FSA is still getting it horribly wrong. Last year, illegal GM rice, not cleared for human consumption anywhere in the world, turned up in US long-grain rice imports to the UK. As a subsequent court case brought by Friends of the Earth revealed, the FSA miserably failed to meet their legal obligations to protect the public. Ignoring the fact that this GM rice was illegal and that there was no evidence it was safe to eat, the FSA originally told supermarkets they didn't need to bother removing it from their shelves. FoE's successful campaign forced a series of changes in the FSA's position, all endorsed by the judge who eventually heard the case. But delay, prevarication, lack of concern for the public interest in the face of GM corporate interests, and secrecy characterised the FSA's behaviour throughout.

When it comes to GM, the FSA seems to have learned nothing. They are now carrying out a review of their response to the illegal GM rice, which they promised during the legal proceedings brought by FoE. But even the FSA's review is both slow and secretive, excluding all but a few interested parties. If Lady Dean were to conduct another review of the FSA's performance today, it is hard to see her coming to a different conclusion on GM, with the FSA in conflict not only with scientific evidence but now also with the law.

The FSA's chair, Deirdre Hutton and her board, have done a good job in putting right some of the problems bequeathed to them by John Krebs and identified so clearly by Lady Dean. But there are areas where things seem to be getting worse rather than better. The government, at least until Tony Blair left office, was one of the most pro-GM in the world, but the agency is meant to be independent, not Blair or Krebs' genetically-engineered poodle. MAFF's successor, the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is still in awe of the big food multinationals, and there is a whole generation of scientists even more committed to industrial food production than the government. The FSA has to break free from these scientists' refusal to admit their past mistakes. The Food Standards Agency is in danger of becoming a double-standards agency when it comes to GM and the key building blocks of industrial, processed food - pesticides and additives. The public deserve better.

9 September 2007

Thailand: GM testing takes battle to the fields
Rival camps in face-off over open-air trials

The Nation, 9 September 2007. By Kamol Sukin.

A new round in the tug of war over genetically modified (GM) crops appears to have led Thailand nowhere as far as official clearance for field testing of two fruits is concerned.

The pro-GM camp, led by the agriculture and science ministers, recently faced strong opposition from anti-GM groups as well as the public health minister.

As a result, Cabinet last month deferred a decision on whether to permit field testing of GM papaya and tomatoes.

Given the fierce opposition, Agriculture Minister Thira Sutabutra decided to back off after twice trying to put the issue before the Cabinet.

Besides Thira, the pro-GM camp includes Science and Technology Minister Yongyuth Yuthavong and Natural Resources and Environment Minister Kasem Sanidwong na Ayudhaya.

In the opposite camp, Greenpeace Southeast Asia and BioThai are among the leaders, with the backing of the Public Health Ministry and exporters of organic farm products who are worried their image would be tarnished internationally.

"Allowing field testing of GM crops is wrong and would ruin the export of Thai farm products to major European and Japanese markets," said Wanlop Pitpongsa, chairman of the Thai Organic Agricultural Trading Association.

He added that GM crops were a highly sensitive issue and approval for field testing would simply destroy consumer trust in Thai organic products.

Another exporter, Soonthorn Sritawee of River Kwai International Food, said some exporters had already suffered due to the GM issue because GM crops are completely unacceptable in markets that preferred organic products. "We lost the European market for papayas after news that some GM papayas were removed from the Khon Kaen research centre a few years ago," he said.

"Importers cancelled orders and never asked for Thai papayas again. We have lost Bt30 million in annual income from that event."

Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla said testing of GM crops in open fields should not be allowed and the country should continue to adopt a GM-free policy.

For GM proponents, the perspective is just the opposite.

"GM-crop development is important and necessary. We do not say Thailand must go for GM-crop production right away but we have to find out if it's suitable," said Morakot Tanticharoen, director of the National Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (Biotec).

To continue the debate, she urged the government allow field testing so that scientists could gain a better knowledge of the negative consequences of GM crops. "Our technology in papaya and tomatoes is now at an advanced stage. If we cannot continue the research in open fields, we could lose the edge to neighbouring countries. I want the public to trust our safety measures. We have a qualified committee to oversee the field tests and local communities are welcome to help monitor the experiment," she added.

Greenpeace anti-GM campaigner Nattawipha Iwsakul disagreed, saying that even under such supervision, any leakage of GM crops as occurred in Khon Kaen would be bad for the environment.

Morakot of Biotech also noted that GM papaya had been helpful in eliminating the ring spot virus which would otherwise have continued spreading and damaging papaya plantations.

However, the anti-GM camp countered that it's not worth the risk if getting rid of the virus is the key purpose of pursuing GM papaya, whose genes have been modified to be virus-resistant. Despite the virus, papaya production and farming areas in Thailand have not dropped in the past years, they say.

National Resource Development Policy researcher Banthoon Sethasirote said the GM debate should cover all key aspects of the country's farm sector. "Scientists seem to have focused on efforts to prove whether GM crops are good or bad for the country, but if our policy is not pro-GM then there is no need for any field testing. We can continue research work in the laboratory.

"Scientific development is important but it does not mean we have to embrace all technologies. Genetic engineering is risky and a comprehensive assessment is needed before any go-ahead. Another risk is that if we approve field testing, organic-product exports would automatically finish forever. That is the risk we face," he said.

Environmental group BioThai said the interim Surayud government should leave the decision on whether to allow field testing to its successor.

"GM crops are a big issue that affect the long-term development of the country. If we allow field testing there would then be further development of GM technologies in Thailand. At stake is also the nation's long-term food security."

While the organic-farming industry is a key opponent, giant conglomerates such as Charoen Pokphand Group (CP) have a different view. CP's top executive Ajva Taolanond said development of GM crops was important for Thailand, but if the policy is to continue banning field tests then the company might experiment with GM crops in China, where it also has large operations.

As for papaya, Thailand's total farming area is 124,260 rai with an annual production of 346,749 tonnes. Most output is for domestic consumption, with only 1,500 tonnes exported, worth Bt50 million.

Apart from papaya, 12 other plants are genetically engineered in Thailand under research units in various universities and at Biotec.

USA: Take Action on GE Crops!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is considering the adoption of new regulations for genetically engineered organisms. There are several key provisions under consideration by the agency, including a ban on the open-air production of crops that produce drugs and industrial compounds, and the controversial proposal to allow "low level" contamination of conventional crops by unapproved GE varieties. USDA has released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for public comment.

The proposed changes to the lax federal GE regulatory system provide us with a unique and important opportunity to make our voices heard. Public comments are due by Tuesday, September 11th, 2007!

Pharma and Industrial Crops (Issue 4): Pharma and industrial crops have been genetically engineered as "biofactories" for production of experimental drugs or industrial compounds. USDA currently allows these crops to be field tested with no meaningful assessment of potential harm to human health or the environment. USDA has proposed five alternatives for new regulation of pharming. Alternative 3 prohibits outdoor cultivation of any pharma or industrial crop, food or non-food, while Alternative 4 prohibits only food or feed crops engineered to produce drugs or industrial compounds. The Center for Food Safety supports the more stringent Alternative 3. While prohibition of pharmaceutical-producing food and feed crops would be an important step towards protecting human health, it would still allow untested drugs and industrial compounds to be produced in non-food plants like tobacco, posing potential risks to wildlife and the environment. Therefore, we are calling on USDA to implement a ban on the outdoor production of any crops engineered for production of pharmaceuticals or industrial compounds (Alternative 3 for Issue 4).

Contamination of Food Supply with Unapproved GE Crops (Issue 7): USDA has also proposed changes to the way the agency deals with contamination of the commercial food and seed supply with unapproved GE crops grown in field trials for experimental purposes. USDA refers to such contamination as "low-level" or "adventitious" presence. USDA's current standards for the field testing of most unapproved GE crops are too lax to prevent such contamination. Previous contamination events have substantially impacted the country's ability to export certain food crops, like corn and rice, and the failure to contain genetically engineered material from crops has sparked concerns over human exposure to novel allergens and proteins designed for pharmaceutical or industrial uses. Allowing the presence of unapproved GE varieties in the food supply will do nothing to protect American farmers and food companies from lost exports, to say nothing of potential threats to human health and the environment. No unapproved GE varieties should be allowed to contaminate other crops. Instead of sanctioning "low-level" presence, USDA should work to better confine and regulate field trials to protect the public and the environment. Therefore, CFS supports Alternative 4 for Issue 7. Alternative 4 requires stricter confinement standards and would maintain USDA's authority to take action when contamination does occur. As USDA admits, "This alternative would result in the lowest potential for the presence of regulated materials from domestic field tests in commercial commodities and seeds, short of not allowing any field tests at all."

Send your comments to USDA today! http://ga3.org/campaign/EIS

USA: USDA Proposes Further De-regulation of GMOs
The proposed changes make the regulatory regime even more permissive.

ISIS Press Release, 9 September 2007. By Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/USDAderegGMOs.php

This article was submitted to the USDA on behalf of ISIS.
Please circulate widely to your policy-makers.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has proposed changes to regulations on Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering, available for public comment before 11 September 2007 at: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main.

APHIS is seeking public comment on its draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) presenting alternatives in a series of questions. The questions and our answers are given below.

Question 1: Should APHIS continue to regulate GE [genetically engineered] organisms solely on the basis of potential risks as plant pests, or should they also be regulated based on other potential risks such as those for noxious weeds and biological control organisms?

Answer: APHIS should more realistically take into account the risk of transgenic contamination of crops and weedy relatives of the crops. The detrimental economic impact of transgenic contamination as well as the toxic potential, especially of pharmaceutical products or transgenic biopolymers, must be evaluated. Crops modified with genes to enhance energy production may genetically contaminate food crops. Finally, transgenic contamination should be treated as any other environmental pollution. APHIS should take into account the strong evidence that transgenic contamination is unavoidable [1] (GM Contamination At 21 km and Farther. No Co-Existence Possible, SiS 35)

Question 2: Should a new system of risk-based permit categories be designed to deal with new products and new concerns?

Answer: It is imperative that crops such as food crops modified to produce pharmaceutical proteins or crops destined for energy production should be evaluated by criteria that are different from those of food crops in recognition that the transgenes pose unique dangers to health. The same applies to transgenic/cloned animals or genetically engineered bacteria modified for food/pharmaceutical purposes [2-4] (GM Food Animals Coming, GM Crops and Microbes for Health or Public Health Hazards? , SiS 32; Is FDA Promoting or Regulating Cloned Meat and Milk? SiS 33). In the case of transgenic and cloned animals, animal health and welfare must be included as part of the risk assessment. In the case of GM bacteria, the risks of horizontal gene transfer are the greatest.

Question 3: Should APHIS continue to accommodate commercialization but in some cases grant conditional approvals when additional information is needed about particular regulated articles proposed for deregulation?

Answer: Definitely not. Conditional approval of transgenic crops is a terrible idea. The current system of field test releases include very large test areas, and even allows for commercial production of high value products such as pharmaceutical proteins produced on the test site [5] (Pharm Crop Products In US Market, SiS 23) . This needs to be brought under stricter regulation rather than the relaxed scheme proposed.

Question 4: Should APHIS modify its rules for regulating and confining plants producing pharmaceutical and industrial compounds?

Answer: APHIS should stop approving any open releases of such plants [6] (Ban Plant-based Transgenic Pharmaceuticals, SiS 23) as transgene contamination is unavoidable [1].

Question 5: Should APHIS regulate nonviable plant material derived from regulated plants?

Answer: There is in a sense no nonviable plant material in the case of GE plants, as the GE DNA survives the plant and can be transferred horizontally to practically all species, in dust and debris from transgenic crops and the processed products of transgenic crops.

Question 6: Should there be a new mechanism to provide oversight for pharmaceutical plants?

Answer: Here to fore plants modified to produce pharmaceutical proteins have not yet been approved for commercial production in NorthAmerica nor in Europe . Commercial production of crops such as rice or safflower modified to produce pharmaceutical proteins has been permitted in South America . These plants must not be released into the open environment, but should be strictly contained in sealed greenhouses with pollen traps, to prevent transgene contamination of air, water and soil [6].

Question 7: Should low-level occurrence of a regulated article be exempted from regulation?

Answer: Definitely not. Low-level contamination with regulated articles should not be permitted, as unlike chemical contamination, transgene contamination has the potential to grow. The articles regulated must remain so at any detectable level.

Question 8: Should low-risk organisms intended for importation for a nonpropagative use be exempted from regulatory review or be subject to expedited review?

Answer: The presumption of 'low-risk" is highly questionable. Lethal pathogens have been created 'accidentally' on that presumption, and importation for contained use in research laboratories have a habit of leaking out [7] ( No Biosecurity without Biosafety SiS 26). What may be at issue here are genetically modified crops imported from other countries for food, feed or processing. Japanese researchers found that modified canola imported for oil extraction were spilled along the transport corridors from dock to processing plant and took root in the soil of Japan [8, 9]. They further found that the transport corridors from the production area to the dock in Canada were similarly polluted with modified canola. The Japanese report should be taken seriously and point out that imported transgenic material is bound to genetically pollute the country importing the crops. The low risk organisms fantasized by APHIS simply do not exist.

Question 9: Should interstate movement of GE Arabidopsis or other GE organisms be exempted from movement restrictions?

Answer: No, they should not be exempted, for reasons given in answer to Question 8.

Question 10: Should APHIS consider relieving other regulatory requirements when the environmental risk is low?

Answer: APHIS' criteria on regulation are so low that they cannot go any lower. One should be reminded that USDA has lost multiple lawsuits to civil society within the past year over its regulation of GM crops [10], which has been deemed inadequate (Approval of GM Crops Illegal, US Federal Courts Rule, SiS 34).

Question 11: Should APHIS switch from prescriptive packaging-container requirements to performance-based ones?

Answer: Packaging was discussed in the APHIS document but there was little specific information provided regarding the actual; packages. APHIS raises the spectre that packaging would be deregulated except for special cases, that proposal is premature and a threat to the environment.

Additional Comment

APHIS has not dealt with an important conflict of interest in their regulation of transgenic crops. That conflict of interest flows from the fact that USDA both financially benefits from its patents on modified crops and promotes modified crops. For example, APHIS granted the petition for deregulation of transgenic plums, even though an overwhelming majority of the public comments submitted went against the petition and there were outstanding safety concerns against deregulation [11] (Transgenic Plum Gets USDA Non-regulated Status Based on False Claims of Safety, SiS 35).

This is the time for APHIS to put its house in order or hand the regulatory duty to an independent and unbiased agency, one incorporating representatives of the public including critics of transgenic crops as well as those creating and promoting them.

Since 1999, ISIS has submitted close to 40 detailed objections to US regulatory agencies, mostly addressed to the USDA/APHIS. We are extremely concerned over the regulatory regime on both sides of the Atlantic, where the precautionary principle is routinely ignored, science is manipulated and corrupted, and the law sidestepped in efforts to promote genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the face of massive public opposition and damning evidence piling up against the safety of GM food and feed. We have summarized these concerns in a recent scientific publication [12] GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham (Ho MW, Cummuns J and Saunders PT, Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2007, 19, 66-77), which is enclosed with this submission.

References

1. Ho MW. GM contamination at 21 km and farther, no co-existence possible. Science in Society 35, 30-31, 2007.

2. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM food animals coming. Science in Society 32, 24-29, 2006.

3. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM crops and microbes for health or public health hazards? Science in Society 32, 30-33, 2006.

4. Ho MW and Cummins J. Is FDA promoting or regulating cloned met and milk? Science in Society 33, 24-27, 2007.

5. Cummins J. Pharm crops in US market. Science in Society 23, 28-29, 2004.

6. Cummins J and Ho MW. Ban plant-based transgenic pharmaceuticals. Science in Society 23, 29. 2004.

7. Ho MW. No biosecurity without biosafety. Biodefence research endangers the public. Science in Society 26, 44-47, 2005.

8. Yoshimura Y, Beckie HJ, Matsuo K. Transgenic oilseed rape along transportation routes and port of Vancouver in western Canada Environ Biosafety Res. 2006 5(2), 67-75.

9. Saji H, Nakajima N, Aono M, Tamaoki M, Kubo A, Wakiyama S, Hatase Y, Nagatsu M. Monitoring the escape of transgenic oilseed rape around Japanese ports and roadsides Environ Biosafety Res. 2005, 4(4), 217-22.

10. Cummins J and Ho MW. Approval of GM crops illegal, US federal courts rule. Science in Society 34, 24, 2007.

11. Cummins J and Ho MW. Transgenic plum gets USDA non-regulated status based on false claims of safety. Science in Society 35, 35-36, 2007.

12. Ho MW, Cummins J and Saunders PT. GM nightmare unfolding in the regulatory sham. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2007, 19, 66-77.

8 September 2007

Canada: Wormy corn scientists' claims "untrue", expert concludes

GM Watch, 8 September 2007.

There's been an important development in the controversy over the "wormy" sweet corn study undertaken by Doug Powell, Shane Morris and others.

Tim Lambert, a lecturer in the School of Computer Science and Engineering of The University of New South Wales, has meticulously analysed two pictures used to prove that the controversial "Would you eat wormy sweet corn?" sign - placed above the bin of non-GM corn during the study - was taken down early on in the research.

Lambert has now published his findings on his science blog. He concludes that the pictures, which are supposed to show the wormy corn sign had gone from the farm store, in fact show the exact opposite - that the wormy corn sign was never removed.

Lambert writes, "...look at the picture that Powell provided of the display. To the right is a closer view of the sign that was above the regular corn. It's a bit blurry, but you can see that it says "Would you eat wormy sweet corn?". I've overlaid it with Laidlaw's picture of the [wormy corn] sign. You can switch between them if you roll your mouse over the image (provided you have Javascript on your browser). The match is perfect." http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/would_you_eat_wormy_sweet_corn.php

Shane Morris posted exactly the same picture on his blog with the comment, "There are lots of pictures and video footage of the store that show no misleading signs during the data collection period (see pic above)." http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1382/2258/1600/Store.jpg
http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2006_03_21_archive.html

Morris also posted one other image on his blog which he said showed the wormy corn sign was not up "by the time I was employed at the University of Guelph". But, after analysing one of the signs visible in this picture, Lambert's conclusion is that "it's the "wormy corn" sign". http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/would_you_eat_wormy_sweet_corn.php

This image also bears a date - 9.27.2000 - the same date that Dr Rod MacRae told us he had seen the wormy corn sign at the store: "I can state categorically that the sign was there..." http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8244

Shane Morris is on record as saying that he was also at the farm store on 27 September 2000 but that, "I never saw any such misleading "signs"... I wasn't even in the Country for your alledged (sic) "sign" fraud!!" http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2006_03_20_archive.html

Andrew Apel has summarised the researchers' position, "What the opponents of Powell's work pointedly failed to mention is that after the first week of the study the signs they complained about were taken down. Only then did the formal data-gathering phase begin..." http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

But after carefully studying both the images produced in support of these claims, Lambert concludes, "I think that science would have been better served if Powell and Morris had acknowledged the flaws in their study rather than making untrue statements about the "wormy corn" sign being removed."

Check it out

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/would_you_eat_wormy_sweet_corn.php

Comment by GM-free Ireland

Shane Morris is the Canadian Government agent employed as the front-man in Canada's ongoing covert dirty tricks campaign against Ireland's GM-free policy. Morris recently threatened the GM-free Ireland Network and GM Watch with libel lawsuits for reporting his attempts to cover up his pseudo-scientific claims described above, and briefly succeeded in shutting down the GM Watch website. Last week, Lord Peter Melchett, Policy Director of the Soil Association, called on the UK High Commissioner for Canada to put an end these attempts to censor free speech in the UK and Ireland, and requested the British Food Journal to withdraw Morris paper which he described as "deliberately misleading". For details see www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/

Ironically Shane Morris and agri-biotech industry lobbyist Prof David McConnell (who is also chairman of the Irish Times Trust which owns the Irish Times), were both official speakers at the 13th European Skeptics Congress held in Dublin this weekend. The theme of the conference was "Promoting Science, Critical Thinking and the Questioning of Extraordinary Claims". Morris gave a paper entitled "No GMOs, no science, no realism: a case of the EU emperor's new clothes". The title of Prof. McConnell's paper was "Genes, dreams and realities: a case study in public misunderstanding".

As Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

8 September 2007

USA: E-mails detail biotech meetings
Timing of job talks, incentives at issue

The Boston Globe, September 8 2007. By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff.

Former state economic undersecretary Robert K. Coughlin met with state biotechnology executives to develop lucrative tax breaks for the industry at the same time that he was entering discussions with the biotech trade group to become its next president, newly released e-mails show.

Among the meetings was a June 5 session in his Beacon Hill office attended by an executive of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council and an executive from a biotech company, Shire Pharmaceuticals. During the meeting, according to the e-mails, Coughlin invited the executives to submit draft language that could be included in legislation for the industry's tax credits.

The same week as that meeting, Coughlin was in separate contact with the biotechnology council's search firm, setting up a meeting with the council's executive search committee that was interviewing candidates for the vacant presidency. That gathering occurred on June 11, and eventually led to his hiring by the council on Aug. 11. He assumed the post last week, replacing former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran.

Over six weeks during June and July, as he continued acting as Governor Deval Patrick's point person on life sciences initiatives, Coughlin never told the governor's office that he was simultaneously seeking the biotech council's top job, as is required by state Ethics Commission rules. He ultimately disclosed his candidacy to administration officials on July 24.

Coughlin's actions, first reported by the Globe last month, have led to an Ethics Commission inquiry. The Patrick administration released the e-mails and other correspondence this week under a public information request by the Globe, and also sent copies of the latest records to the Ethics Commission, said an administration official who participated in the decision to forward the documents to the commission.

The paper trail indicates that Coughlin met with biotechnology executives on issues relating to Patrick's efforts to boost the biotech industry in Massachusetts on a number of occasions, including the June 5 meeting and additional meetings on June 21 and June 29.

The purpose of the June 5 meeting with the industry representatives was to draw up draft language for legislation that would give biotech firms a series of tax incentives for operating in Massachusetts. The meeting was attended by members of Coughlin's staff, the biotech council's chief of external affairs, Eustacia Reidy, and the senior director of the tax group at Shire Pharmaceuticals, Dan Ostien.

Ostien said in an e-mail to Coughlin and other participants the next day that his firm was "acting on undersecretary Coughlin's message and objectives," by developing draft language for the administration's tax incentive bill. Ostien was not available for comment yesterday. Shire Pharmaceuticals, which operates labs in Cambridge, has proposed a major expansion in Lexington, but is seeking local and state tax incentives.

In another e-mail about the tax incentive legislation, dated June 11, Ostien wrote to Coughlin: "We look forward to meeting with your team and the MBC Policy and Public affairs office through this process."

Just over three hours after Ostien sent that June 11 e-mail, Coughlin met with the biotech council's search committee chairman and the association's chief operating officer at the Bristol Lounge in the Four Seasons Hotel Boston to discuss the council's presidency.

A spokesman for the biotech council, Ray Howell, said Coughlin's June 5 meeting with the industry executives was part of his job, which involved meetings with dozens of companies from multiple industries. Meanwhile, Coughlin maintains that entering discussions about the possibility of a job did not make him a candidate for the post. "At the time of the meeting, Bob Coughlin was not a candidate for the president's job," Howell said. "Bob Coughlin was doing precisely the job he was supposed to be doing, and as subsequent events show, he was doing it very well."

Another e-mail exchange released by the administration indicates that Coughlin used Red Sox tickets given to his office by WEEI, a local sports radio station, to entertain the chief executive of Organogenesis Inc., Geoff MacKay, in the station's skybox at Fenway Park on May 12.

MacKay, just over two months later, provided a reference for Coughlin in his biotech council job application. Before the Red Sox game, Organogenesis had agreed to abandon plans to leave the state after receiving $12.9 million in state loans and grants.

Coughlin's office got the Red Sox tickets for having placed state-financed ads with the station that touted the administration's efforts in persuading Organogenesis to abandon plans to leave the state. Because the ethics rules are unclear, the governor has instructed the executive agencies to develop a policy over the use of tickets and submit them to him for approval. After Coughlin disclosed to the administration that he was a candidate for the biotech council job, he asked MacKay to call the chairman of the council's search committee chairman on his behalf.

"Left a good message on Mark Leuchtenberger's cell phone . . . ," MacKay told Coughlin in a July 28 e-mail, referring to the president of Targanta Therapeutics who headed the council's effort to find Finneran's replacement. Two days later the two CEO's spoke, according to the e-mails. "Mark just called back and we had a productive call," he told Coughlin.

While Coughlin would not comment, Howell said Coughlin had assured himself that he was acting within the law regarding use of the Red Sox tickets by consulting with the Ethics Commission, but that Coughlin does not have written records showing that he took that step. Both the Ethics Commission and the state economic development office would not comment.

"The tickets given to the CEO of Organogenesis were a part of this comprehensive effort [by Bob Coughlin], one that was successful in keeping the company from moving out of Massachusetts," Howell said. The agreement between Coughlin's office and Organogenesis was reached a week before the Red Sox game, on May 4.

Despite his report of a "productive" phone call with Leuchtenberger, MacKay, in an interview, said he was not in a position to influence the council's decision because his firm had not been active in the council for several years.

The state's Ethics Commission says the conflict of interest law requires public officials to inform their appointing authorities of any meeting they hold with prospective employers if those officials are participating in matters that affect the group's financial interests.

After July 24, Coughlin stopped working on the administration's life science agenda.

His lawyer, Thomas R. Kiley, said the Ethics Commission's interpretation of the statute - that initial meetings, where employment is discussed, trigger a required disclosure and potential recusal - does not reflect the law. Saying the first meeting June 11 was a "greet and meet" session, not a job interview.

7 September 2007

USA: Banned strain of alfalfa in 43 Michigan counties

Associated Press, 7 September 2007.

BAY CITY -- A genetically engineered strain of alfalfa that was banned nationwide until the government can adequately study the crop's potential impact already has been planted in 43 Michigan counties, including virtually every county in Southwest Michigan.

Allegan, Barry, Cass, Kalamazoo, St. Joseph and Van Buren counties are on a U.S. Department of Agriculture list of Michigan counties in which the banned alfalfa is being grown.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in California made permanent a temporary ban he ordered in March on alfalfa with genetic material from bacteria that makes the crop resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.

Breyer said the U.S. Department of Agriculture must conduct a detailed scientific study of Roundup Ready alfalfa's effect on the environment and other alfalfa varieties before deciding whether to approve it.

About 2,000 acres of the seed were planted in Michigan last year, according to the Michigan Farm Bureau.

Nationwide, about 220,000 acres of genetically engineered alfalfa were planted this year before the judge's ban went into effect. The judge ordered those farmers to ensure their crops do not contaminate adjacent fields of alfalfa.

The Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., had sued on behalf of farmers who argued that the genetically engineered seed could contaminate organic and conventional alfalfa varieties.

``There's a lot of farmers who don't want to use genetically engineered alfalfa for a variety of reasons,'' said Joseph Mendelson, the center's legal director. ``When their fields essentially get polluted with this crop, it can have negative effects on them in the market.''

Dean Kirkpatrick, a dairy farmer in Kinde, grows 150 acres of traditional alfalfa. He scoffs at worries about the Roundup Ready variety.

``I believe a lot of this stuff is blown way out of proportion,'' Kirkpatrick said. ``The same story went around when it came to Roundup Ready corn and then ... soybeans. Every time we come around with a new technology, somebody is going to make a fuss about it.''

EU to clear new GMO beet

Reuters, 7 September 2007. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU ministers and national experts are due to approve a genetically modified (GMO) sugar beet variety this month despite a long running dispute over the use of biotechnology.

Officials say around 10 GMO products, mostly maize types but also cotton, soybeans and a high-starch potato, are scheduled for discussion at various levels of the EU in the next few months.

Although the bloc's member governments clash consistently over GMOs, never reaching the required majority under its weighted voting system to authorize new biotech products, that deadlock doesn't stop authorizations being granted.

Since 2004, the European Commission has approved around a dozen GMO products -- a move that brings it into line with EU law when, after a certain time, countries still fail either to endorse or reject a draft GMO authorization.

The Commission, the EU's executive arm, has authorized a string of GMOs in this way, outraging green groups.

The first of this year's applications for GMO crops that will be approved, now a certainty, is a sugar beet called H7-1, developed jointly by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto and German plant breeding company KWS SAAT AG to resist glyphosate-containing herbicides.

Due to a complex legal procedure over deadlines for EU ministers to consider the matter, it will be EU justice ministers who will actually grant the authorization at their meeting scheduled for September 17 and 18. There will be no vote.

"I don't really see anything that has changed. The Austrians, and maybe other countries, will make a symbolic statement but it won't alter things," one EU diplomat said.

"I think we're soon going to see more emphasis on cultivation dossiers," he told Reuters.

Some EU countries, such as Britain, Finland and the Netherlands, almost always vote in favor of approving new GMOs -- offset by a group of GMO-skeptics including Austria, Greece and Luxembourg, that vote against and force a stalemate.

In Europe, consumers are well known for their skepticism, if not hostility, to GMO crops, often dubbed "Frankenstein foods." But the international biotech industry says its products are perfectly safe and no different to conventional foods.

POTATO

Perhaps this year's most controversial GMO is a potato, where the developing company -- German chemicals group BASF -- wants its product to be grown in Europe's fields.

The potato, engineered to yield high amounts of starch for processing in the paper industry and also for use as feed, needs two separate EU authorizations. It is not for human consumption.

The first, related to environmental impact, has also become a rubberstamp Commission approval that is now probably a matter of time although no date has yet been given. National EU food safety experts will discuss the second approval later this year.

When both approvals are given, the potato may then be grown in Europe -- the EU's first new "live" GMO crop in many years.

And later this month, at their first meeting after the summer break, EU agriculture ministers are due to discuss three GMO maize types, including two hybrids that again failed to gain approval at committee expert level earlier this year.

Also before the end of 2007, EU national experts will debate proposals to authorize five more GMOs: three Monsanto maize hybrids, a cotton strain and a soybean type. All would be used in foods, animal feeds or industrial processing, not cultivated.

Switzerland ideal for cereal production

AllAboutFeed.net, 7 September 2007.

The security of the supply, exceptional quality in protein content of Swiss cereals and engagement in favour of the environment plead for a strong indigenous production, according to an article in the Swiss Agri weekly.

Switzerland is a cereal country. On a surface covering nearly 60% of the rural area, the cereals unquestionably represent one of the pillars of Swiss agriculture, for the production of bread and animal feed. Cereal crops in Switzerland contribute largely to a secure food supply. Without indigenous production, Switzerland would be forced to import bread grains in a volume of 450 000 tonnes and 850,000 tonnes of feed grains. This hypothetical situation would be particularly painful in a situation with low global stocks and the biofuel industry being a serious competitor for raw materials.

Quantity and quality

Production of cereals in Switzerland does not have to limit itself to quantitative considerations. Indeed, the quality of the cereals, thanks to decent Swiss agronomic research, constitutes a major asset. "Our cereals are champions of Europe in protein content and certain varieties are even cultivated in New Zealand and Latin America. This exceptional quality contributes to the manufacture of foodstuffs of excellent quality"' the article in Agri said.

Environmental considerations

Swiss farmers have committed themselves using methods of production respecting the environment. Today, more than 98% of Swiss cereals fill specific growth requirements and almost half of surface is cultivated according to strict rules of the extensive production.

GMOs are out of the question.

The five years moratorium adopted in November 2005 guarantees a reduction in use of GMO crops, whereas USA, Brazil and Argentina see their planting of GMO crops increasing continuously. The article in Agri sums up two more major reasons why cereals are so important to Switzerland: one, the crops contribute to the diversity of the landscape, an important issue in a country that needs tourist and two, the sector provides a job to 40,000 people upstream and downstream in the chain, not mentioning the 2,000 Swiss cereal producers.

Genetically Modified: how the EU embraces "frankenstein foods"

EnvironmentalGraffiti.com, 7 September 2007.

Europe has been resistant to products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), insisting on the worlds toughest labelling regime and outraging the US who accuse them of violating free trade agreements over the products.

Now it is thought that EU ministers will approve a GMO sugar beet variety this month. Officials will also be discussing the licensing of 10 GMO products, including several forms of maize, cotton, soybeans and a high-starch potato, before the end of the year.

GMOs are a controversial and widely debated topic for the EU, but more than a dozen products have been licensed since 2004 in a covert manner: the member states of the EU frequently fail to come to agreement over these products, and under EU law, the executive arm, the European Commission, is able to grant a license to products which the member states have failed to approve or reject after a certain amount of time has elapsed.

Now a sugar beet developed jointly by a German company and US genetic modification giant Monsanto and known as "H7-1", resistant to glyphosate-containing herbicides, is to be approved on the 18th of September. It will be EU justice ministers who will actually grant the authorisation, and there will be no vote.

GMO are treated with hostility in Europe, often dubbed "Frankenstein foods", and so far such consumer pressure has been successful in preventing their widespread use. However, one EU diplomat stated that the anti-GM lobby feels its voice is not being heard: "The Austrians, and maybe other countries, will make a symbolic statement but it won't alter things. I think we're soon going to see more emphasis on cultivation dossiers."

The companies responsible for developing these organisms insist that they are safe. America has long been accustomed to genetically modified ingredients: the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the US contain a GM ingredient. However, with such new technology, it is difficult to assess the safety or potential hazards of genetic modification; a report commissioned by the EU in 2006 told the World Trade Organisation that "There is no unique, absolute, scientific cut-off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not."

Once GM crops are planted, it is impossible to contain them: they are living organisms that spread pollen to reproduce. There is a high risk of contamination to other crop species in the area. Therefore, many environmentalists and EU representatives feel that the introduction of some GMOs makes a mockery of the labelling system and the consumer's right to avoid genetically modified products.

Sources include: Greenpeace; Reuters; European Commission documents

Romania: Agriculture Ministry denies Greenpeace accusations on GMOs

HotNews.ro, 7 September 2007.

The Agriculture Ministry announced on Thursday that all allegations of Greenpeace officials regarding the growth of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the Braila Great Island (Insula Mare a Brailei). Greenpeace militants announced that the ministry ignores the GMO soy and corn crops and refuses to destroy the cultures.

After first responding that destroying the cultures is a responsibility of the Environment Guard, the Agriculture Ministry returned and added that their official tests revealed the absence of any GMO crops on Insula Mare a Brailei. Even more, the officials accused Greenpeace of damaging Romania's image.

On the other hand, Greenpeace claims that the ministry provides false information. "We discovered GMOs in the Braila area and we have official results from the laboratories in Vienna to prove it.

The Environment Guard analyzed only probes taken from a single location and they didn't even have the proper equipment to run the analysis", said Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace campaign coordinator, in an interview for Hotnews.ro.

EU has few means to calm cereal market

AllAboutFeed.net, 7 September 2007.

Whereas Brussels has few means to stop soaring grain prices, the feed and food industry, demand a less rigid approach of import restrictions for cereals including GMO-corn.

Only political decisions on production increases and import restrictions will stop the soaring prices, which are at historical high levels, according to officials and traders. "The means available to the Commission are weak, very weak. In the range of instruments available there is no system to prevent that the prices go up above a certain level", said a source close to the European Commission to Reuters.

Different to earlier price hikes is that now there are no stocks at EU level that can be sold on the market to ease demand and thus keep prices more stable. To increase taxes on exports as was done in 1996/97 is not an issue in the EU. "To put a tax (with export) is not in our intention. It is not a solution", said Michael Mann, EU Commission spokesman. "Our intentions are rather to act on produced volumes", he added.

Use set-aside land

For harvesting year 2008 the EU foresees to remove the obligation of 10% fallow land (set-aside policy), which should increase the arable land area with almost 4 million hectares. Sown with cereals this area could supply 10 to 17 million tonnes of cereals, according to the Commission forecast.

The Council of Ministers of Agriculture should adopt the measure at the end of October and this one could be made permanent within the framework of the "health check" of the common Agricultural Policy (CAP), envisaged in 2008. Such a measure would not come into full existence next year since October is already late for sowing winter wheat crops. Besides that there are more technical constraints to start re-using fallow land.

Expensive wheat

Due to bad weather in the southeast of the EU, and also in competing countries around the Black Sea, prices of European wheat have doubled in the last five months reaching an absolute record of 300 euros/ton this week.

At the same time American wheat pulverized its old price record of 1996, exceeding $8 per bushel in Chicago, under the pressure of a strong international demand. It would thus be necessary to consider lowering the fixed EU importation tariff of 12 euros/ton for a quota of almost 3 million tonnes of wheat.ÝThis option is foreseen in the regulation. "Legally yes, it is possible", confirmed the source close to the Commission. "But it would be extremely difficult to reinstall the rule when necessary in the future."

These import tariffs were installed in 2003, to limit competition of cheap cereals from countries around the Black Sea. The import quota for cereals with fixed right was agreed upon with the World Trade Organization to compensate for the entry in the Union in 2004 of the 10 new central European countries.

More GMO-imports demanded

The other possibility, defended by many animal feed traders and the feed industry, would be the liberalisation of GMO-corn imports. GMO-corn is abundantly available in the world but entry in the Union remains limited to only a few varieties and with restrictive tolerance levels, because of the strong opposition of some EU-countries. "To balance the European corn market the import of 8 to 10 million tons of corn is necessary, which Brazil cannot all alone provide", a trader said.

EU left with few tools to tackle wheat rally

Reuters, 7 September 2007. By Sybille De La Hamaide and Valerie Parent.

PARIS ‚ By emptying its grain stores due to expectations for a bumper crop this year, the European Union may have left itself with few means to cool down soaring wheat prices as concerns over so-called "agflation" flare up.

Wheat prices have more than doubled in most parts of the world in recent months due to disappointing harvests in key producer countries, rising demand from emerging markets and world stocks at their lowest level in more than 25 years.

The surge has started to have an impact on food prices, raising concern that it could hit consumers purchasing power and increase inflation rates.

Until last year, the EU had millions of tons of grain stocks at its disposal, which could be sold onto the market to offset supply squeezes.

But the so-called intervention stores are now empty after the EU sold the lion's share of the grain onto the internal market during the 2006/07 marketing campaign.

Europe's farm policy allows farmers to sell grain into intervention at a guaranteed price of just over 100 euros. But the rise in prices has made the system unattractive and not a single ton of wheat was sold into intervention last season. The only options left open now to cool the sharp rally are boosting internal output or opening EU borders to imports, officials said.

"The Commission has only limited, very limited, tools to act," a source close to the European Commission told Reuters. "In the panel of available instruments, there is no system to prevent prices to rise above a certain level," he added.

Output incentive

The EU could also impose a tax on exports to protect its market, like it did in 1996/1997 when the bloc's output was slashed by a severe drought, but officials said a similar move was not on the agenda.

"To impose a tax (on exports) is not our intention. It wouldn't be a solution," said Commission spokesman Michael Mann. "We prefer to act on the volumes produced," he added.

The Commission has proposed to suspend, at least during next season, the obligation for European farmers to leave 10 percent of their land fallow, a move seen increasing grain supplies by 10 to 17 million tons.

The proposal is set to be voted by the Council of Ministers late October and many expect the EU to extend the measure when it reviews its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) later this year. But food and feed makers, who largely depend on farm commodities, say other measures should be envisaged, like opening Europe's doors to imports.

"Grain prices have reached prohibitive levels for the entire sector. We must find answers up to the problem," one European feed maker said.

One of the options could be to scrap the 12-euro per ton tariff on wheat imports within the 3 million tons quotas set up in 2003 to counter the massive imports from eastern Europe and approved at the World Trade Organisation a year later.

The official close to the Commission said the move was feasible but dangerous.

"Legally it's possible, yes," he said. "But it would then be extremely difficult to move back if there was a need for it." Last but not least, many traders and feed makers asked the EU to reconsider its restrictions on imports of genetically modified (GMO) crops, which are abundant in the world and could rapidly relieve shortages on the European market.

"The real solution, the one that would have a quick impact, is the import of GMO maize, even if it provokes a general outcry," a feed maker said.

Few GMO crops are currently authorised within the bloc due to fierce opposition in many EU countries. (Additional reporting by Jeremy Smith in Brussels)

6 September 2007

USA: Another weed in south Central Valley shows resistance to herbicide

Eco-farm.org, 6 September 2007.

Hairy fleabane, a common summer annual in the south Central Valley, has joined the ranks of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold under the brand name Roundup. This is the first occurrence of glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane in the United States.

Researchers suspect that this resistant weed may be widespread on Central Valley roadsides and in orchards and vineyards. Glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane has also been found in South Africa, Spain, Brazil and Columbia.

A few years ago, some populations of rigid ryegrass and horseweed were confirmed as glyphosate-resistant in California. Worldwide, 13 weed species are resistant to the herbicide.

Hairy fleabane is a prolific producer of fluffy seeds that can easily be spread by wind. Growers and land managers have been having trouble controlling this species with labeled rates of glyphosate, leading researchers to study this weed's resistance.

The resistance was first reported in 2005 in Fresno to UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Weed Ecologist Anil Shrestha. Since then, Shrestha, USDA-ARS Scientist Brad Hanson, UC Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor Kurt Hembree, and student assistants Thomas Wang and Ivan Ramirez collected seeds of hairy fleabane from several locations in the Central Valley and tested them for resistance to glyphosate.

"After several tests, we found that the plants grown from seeds collected from a roadside in Reedley, Calif., were more resistant to glyphosate compared to the plants grown from seeds collected from west Fresno and Davis," says Shrestha.

"We sprayed the herbicide at various growth stages of the plant ranging from 8 to 11 leaves and 18 to 23 leaves. While most of the plants collected from Davis and Fresno died with the labeled rate of glyphosate, all the plants from Reedley showed resistance to glyphosate. They generally survived after applications of up to eight times the labeled rate. A few plants from Reedley even survived a dose of 16 times the labeled rate of glyphosate.

"Glyphosate is an herbicide that provides broad-spectrum weed control," says Shrestha. "Appropriate strategies to prevent herbicide-resistance must be taken to avoid losing this effective herbicide."

Herbicide-resistant plants evolve when the same herbicide with the same overall manner of affecting a plant is used on them repeatedly. Several articles have been published on this subject. An ANR article on this topic is available online at: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8012.pdf. For more information about hairy fleabane, visit http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu .

Contact

Stephanie Klunk, (530) 754-6724, sjklunk@ucdavis.edu

Media contact: Anil Shrestha, IPM Weed Ecologist, (559) 646-6534, anil@uckac.edu

Ireland: Case by case assessment needed

Irish Farmers Journal, Letters to the Editor, 8 September (published 6 September) 2007)

Dear Sir,

I fully agree with Mr Traas, in regards to the limitations that a letter to the editor sets to debate GM crops. However, Mr Traas's primary mistake is his attempt to paint all GM products with one brush. GM technology can be applied to different plants using very different transgenic events with various results. A case by case assessment is the only realistic approach to be taken. In this way, GM technology is no different to all food technologies or agricultural methodologies.

Take his first concern where he cites a study that he claims a "gene in any GM food could be taken up by any bacteria (good or bad) in the gut of a human (or plausibly a farm animal)". In fact, human and animal gut bacteria can take up genes from any food, not just GM. A conservative estimate in normal human consumption of kamanaycin-resistent [sic) bacteria found in the non-GM aveage (sic) diet is 1.2 million daily (Flaval, 1992). As a result, in 2004, the Working party of the British Society for Antimicorbial (sic) Chemoteraphy stated that "the argument that occasional transfer of these particular resistance genes from GM plants to bacteria would pose an unacceptable risk to human or animal health has little substance." (Bennet, 2004)

A more recent EU funded review study states that "Our conclusion, supported by numerous studies, most of which are commissioned by some of the very parties that have taken a position against the use of antibiotic selectable marker gene systems, is that there is no scientific basis to argue against the use and presence of selectable marker genes as a class in transgenic plants." (Ramessar et al, 2007))

On the concern regarding allergies, all foods, even traditionally bred crops can pose allergy risks. Take, for example, the infamous celery variety that was produced using conventional breeding that accumulated high levels of psoralen in light, causing skin burns to farmers. This shows a case by case approach is needed irrespective of the breeding methodologies used.

I would not dare suggest telling our EU neighbours what to buy, but it is interesting to note that in France, GM corn use has quadrupled since last year, and it is expected to increase again next year, according to the French corn producers association, AGPM. This growth makes GM technology the fastest growing agriculture production methodology in France, outstripping even organic. The Belfast Telegraph, just this week, reported on pro-GM farmers' marches in France and the suicide of one farmer, whose GM crop was planned to be invaded by activists.

I would also note IFA's opinion on page 35 of their 'Meeting Challenges' policy submission that states: "Provided that the use and release of GMOs meet all the detailed regulatory requirements, IFA's assessment of GM technology is that, like science and technology generally, it can have many positive implications for agriculture and food production. These include: control of animal and plant disease, reduction of costs and improved productivity."

Certainly, consumer perceptions can and should vary, but surely the science should be kept factual.

Shane Morris B.Sc.,
Coolkill, Sandyford, Dublin 18

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Shane Morris (who lives in Canada, not Dublin) is employed by the Canadian Government in a covert campaign to discredit Ireland's GM-free crop policy. He is currently trying to defend an extraordinarily misleading scientific paper which he co-authored, by threatening free speech in Ireland and the UK. For details see www.gmfreeireland.org/morris

His letter above demonstrates his great untapped capacity for logic. His attempt to use the argument that "a case by case assessment is the only realistic approach to be taken" as the justification for his claim that genetic engineering is "no different" to conventional farming is the illogical equivalent of saying "a case by case approach to bank robberies shows that using firearms to withdraw money is no different than using your ATM card". The argument is nonsensical!

Logical incompetence is no excuse for pseudo-scientific lies. GM crops are fundamentally different to their conventional counterparts because they usually contain a mixture of DNA from other species (typically including DNA from a virus, a bacterium, as well as DNA from at least one plant or animal). The mixture of foreign DNA forces GM crops to produce novel proteins and enzymes, unknown toxins, allergens and anti-nutritional compounds. Many GM crops produce pesticides in every one of their cells. And most GM crops have their genetic codes scrambled as a result of the modification process. The resulting long-term impacts on the modified organism, those who eat it, and the surrounding ecosystem are scientifically impossible to predict. Anone who claims otherwise is either lying or ignorant.

Moreover, the difference resulting from the presence of transgenic DNA provides the legal basis for the patenting of GM crops. This in turn means that farmers contaminated by GM seeds or GM pollen without their knowledge or consent are no longer the legal owners of their seeds and crops; they are obliged to pay patent royalties or face patent infringment lawsuits, and are not allowed to save and plant their own seeds. GM crop patents enable companies like Monsanto to seize control of the world's agricultural seeds. Whoever controls the seeds controls the food.

Morris's claim about the adoption of GM crops in France is misleading. I am told that GM maize cultivation in France is limited to 5,000 hectares, which amounts to just 1.6% of the total maize crop in May 2007. Despite the poor uptake, GM crops have already contaminated neighbouring farmers with both legal and illegal varieties, and to protect themselves French farmers have had to break the law by destroying GM crop fields in seven locations. For details see http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org and http://www.infogm.org.

5 September 2007

Propaganda, Fraud and Libel - a response (part 4)

GM Watch, 5 September 2007.

This is the fourth part of our response to an article attacking GM Watch published on AgBioView by its "guest editor", Andrew Apel.

In Propaganda, Fraud and Libel, Andrew Apel charges GM Watch with targeting Shane Morris's "employment with the Canadian government" and of re-casting the dispute with Morris "as a conflict between Canada and Ireland". Apel also brands GM Watch as "Irish activists" out to discredit Morris because of his talent in exposing activist "misinformation" about GMOs in Ireland. http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

As usual with Apel, the misinformation is entirely his own. Although the GM Watch team includes people in Brazil, India, The Netherlands, Germany, and New Zealand - as well as different parts of the UK, there are (as yet!) no "Irish activists" amongst us. And the issue of Morris's employment with the Canadian government was first raised not by GM Watch but by a Canadian citizen - Professor Joe Cummins (Emeritus Professor of Genetics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada).

Shane Morris has always been anxious to present his pro-GM views as purely personal and the gmoireland blog on which he has promoted them, and attacked those who take a different viewpoint, as something that he should not be barred from doing having been born and bred in Ireland. But there is a problem. As Prof Cummins has noted, others in the Canadian bureaucracy, such as Shiv Chopra, have got into big trouble for expressing views about biotechnology that were not to the liking of senior Canadian bureaucrats.

Canada, Prof Cummins points out, also has a history of secrecy in testing and marketing GM crops that makes one less than confident about the transparency of its activities in promoting the GM agenda. And Prof Cummins is far from alone in seeing Canada as being prepared to promote its biotech agenda in an underhand fashion (see, for instance, the article below).

What is undeniable is that public servants usually tend to be very wary of getting involved in public controversy. But Shane Morris, who has worked as a biotech regulator in Canada and is currently employed as a Senior Consumer Analyst at the Consumer Analysis Section of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, has not only used his blog to ridicule Irish and EU decison makers, and those political parties who fail to follow a pro-GM line, but he has also, according to GM-free Ireland:

•

intimidated a senior executive at Board Bia (the Irish Government Food Board) into withdrawing agreed sponsorship for a Green Ireland conference at which international speakers were to warn Ireland of the economic benefits of keeping Ireland free of GM crops;

•

published defamatory allegations claiming GM-free Ireland lured funding out of sponsors under false pretenses, by lying about the Bord Bia sponsorship which Morris himself caused to be cancelled;

•

harassed both the Ireland Fund and the Irish Doctors Environmental Association for their sponsorship of the Briefing on Food Safety and GMOs co-hosted by the European Parliament Independence / Democracy Group and the GM-free Ireland Network at the European Parliament Office in Dublin in June 2007;

•

carried out a shoot-the-messenger style letter-writing campaign to Irish newspapers, targeting critics of GM. http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/index.php

Morris and Apel contest GM-free Ireland's account of these events, but if even a part of it is true, it seems hard to imagine that a public servant would have embarked on such a vigorous public campaign without the reassurance that his superiors were at ease with his actions. Or to put it another way, can one imagine that a Canadian government employee would have dared promote scepticism about GMOs as aggressively as Morris has sought to undermine those opposing them? Canada, after all, is one of the world's biggest producers of GM crops and has a reputation for gagging and even sacking public servants who step out of line. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5374

Prior to working for the Government of Canada, Morris worked as a research assistant at the University of Guelph. His boss, Doug Powell, has been decribed as the "darling of the pro-biotech lobby and its chief attack dog". John Morriss, the editor of a Canadian farming paper, once described Powell as a "tenured Assistant Professor at a Canadian university" who at some point "morphed into a full-blown apologist for biotechnology, while still operating under his 'food safety' umbrella". Guelph agricultural scientist, Ann Clark, went even further in condemning Powell's behaviour, "what some are doing today under the umbrella of academic freedom is actually not far removed from the proclamations of Orwell's Ministry of Truth." http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=257

Powell also stands accused by his critics in Canada of having used his "regular appearances on the op-ed pages of the nation to denigrate anyone who criticizes the science or the regulatory framework around biotechnology". While John Morriss in his editorial condemened Powell's "aggressive if not vicious attacks on other scientists who dare to challenge his views". He gave the example of an "offensive attack on no less than the Royal Society of Canada and the members of the panel it appointed to review food biotechnology" (Rude Science, The Manitoba Cooperator 58(46):4 21 June 2001). That attack was co-authored by none other than Shane Morris, who became very well know during his time at Guelph for promoting the pro-GM agenda with just as much fervour as Doug Powell.

Shane Morris was certainly active within Powell's controversial "Food Safety Network", which enjoyed the financial support of Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta Seeds USA, ConAgra, Ag-West Biotech, Bioniche Life Sciences Inc., Southern Crop Protection Association, and the (biotech industry funded) Council for Biotechnology Information. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=257

Given that track record, some might find it hard to believe that the Canadian government could be so naive as not to recognise who they were offering employment to or the kind of services they might expect in return. It is also understandable that those who see Morris's "food safety" role at Guelph as having more to do with "PR for biotech" than academia, and his sweet corn research as having more to do with "PR for biotech" than science, will be tempted to view his current behaviour as having more to do with campaigning for GMOs than public service.

---

Liberal Corruption, beyond the Sponsorship Scandal [excerpts] http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/06/14/BeyondSponsorship/

What is it if not corrupt -- that is, indicative of moral deterioration -- that our federal government would deliberately deny a visa to Africa's Dr. Tewolde Egziabher one of the world's foremost scientists in the field of bio-safety, in order to prevent him attending a UN conference in Montreal?

This crude move against Tewolde (eventually reversed) because he opposes Canada's position, on behalf of corporations -- on commercialization of GMO foods, is a violation of the principles Canada agreed to when Montreal was made the centre for the

Secretariat for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal. It is also evidence of corruption at the highest levels of the Liberal government.

What is it if not corrupt -- as in a perversion of its original state -- that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which in its original form was mandated to protect Canadians from unsafe food products, now has a mandate that trumps this important goal?

The CFIA now must promote the export of Canadian food products, again at the behest of industry. This institutionalized conflict of interest has played out just as you might expect. When Shiv Chopra, Margaret S. Haydon, and Gerard Lambert, scientists in the veterinary drugs directorate, who for years had dedicated themselves to protecting Canadians, tried to do their job they were harassed, threatened and eventually fired for it.

...What is it when Canada sends delegates to a conference examining the safety of so-called terminator seeds with a secret agenda to try to pass a resolution that would allow for the corporate commercialization of this horrible technology? ...Or when Canada's own trade officials, unbeknownst to Canadians, and in concert with giant service corporations, negotiate away our domestic regulatory authority at the WTO?

It is the dictionary definition of corruption: a perversion of the original state of democratic governance, the moral deterioration of our democracy.

Romania: Island contaminated by illegal GMO

Greenpeace, 5 September 2007.

[Photo caption: Greenpeace activists put Braila island, on the Danube river, under quarantine, after Greenpeace field investigations revealed that illegal Genetically Modified (GMO) Soya, is being grown and harvested there.]

Romania ó Environmental activists today placed an entire island under strict quarantine after finding illegal genetically modified (GMO) soya being grown there.

Bralia Island in Romania is normally a quiet farming area on the Danube river but now it is the site of a huge environmental contamination by soya that has been genetically modified by the agricultural-chemical company, Monsanto.

The peaceful action in Romania began early in the morning when 30 Greenpeace activists from across Europe set up a 'decontamination station' at the ferry harbour area on Braila Island.

All vehicles leaving the island were decontaminated by being thoroughly washed to prevent the genetic contamination from spreading further.

It is illegal for member states of the European Union (EU) which includes Romania, to cultivate GMO Soya. Greenpeace is calling on the Romanian government and the European Commission to act immediately to locate and destroy all of the illegally cultivated GMO Soya.

"We have taken action to protect the rest of Romania from contamination by these illegal GMO crops, which pose massive risks to the environment, biodiversity and human heath. Romanian people have overwhelmingly rejected GMO," said Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace Romania, GMO campaigner.

"This is not the first time Greenpeace has discovered illegal GMO production in Romania, the situation is out of control. The Government must immediately locate and destroy all of the crops before they enter the food chain."

At the same time as activists were decontaminating Bralia Island in Romania, more activists were busy taking action against another site of GMO contamination in France. 20 volunteers painted a field of illegally grown GMO maize (corn) bright red, in order to expose its location.

The GMO maize, known as MON810, is another genetically modified product being pushed onto consumers by Monsanto. The GMO maize is being illegally grown, as either the farmer, or the French government have failed to inform the public of its presence as required under French law.

"By failing to take control, the Romanian and French governments are allowing biotech companies such as Monsanto, to run riot over their environment and ignore the wishes of European people; contaminating their food and their fields" said Myrto Pispini, Greenpeace International GMO campaigner.

Romania: Greenpeace quarantines Braila Island in Romania, to prevent spread of illegal GMO Soya contamination

Greenpeace press release, 5 September 2007.

Romania ó Greenpeace activists today put Braila island, on the Danube, under quarantine, after Greenpeace field investigations revealed that illegal Genetically Modified (GMO) Soya, is being grown and harvested there. It is illegal for EU member states, including Romania, to cultivate GMO Soya.Greenpeace calls on the Romanian government and the European Commission to act immediately to locate and destroy all of the illegally cultivated GMO Soya.

The peaceful action in Romania, began at 8 am, this morning. 30 Greenpeace activists from across Europe [1], took control of the ferry harbour area on the Braila. The volunteers have set up a 'decontamination station' for all vehicles leaving the island, to prevent genetic contamination from spreading.

Any vehicle found transporting GMO crops from the island will be handed over to the Romanian authorities. Greenpeace climbers have also hung a 20 metre banner with the message "Stop GMO."

"We have taken action to protect the rest of Romania from contamination by these illegal GMO crops, which pose massive risks to the environment, biodiversity and human heath. Romanian people have overwhelmingly rejected GMOs [2]. This is not the first time Greenpeace has discovered illegal GMO production in Romania[3], the situation is out of control.

The Government must immediately locate and destroy all of the crops before they enter the food chain," said Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace Romania, GM campaigner.

Greenpeace is also alarmed by the news that elsewhere in Romania a variety of GMO maize (Monsanto MON810) is being grown across 332 hectares of fields [4]. MON810 is authorised within the EU, but its cultivation in Romania violates national laws, as the company responsible, Monsanto, failed to notify the relevant authorities of their intention to grow it.

Greenpeace activists in France have also taken action today. 20 volunteers are painting a field of illegally grown MON810 bright red, in order to expose its location. The GMO maize is being illegally grown, as either the farmer, or the French government have not declared it.

"By failing to take control, the Romanian and French governments are allowing biotech companies such as Monsanto, to run riot over their environment and ignore the wishes of European people; contaminating their food and their fields" said Myrto Pispini, Greenpeace International GMO campaigner.

"Thankfully the vast majority of European agriculture remains GMO free. But GMOs are grown in some smaller areas; all too often in violation of both EU and national laws."

Greenpeace calls on the European commission as well as the Romanian and French governments and all other member states to:

Immediately decontaminate the environment and the food chain from any GM organisms that have been released into the environment, and ensure that proper measures are taken to avoid contamination scandals in the future.

Protect and promote agriculture and food production from the threat of GMOs by banning the import and cultivation of all GMO crops, in particular of Monsanto's GM maize MON810.

Notes to Editor

A background media briefing on GMOs in Romania is available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/briefing-romania-a-playgrou

[1] The quarantine was set up by 30 Greenpeace activists from Romania, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Greece and Scotland (UK)

[2] The result of a Greenpeace commissioned poll found 67% of Romanians reject GMO foods. The poll was carried out by SC Mercury Research, in May -July 2007

[3] In 2006, Greenpeace exposed wide commercial cultivation of illegal GMO crops, a flourishing black market in GMO seeds, recurrent cases of contamination of processing plants and the widespread presence of illegal GMO food products on the market in Romania http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/GE-Romania

[4] The Romanian Ministry of Agriculture informed Greenpeace that the MON810 crops were being cultivated, but refused to disclose their locations on grounds of 'confidentiality.'

Further contact information for reporters to get video, photos or report details

Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace GM campaigner, Romania, (on site) + 40 744 351 977, +40 730 097 886 Myrto Pispini, Greenpeace International GM campaigner (on site) +40 727 00 2012 Magali Ringoot, Greenpeace GM campaigner France +33 673 894 890 Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU Unit, Policy Director on GMOs+32 477 777 7034 Jo Kuper, Greenpeace International Communications +31 6 46 16 20 39 For images please contact Greenpeace International picture desk +31 20 718 2058 For video footage please contact Greenpeace International video desk +31 6 46 19 73 22

GM meat debate in Finland goes on

FoodProductionDaily.com, 5 September 2007.

In the interests of consumer rights, Finnish politicians are encouraging a debate over labelling of meat products from animals fed with genetically-modified feed.

Under European Union regulations meat from animals fed imported GM feed does not need to be labelled as GM and the feed origin does not need to be identified.

But when, this month, two Finnish meat producers, LSO Foods and Lounais-farmi, declared their intention to import GM soybeans for use as pig feed, agriculture minister Sirkka-Liisa Anttilahat of the Suomen Keskusta party called on the food industry to label use of GM feed on meat products. "Consumers must have the right to know how, and with what sort of feed, meat is produced," she said. The minister has also mooted the idea of a working group to address labelling of meat from animals not raised on genetically modified feed, amongst other issues.

Economical reasons

Many Finns do not approve the use of GM feed, according to a recently held survey . However the meat companies' decision to shift to GM soy is understandable from a financial point of view. There is already a gulf between the cost of non-GM and GM soy, and that gulf is continuing to grow as more and more soy producers in Brazil switch to GM varieties.

No isolated decision

According to Finland's Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK) support voluntary labelling of food products to indicate any use of GM products in the production chain. But they added that such a measure could not be taken by Finland in isolation from the rest of the EU, since it would put domestic produce at a significant disadvantage to unlabelled imports. For now, however, a pan-EU change looks unlikely.

4 September 2007

UK / Ireland / Canada: the Shane Morris scandal

Mr James Wright
High Commissioner for Canada
MacDonald House
1 Grosvenor Square
London W1K 4AB

4 September 2007

I am writing on behalf of the Soil Association to ask you to ensure that your Government takes action against one of your employees, Shane Morris, who is trying to defend an extraordinarily misleading scientific paper by threatening free speech in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

In brief, a paper published by Doug Powell, University of Guelph, and others [1], claims to have shown that consumers prefer GM to non-GM corn, given a free choice. What the paper failed to disclose was that the bin of sweetcorn that was non-GM had a sign beside it saying "Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?", while the bin of GM corn had a sign above it saying "Here's what went into producing quality sweetcorn". These signs were witnessed and photographed by a reporter from the Toronto Star, who noted that labelling one lot of sweetcorn "wormy" and the other lot "quality" hardly provided a neutral choice for consumers.

The paper by Jeff Wilson, Doug Powell, Katija Blaine and Shane Morris published in the British Food Journal claimed that the researchers took great trouble not to bias consumer choice. No mention was made of the "wormy" and "quality" signs, nor indeed a number of pro-GM fact sheets which were made available to consumers during the experiment.

I'm sure you will agree that this is a disgrace, and the fact that one of the scientists works for the Canadian Government must give you great cause for concern. I am sure the Canadian Government has no wish to be associated with deliberately misleading scientific papers, and I look forward to the Canadian Government disassociating itself from this extraordinary paper.

Despite calls from leading scientists and others, the British Food Journal has so far failed to withdraw this paper, and I hope the Canadian Government will now encourage them to do so.

Finally, presumably in an effort to stop news of this unscientific and unprofessional behaviour gaining wider currency, your Government's employee, Mr Morris, has tried to close down one of the most respected websites dealing with information about GM, farming and food (GM Watch) and also has issued legal threats against a respected organisation in Ireland, GM Free Ireland. You will no doubt be aware that the call to make Ireland GM free has the support of the Irish Government, and I hope the Canadian Government will immediately disassociate from attempts by one of their employees to undermine the wishes of a democratically elected government.

I am copying this to His Excellency The Irish Ambassador.

Peter Melchett
Policy Director

The Soil Association
South Plaza, Marlborough Street,
Bristol BS1 3NX, UK

[1. Powell DA, Blaine K, Morris S and Wilson J. Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn. British Food Journal 2003, 105 (10), 700-713]

UK / Ireland / Canada: the Shane Morris scandal

Professor Chris Griffith
Editor of the British Food Journal
Head, Food Research and Consultancy Unit
University of Wales Institute
Llandaff Campus, Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YB

4 September 2007

I have always found it incomprehensible that you failed to withdraw the paper by Powell, Blaine, Morris and Wilson [1] about consumers buying GM and non-GM maize in Canada, once you learnt that the research had been misleadingly reported. I know that at the time you published letters criticising and defending the research, and I have read that you published an 'editor's note' which said that "a common misconception is that science and research are about facts". I have to say I find that an extraordinary statement, if by it you mean to imply that it's perfectly acceptable for scientific papers that you publish to report as facts things that are not true. In this case, the inclusion of the signs referring to "wormy" and "quality" above the two samples of sweetcorn is so significant that omitting any reference to them in the paper not only means that the paper is no longer factually accurate, but that it is deliberately misleading.

I suppose you may have felt this extraordinarily unsavoury episode could be forgotten, but unfortunately one of the authors of the paper is now trying to suppress accurate reporting of what happened in both the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

It seems to me this is an inevitable consequence of your willingness, through your journal, to support this misleading paper. Will you now withdraw it?

Peter Melchett
Policy Director

The Soil Association
South Plaza, Marlborough Street,
Bristol BS1 3NX, UK

[1. Powell DA, Blaine K, Morris S and Wilson J. Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn. British Food Journal 2003, 105 (10), 700-713]

Ireland: Resistance to GM cereals slammed
Teagasc accuses the Government of undermining agriculture

Irish Independent (farming supplement) cover story, 4 September 2007. By Declan O'Brien.

A leading Teagasc [the Irish Government's Agriculture and Food Authority] scientist has slammed the Government's failure to support the use of genetically modified (GM) cereals in animal feeds.

Professor Jimmy Burke, who is head of the Crops Research Centre at Oak Park, claimed that the Government's stance on GM crop varieties was undermining the viability of whole sectors within Irish agriculture.

"This policy is anti-competitive and doomed to failure. Only sourcing non-GM material is an unrealistic approach and we need to sit up and take notice of this," Professor Burke insisted.

He maintained that Ireland's decision to abstain earlier this year in a key vote at EU level on the maize variety, Herculex, had serious implications.

As Herculex had failed to secure EU approval, European feed importers had been forced to pay inflated prices for scarce supplies of non-GM material.

The Teagasc specialist said the implications for the pig and poultry sectors were particularly serious, since half the protein requirement for both industries was sourced in the US.

"If we are saying we don't want GM material, then this is a serious issue because, in the not too distant future, people won't be able to get non-GM feed stocks," he said.

He also questioned the assertion that consumers were willing to pay a premium for the meat from animals which have been fed non-GM feed.

He pointed out that studies carried out in a number of countries had found that supermarkets were not willing to pass on to consumers the additional feed costs associated with using non-GM material.

Meanwhile, feed importers now fear that shipments of corn gluten and corn distillers will be disrupted again this autumn, because the US maize crop, which is due to be harvested in a month's time, includes another GM variety which has not been approved in Europe.

The variety, which is called Agrisure, makes up just 1-2pc of total plantings. However, importers are unwilling to bring in shipments of the new crop in case traces of this particular variety are found in the shipments.

Since Agrisure is not approved in the EU, any consignments in which it is identified would have to be destroyed or shipped back to the port of origin or to a third country.

Matt Brazil of feed importers, Halls, said that, as a consequence, most importers would not be willing to take a chance on a shipment of new crop maize from the US.

He said this would create further upward pressure on feed prices.

Meanwhile, Mr. Brazil said farmers will face massive increases in feed costs this winter. He pointed out that the main constituents in compound feed had doubled in price since this time last year.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

At the annual National Future of Food Forum on "Re-connecting Farming, Food and Rural Communities" hosted by the leading chefs organisation, Euro-Toques Ireland, last Sunday, GM-free Ireland spokesperson Michael O'Callaghan said Teagasc's abuse of public funds to misinform farmers about GM crops was a disgrace, and called on the Minister for Food and Horticulture Trevor Sargent to hold those responsible to account.

Teagasc can not be trusted on GMO issues because it has abused millions of euro of Irish taxpayer's funding to misinform farmers about GM crops. Its http://www.gmoinfo.ie website – proclaimed as the government's official "Information Centre for GM crops in Ireland" appeared to have been designed by Monsanto's spin doctors. The web site touted GM crops with no mention whatsoever of the growing scientific evidence of cross-contamination, crop failures, patent infringement lawsuits, GM superweeds, health and environmental risks, and loss of market share. The contents of the web site were recently cleaned out after GM-free Ireland exposed the misinformation. The main Teagasc website at http://www.teagasc.ie still features numerous pages containing highly biased information in favour of GM crops.

The patented GM maize variety Herculex, mentioned in the above article, was discovered by GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace in a 12,000 tonne shipment of US animal feed aboard a ship in Dublin port in April. Despite the fact that Herculex is illegal in the EU, up to 5,313 tonnes of this contamined feed was subsequently sold to Irish farmers and allowed to enter the Irish food chain. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac/index.php

That shipment was imported by R&H Hall. Although their spokesman Matt Brazill claimed the cargo contained no GM ingredients while it was being unloaded, he also said his company could supply any amount of certified non-GMO animal feed if Irish farmers want it.

There is no doubt that certified non-GMO soya is widely available for a minimal extra cost of around € 0.01 (1 cent) per kg, which can easily be recouped via higher premia on offer from leading supermarkets. For details, see Michael O'Callaghan's cover story on GM feed in the 26 July edition of the Irish Examiner farm supplement: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2007/july.php#moc.

The timing of Teagasc's attack on the Government's GM-free policy follows yesterday's conference jointly organised by the Animal and Plant Health Association (APHA) and the Irish Farmers Association at Dublin airport, where vociferous objections were made against EC proposals to restrict the use of "plant protection products" (i.e. toxic weedkillers, insecticides and fungicides) and "new plant protection products" (including GM plants that produce their own pesticides). GM seeds are patented by the same transnational agribusiness-biotech corporations (Monsanto, Bayer CropsScience, Pioneer/Dow, Syngenta, etc) that manufacture the unwanted chemicals, and that use GM crop patents to prevent farmers from saving and planting their own seeds. (See next two articles below.) These powerful GM and chemical farming giants would like to sabotage the consumer-driven global trend towards more environmentally safe, sustainable and organic farming.

Ireland has a competitive advantage over its EU counterparts in relation to phasing our the use of GM animal feed. Because our cattle and sheep farming is mostly grass-based, animal feed compounds constitute only around 7% of their total diet. Less than half of this 7% consists of soya and maize products, where the GM ingredients come in. The shift towards GM-free animal feed would thus require far less change in Ireland than elsewhere in the EU. Coupled with our clean food island branding, world famous green image, and geographical isolation from potential contamination by wind-borne GM pollen, phasing out GM animal feed would give Irish meat, poultry and dairy produce the most credible safe GM-free food branding in the EU.

Irish farming organisations and policy makers interested in exploring this strategy should participate in the forthcoming Conference on "Non GM Feedstuff, Quality Production, and European Agriculture's Strategy", co-hosted by EU Committee of the Regions and the European GMO-Free Regions Network on 5-6 December in Brussels: http://www.gmofree-euregions.net.

The GMO-free Regions Network includes 39 Regional Governments in Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK. Over ten regions in Austria, France, Italy, and Spain have already committed themselves to this approach. Preliminary meetings have been held with the EC, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, AER, CRPM, AREPO, COPA-COGECA and with Brazilian players of the entire sector, and the project is going full steam ahead. The European Commission's Directorates-General for Agriculture, Health and Consumer Protection, Development and Trade have also agreed to participate.

The Regions are phasing out GM animal feed to provide value-added production, to preserve competitive and high-quality agriculture in the context of the globalisation of food markets, and thus boost the sustainability of local rural communities. These regional governments are demanding a special status for quality agriculture which recognises its role in space management, environmental protection, and the strengthening of local communities, and wants all the European Regions to support this strategy in the mid-term review of the CAP in 2008 and its revision in 2013.

Ireland: Tillage will suffer from EU proposal

Irish Independent (farming supplement), 4 September 2007. By Maeve Dineen.

EU PROPOSALS designed to reduce the use of plant protection products have major implications for tillage farmers and vegetable growers, a conference organised jointly by the Animal and Plant Health Association (APHA) and the IFA was told yesterday.

Brendan Barnes, Director of APHA, told the conference that the proposed restrictions would curtail production of cereals, potatoes and vegetables much more seriously than the Nitrates Directive has done for livestock farmers.

He urged farmers to actively lobby MEPS on the damage to Irish tillage farming if some of the more extreme proposals are not rejected.

He said the proposals, which will be voted on by the European Parliament this autumn, contain legally binding restrictions, such as a 25pc reduction in usage of plant protection products within five years and a 50pc reduction within 10 years.

The EU is also proposing a prohibition on spraying within 10m of watercourses, as well as prohibition on the use of weed control products in public areas, such as roadways and residential paths.

A system of taxes or levies, with some of the proceeds being used to promote organic farming, is also being suggested by the Commission.

Mr Barnes said the new measures would seriously restrict the use of long-established and proven safe products, and that it would also curtail the development and use of new plant protection products.

This would have serious implications for the production of quality and safe food in the future, as well as having massive implications for farm incomes. He said the proposals involve a major switch at EU level from a scientifically-based risk assessment to a more arbitrary hazardous-based assessment.

"Decisions should not be based on suspicion, but should be addressed on the basis of proven science," he said.

Ireland: Proposed EU restrictions pose serious threat to farm incomes

Irish Examiner, 4 September 2007. By Ray Ryan, Agribusiness Correspondent.

EUROPEAN Union proposals to dramatically reduce the use of plant protection products have major implications for the competitiveness of Irish. tillage farming, a conference was told yesterday.

Brendan Barnes, director, Animal and Plant Health Association, joint organisers with the !FA of the conference at Dublin . Airport, said the proposed restrictions would curtail production of cereals, potatoes and vegetables much more seriously than the Nitrate Directive has done for livestock farmers.

He urged farmers to actively lobby European Parliament members on the damage to Irish tillage farming if some of the more extreme proposals are not rejected.

He said the proposals contain legally binding restrictions, such as 25% reduction in usage of plant protection products within five years and a 50% reduction within 10 years.

A system of taxes or levies with some of the proceeds being used to promote organic farming is also proposed.

Mr Barnes said the new measures would seriously restrict the use of long established safe products and would also curtail the development of new plant protection products.

This would have serious implications for the production of quality food and also for farm incomes, he said.

Professor Jimmy Burke, Teagasc Oak Park, told the conference the adoption of the proposals would erode the competitive position of Irish tillage farming.

"What we need is an acceptable balance between technical efficiency, food cost, food quality and protection of the environment.

Dr Tom McCabe, UCD, said Ireland is uniquely vulnerable to wet weather fungal diseases such as potato blight and septoria in cereals. The past summer has been a classic example where potato blight has been virtually uncontrollable.

He said that rather than 'top of the head' reduction in volumes what is needed is a plant protection programme based on risk assessment. "Ireland has made huge advances in this area in recent years and farmers have a highly responsible approach towards the use of chemicals," he said.

Propaganda, fraud and libel (part 3)

GM Watch, 4 September 2007.

This is the third part of our response to an article attacking GM Watch published on AgBioView by its "guest editor", Andrew Apel.

Apel's article can be found at http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

The article at the centre of the controversy is at http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

Part 1 of our response to Apel looked at the extraordinary hypocrisy of his attack http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8228

Part 2 looked at how the claim of libel simply fails to stack up http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8240

Part 3 (below) raises serious questions about Apel's defence of the study.

--- Propaganda, Fraud and Libel - a response (part 3)

In Propaganda, Fraud and Libel, Andrew Apel attacks GM Watch over an article on our website about an award winning paper reporting research conducted by Doug Powell, Shane Morris and others at a Canadian farm store (Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn, D.A.Powell, K.Blaine, S.Morris and J.Wilson, British Food Journal, Volume 105 Number 10, 2003, pp. 700-713). The research was into consumer preference in relation to GM and non-GM sweet corn.

According to Apel, "The activists' case was opened for them by Toronto Star reporter Stuart Laidlaw. The reporter claimed that when he visited the Birkbank farm store on several occasions during the start of the trials, the hand-written sign above the non-GM corn said, 'Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?' while that above the engineered corn said, 'Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn.'"
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

Note how Apel tries to undermine the Toronto Star reporter by shoehorning him in with the "activists". Note how he also limits the time frame for Laidlaw's visits to the farm store to "occasions during the start of the trials". As Laidlaw doesn't date his visits to the farm store in his book Secret Ingredients, it would be interesting to know how Apel can be so specific about such a limited time frame.

One reason this is an important issue soon becomes apparent:

"What the opponents of Powell's work pointedly failed to mention is that after the first week of the study the signs they complained about were taken down. Only then did the formal data-gathering phase begin - using machine-printed, laminated placards."
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

The implication seems to be that while Laidlaw visited the farm store several times during the study, because all his visits fell, according to Apel, "during the start of the trials", he won't have seen the problematic signs come down before data gathering began.

Of course, even if this scenario were correct, it wouldn't actually resolve anything, because the farm had a lot of repeat customers, as the sweet corn paper itself notes, so their purchasing preferences could have been influenced before the problematic signs were taken down.

But that aside, in relation to the involvement of one of the researchers - Shane Morris, Apel says it is particularly libelous to implicate him in anything to do with the signs:

"..the hand-written "wormy" sweet corn signs had gone up and come down before Morris was in Canada, before he was employed at the University of Guelph, and before the data were gathered."
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

And, Apel says, there is independent verification of that, because these newer signs were "viewed and photographed by Michael Khoo of Greenpeace", although "Greenpeace has for unknown reasons failed to make these pictures public."
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

Curiously, Apel does not mention in his article that there is plenty of photographic evidence available independently of Greenpeace, as Shane Morris tells us on his blog:

"There are lots of pictures and video footage of the store that show no misleading signs during the data collection period (see pic above). " http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2006_03_21_archive.html

To date, Morris has made two of these images available on his blog to show the wormy corn sign wasn't in the store
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1382/2258/1600/Store.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1382/2258/1600/Greenpeace.0.jpg

Unfortunately, these images are at such a low resolution that it is not easy to read what the signs say. This problem could easily be resolved by Shane Morris making the images available at a higher resolution. This is particularly important since, as we have noted before, irrespective of any newer signage, there is a sign in these images which looks as if it might be the wormy corn sign.
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

Like Apel, Shane Morris is emphatic that the wormy corn sign was not there when he went to the farm store for the first time in late September 2000 - the same day, as Morris notes, that Michael Khoo of Greenpeace came to the store:

"I never saw any such misleading "signs" (granted, I only came to Canada in Fall/Autumn (mid September) 2000, so my work visa says!!!)... C'mon GM Watch at least get something right.....I wasn't even in the Country for your alledged "sign" fraud!!" http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2006_03_20_archive.html

And when we published our article about the study, Morris made this point again:

"He [ie the assumed author] still refuses to claim I (Shane Morris) committed fraud as he knows (because Mr. Khoo from Greenpeace can confirm) the signs (he claims are misleading) were not up and newer signs were in place by the time I was employed at the University of Guelph (even before I was in the country)... I visited the farm for the first time with Mr. Khoo on Sept. 27, 2000."
http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/

We contacted Michael Khoo and asked him if he could, as Shane Morris claimed, confirm that the wormy corn sign was not up when he visited the store. He couldn't. He told us, "I could have seen it when I was there," but he couldn't say for certain because "it's a little while ago" and he hadn't retained any of the photos he had taken at the store.

But Michael Khoo hadn't gone alone to the store that day. He had a companion - Dr Rod MacRae, an independent food policy consultant based in Toronto who had Greenpeace Canada as one of his clients. Dr MacRae told us that he had seen the wormy corn sign when he went to the store: "I can state categorically that the sign was there the day Michael and I attended." He also confirmed the date: "signage favouring the GE corn by describing the other corn as wormy was still up on Sept. 27, 2000."

The possible implications of Dr MacRae's statement are clearly serious. Not only has Shane Morris stated that the wormy corn sign had been taken down before he joined the study, and specfically that it was not there on September 27 - the day Dr MacRae visited the store, but Doug Powell in his defence of the research in the British Food Journal also stated that the controversial handwritten signs on display on August 30 "were changed the following week", suggesting they came down around three weeks before Dr MacRae visited the store. http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=9&sc=62&id=897

This particular issue could perhaps be resolved by careful analysis of images of the signs that Shane Morris says are available. But, as we have already noted, the fact that these signs were ever included in the study already raises serious questions - not least, as the claim that no data was collected while they were present does not seem to tally with the information available in the actual paper. Sales of the two types of sweet corn are shown as having been recorded from the day the sweet corn was harvested, ie August 30, when Powell and Morris do not dispute that the wormy corn sign was in place in the store.

And as noted previously, the signs are not the only instances of alleged experimenter bias. Stuart Laidlaw says there was GM promotional material in the store authored by lobby groups without any balancing literature from critics. Doug Powell denies this. So far Stuart Laidlaw, now the faith and ethics correspondent of the Toronto Star, has stood by his reporting. As with MacRae and Morris, clearly Powell and Laidlaw cannot both be right. http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=9&sc=62&id=897

The British Food Journal gave this paper an award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004. That award - like the paper - has not been retracted. The current editor, Prof Chris Griffiths, has instead chosen to sit on the fence, neither defending, nor criticising the research, saying the matter is closed and he will leave it to BFJ readers to make up their own minds, and suggesting they follow any developments on the internet! http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=9&sc=62&id=897

But the issues surrounding this research have now become so serious that the BFJ needs to take hold of the situation, investigate the evidence and make it clear whether it still regards this paper as exemplary science.

In part 4 of our response we will turn to another contentious issue raised in Andrew Apel's attack on GM Watch, Shane Morris's role as a Canadian public servant.

3 September 2007

Europe: Right to refuse GMOs

GM Watch newsflash, 3 September 2007.

Brief analysis of the "Right to Refuse" position available to National Governments (and possibly some Regional Parliaments) concerning European Union attempts to force Member States to adopt GMO planting regimes:

Ludwig Kr”mer, Professor of EU Environmental Law, states:

"Seeds and other genetically modified plants or animals which have the capacity to multiply in the living environment, are living beings and not "products" or "goods" in the sense of the EU Treaty. The Treaty does differentiate between living beings and goods, as can be seen clearly in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, which provides Member States with the special right to adopt measures prohibiting or restricting the free movement of goods when needed to protect the health of humans, animals and plants. Since Directive 2001/18 regulates living beings, it should have been based on Article 175 EC Treaty and not exclusively on article 95. As expressly recognised by the European Court of Justice (C-178/03) Community's legal acts can be based on two legal provisions.

The fact that Directive 2001/18 was enacted exclusively on the basis of article 95 EC Treaty - which happened before Poland joined the EU - cannot deprive Member States from the possibility to apply the provisions of Article 176 EC Treaty which allows Member States to maintain or introduce protective measures more stringent than those adopted at EU level. Indeed, the very 'raison d'etre' of Article 176 is to allow Member States to decide themselves on the safeguard and protection of their environment and to fix, if neccessary, a better protection than the one that was decided by the EU".

This statement is part of a longer article entitled "Comments on the European Commission's notification pursuant to Article 95, paragraph 5 of the EC Treaty, concerning the Polish draft Act on Genetically Modified Organisms" (Commissioned by Greenpeace):

Read the article: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/
press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/Comments-on-Polish-draft-GMO-law.pdf

Ireland: One-in-20 acres to be organic in move to green food future

Irish Independent, 3 September 2007. ONE in every 20 acres of Irish farmland will be delivering organic produce by 2012, to keep up with consumer demand for "greener" food, Junior Agriculture Minister Trevor Sargent said yesterday.

The ambitious target to increase organic production five-fold in just five years will be achieved through a payments scheme which will see organic farmers receiving up to € 22,000 a year during the conversion period and € 16,000 after that, the former Green Party leader said.

While Ireland has been slow to build-up organic farming, Mr Sargent said rising consumer demand would drive the increase of organic production from the current 1pc of farmland to 5pc over the next five years.

Minister Sargent also urged the country's 35,000 restaurants, hotels and other food businesses to make more of local food.

Culinary tourism is a growing trend among consumers who want to know more about their food, he said.

"Food that is locally produced and sold with pride, connects farming, food and rural communities," he said.

Ireland: Caterers urged to use local produce

Irish Examiner, 3 September 2007. By Ray Ryan.
Catering outlets engaged in the new trend of culinary tourism were urged yesterday to increase their use of local tood specialities.

Food and Horticulture Minister Trevor Sargent made the call at the sixth national food forum and fair organised by Euro-toques Ireland, the Irish Branch ot the European Community of Chefs, at Brooklodge Hotel, Macreddin, Co Wicklow.

"There are 45,000 registered food businesses in Ire- land, and about 35,000 of these are tourism or tourism-related businesses, such as restaurants and hotels, which could make more of local food specialities," he said.

Mr Sargent said the forum theme on reconnecting farming, food and rural communities was timely given the development of the economy, urbanisation and globalisation.

It was also timely having regard to the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which has refocused agriculture to the marketplace.

Mr Sargent said diversity in farming and food patterns will, be increasingly seen as strength. That diversity should embrace local foods and organic farming.

He said agricultural pro duction patterns in Ireland are mostly extensive and grass-based. Whether for that reason or another, Ireland has been slow to build an organic sector.

"My new responsibilities include lelivery of the Government target to convert. 5% of icreage to organic farmlanc by 2012," he said. Mr Sxgent said this target is a big, out achievable, challenge. Consumer demand for organic food is rising and well exceeds local supply.

"Food that is locally produced and sold with pride, locally connects up farming, food aid, rural communities", he said, describing the upsurge in the number of farmers markets in the past year as remarkable.

Propaganda, Fraud and Libel - (part 2)

GW Watch, 1 September 2007.

This is the second part of our response to an article attacking GM Watch published on AgBioView by its "guest editor", Andrew Apel.

Apel's article can be found at http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

Part 1 of our response is at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8228

--- Propaganda, Fraud and Libel - a response (part 2)

In Propaganda, Fraud and Libel, Andrew Apel attacks GM Watch over an article on our website originally entitled Award for a Fraud. http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

The article was about an award winning scientific paper by Doug Powell, Shane Morris and two other authors, published in the British Food Journal. This paper described research carried out at a Canadian farm store that reported a marked consumer preference for GM (over non-GM) sweet corn.

Apel claims our article "implicated Shane Morris, a co-author of the paper, in committing outright fraud". This, it is implied, is why Morris asked our ISP to ensure that either the title of our article was changed or our website disabled.

We have already dealt with the extraordinarily hypocritical nature of the attack on GM Watch in part one of our response to Propaganda, Fraud and Libel. Here we're going to deal with the question of whether our article about the research was libelous and why this study remains so controversial.

The way in which Apel's article is sequenced implies that GM Watch was a relative late-comer to this controversy - a Johnny-come-lately wading in with a gratuitously libelous article that unfairly targeted Shane Morris, forcing him to take action. But nothing could be further from the truth.

We were, in fact, the first people outside Canada to draw out the significance of the reporting of the Canadian journalist Stuart Laidlaw, who visited the farm store on several occasions during the research and observed at first hand a series of interventions by the researchers that were completely at odds with the way the research was later promoted to the scientific community.

In his book Secret Ingredients, Laidlaw reported how a sign above the GM corn on sale in the farm shop referred to "quality sweet corn", while a sign placed above the non-GM sweet corn effectively labelled it "wormy". GM Watch was the first to make a photograph of the wormy corn sign, taken by a Toronto Star photographer, available on the web.

Equally importantly, Laidlaw also reported that there were a number of pro-GM fact sheets - some authored by industry lobby groups - available to shoppers at the store without any balancing information from critics of genetic engineering. He also reported how he observed the lead researcher, Doug Powell, directly influencing a customer in favour of GM sweet corn.

What Laidlaw observed going on at the farm store convinced him that the only conclusion which could safely be drawn from the study was that, "fed a lot of pro-biotech sales pitches, shoppers could be convinced to buy GM products."
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

Our article drew attention to the fact that none of these "pro-biotech sales pitches" made their way into the award winning paper. When our article was published, together with the wormy corn sign, back in April 2006, it caused quite a stir, and prompted an article in New Scientist a month later. The article reported how a leading researcher into scientific ethics had called for the British Food Journal to retract the paper - something its editor refused to do, although he was prepared to publish letters criticisng and defending the research.
http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=9&sc=62&id=897

The point to note is that absolutely nobody suggested at the time that our article was defamatory. Nobody asked for any element of its content, including its title, to be changed or expunged from the web. In fact, Shane Morris who, while branding our article "bullsh*t", claimed to be the very first person to publish it!

Morris even claimed to have had access to the article pre-publication. This is what he wrote on his blog at the time:

Monday, April 24, 2006
Leak of Unreleased Report

This unreleased info below was given to me by folks who cannot believe the GM Watch lies and spins any longer. It was not available to the public on their [ie GM Watch's] website... My sources have shown me the info is currently stored at file:///Users/jon/Desktop/Archive/morris1.html
[http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/]

The implication of this statement if it were to be taken at face value, is that Morris had been given information stored in a file on a third party's personal computer and not intended at that point for publication, and that he then deliberately published it. Leaving aside the legality, never mind the ethics of such an action, if this article were, as is now claimed, defamatory, why did Morris, having had pre-publication access to it, not try to prevent its publication, rather than claim to be first to make it publicly available? Indeed, at the time of writing, the article that Morris has recently gone to such lengths to censor is still available uncensored on Morris's own blog!
http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/

Not only did Morris not make any claim of defamation, he stated unambiguously that the article did not accuse him of fraud, commenting: "He [ie the supposed author] still refuses to claim I (Shane Morris) committed fraud."
http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/

Nor when Morris first contacted us about alleged defamation did he make any reference at all to our article. His concern was said to be purely about a statement made about him in an unpublished letter to a newspaper by GM-free Ireland. Only when we had followed GM-free Ireland in amending the statement in their letter, as archived in a list bulletin on our site, did Morris then issue an entirely new demand - that we remove the title from the article we'd published 15 months earlier. When our website was subsequently disabled while the issue was resolved, Morris then made a further demand to GM-free Ireland - that they remove **all** GM Watch material pertaining to him from their website.

Apel claims in Propaganda, Fraud and Libel that, "The company hosting the GM Watch website found that libelous statements violated its fair use policy, and when no amendments to the offensive language were forthcoming, saw no option other than to take the entire site down." Like much else in Apel's article, this is simply untrue. At no point did our web host decide that libelous statements had been made. Indeed, the administrator responsible for taking the site down specifically told Shane Morris, "I am not doing this due to accepting your claim (a matter on which I am neutral)." (e-mail of August 16 2007)

The ostensible reason given to us by Morris for originally demanding the change of title was that it had somehow misled GM-free Ireland into accusing him of fraud. This hardly stacks up given that Morris himself has previously admitted that our article did not accuse him of fraud, and given that the original title and the article would continue to be available to "mislead" people on his own blog!

Morris, of course, was not alone in not originally claiming defamation. None of his three co-authors, all of whom were identified in the article, have in the intervening months ever demanded any kind of retraction. But Apel's article implies that Shane Morris and his lawyers saw his reputation as having suffered a particularly unjustified attack in that "the hand-written 'wormy' sweet corn signs had gone up and come down before Morris was in Canada, before he was employed at the University of Guelph, and before the data were gathered."

While the pressence or not of Morris at the farm store is largely irrelevant in terms of the criticisms of the paper presented in our original article (those criticisms not being in any way specific to Morris), we do believe that no convincing evidence has been produced to support the claims about the sign coming down early in the study and - in part 3 of our response - we will turn to this aspect of the controversy, as well as to the contentious issue of Morris's simultaneous role as both pro-GM lobbyist and Canadian government bureaucrat.

Archives 2007: January• February • March • April • May • June • July • August

Archives 2006: Jan • Feb • March • April • May • June • July • August
• Sept • Oct • Nov • December

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

Archives 2004 • 2003

Sponsored by Global Vision Corporation

© 2003 - 2007 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 16 October 2007
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php