GM-FREEIRELAND : NEWS





		NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • July 2008 2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • June • July 2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec 2006: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec
More GM news is available on our news feed and www.gmwatch.eu 31 July 2008 USA: Sierra Club urges EPA to suspend nicotinyl insecticides Sierra Club press release, 31 July 2008. Sierra Club urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect honey bees and the food supply over the bottom line of multinational corporations. In light of the mounting evidence that the nicotinyl insecticides (also known as neonicotinoids) are deadly to bees, the Sierra Club today reaffirmed its call for a U.S. moratorium on these powerful pesticides to protect our bees and crops, until more study can be done. The EPA is charged with properly implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for legal authorization to allow various pesticide applications. Yet more than one hundred and sixty Section 18 FIFRA emergency exemptions have been approved by EPA's OPP since 1997 without evaluating sublethal effects. "There are big holes in the science," said Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee chair. "The EPA has failed to evaluate the risks from sublethal effects due to low level exposures of the neonicotinoids on honey bees." "Neonicotinoids have been quantified in the the nectar and the pollen of plants. These pesticides can not only kill honey bees outright, but also the honey bees' ability to fight off infections may also be comprised," said Dr Neil Carman, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee member. "Federal agencies in France and Germany have already taken responsible regulatory actions to suspend use of these pesticides based on the best available scientific evidence, but the EPA is moving too slowly to take action to suspend nicotinyl pesticides," "Part of the equation in the U.S. is genetically engineered corn, as more and more corn seeds are being gene spliced with a completely different species - a bacterium," said Walter Haefeker, of the German Beekeepers Association Board of Directors. "Bayer and Monsanto recently entered into agreements to manufacture neonicotinic-coated genetically engineered corn. It's likely that this will worsen the bee die-off problem." "Sierra Club joins the concern of beekeepers," said Hopwood. "It's unfortunate that the EPA is using double speak. They claim to protect our food supply - yet they aren't doing the proper studies. The loss of honeybees will leave a huge void in the kitchens of the American people and an estimated loss of 14 billion dollars to farmers. We expect the U.S. EPA to do their job. We call for a precautionary moratorium on these powerful crop treatments to protect our bees and our food." Contact: Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club + 1 216-371-9779 _______________________ Letter to US EPA July 30 2008 Anthony Britten Registration Division Director Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mail code 7505P Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Request to suspend use of nicotinyl insecticides until EPA obtains scientific evidence that sublethal effects do not cause harm to America's honey bees. Dear Mr. Britten: The Sierra Club and its 1.3 million members and supporters is requesting that EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) take urgent action to suspend use of the high volume pesticides known as the nicotinyl insecticides until the EPA possesses the scientific evidence to demonstrate that these pesticides do not cause or contribute to sublethal effects on the nation's honey bees. Serious questions need to be raised by EPA's OPP over the sublethal effects to honey bees occurring in the low parts per billion range (ppb) of 1.0 ppb to 20 ppb from these pesticides, which apparently the EPA has not evaluated to date, and the pesticide manufacturer's may not have adequately investigated or may have submitted incomplete findings to EPA. Synergistic effects may also be occurring. The EPA has clearly missed the unintended consequences of the nicotinyl (neonicotinoid) insecticides, including imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and several others and now action is critical. Without prompt EPA regulatory action to suspend use of the nicotinyl pesticides (also known as neonicotinoids), the mounting economic devastation to the nation's commercial honey bee operations and agriculture will reach into billions of dollars and will irreversibly harm beekeepers and farmers beyond their ability to make a recovery not to mention the huge losses in the fruits and vegetables available for consumers. The EPA's OPP surely is cognizant that federal agencies in France and Germany have already taken responsible regulatory actions to suspend use of these pesticides based on the best available scientific evidence since at least 2002-3. Preliminary evidence was available earlier in France, but EPA's OPP is moving too slowly to take action to suspend nicotinyl pesticides. The public is seriously concerned that the EPA lacks the necessary scientific evidence to demonstrate the safety of sublethal doses of the neonicontinoids that honey bees are being routinely exposed to during their foraging activities in the US. Your Office of Pesticide Programs is charged with properly implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for legal authorization to allow various pesticide applications and it appears that EPA's OPP is not diligently carrying out its duties under FIFRA to the public and agriculture. More than one hundred and sixty Section 18 FIFRA emergency exemptions have been approved by EPA's OPP since 1997 without evaluating sublethal effects. As EPA knows, additional large losses of honey bee colonies continue to be widely reported by beekeepers in the United States into 2008 in approximately forty agricultural producing states where fruit and vegetable crops rely on honey bees for pollination and major crop production. Fruit and vegetable losses have been reported by American farmers as a growing agricultural crisis because honey bee colonies have been collapsing in those regions. EPA's OPP has either inadequately evaluated or totally failed to evaluate the risks from sublethal effects due to low ppb range exposures of the neonicotinoids on honey bees. Following is information primarily from Germany and France where federal agencies have taken responsible regulatory actions to suspend use of neonicontinoids due to the growing scientific evidence of sublethal effects on honey bees. The EPA should be acting responsibly to collect as much scientific evidence as possible considering that the information is publicly available from scientists in Germany and France who have already conducted the research and collected the evidence to warrant suspending neonicotinoids. As EPA's OPP is aware, the German federal government Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) ordered the immediate suspension of the approval for eight seed treatment products due to the mass death of bees in Germany's Baden-Wuerttemberg state. The suspended pesticide products are mainly neonicotinoids: 1) Antarc (ingredient: imidacloprid; produced by Bayer), 2) Chinook (imidacloprid; Bayer), 3) Cruiser (thiamethoxam; Syngenta), 4) Elado (clothianidin; Bayer), 5) Faibel (imidacloprid; Bayer), 6) Mesurol methiocarb; Bayer) and 7) Poncho (clothianidin; Bayer). According to the German Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, they reported that 29 out of 30 dead bees it had examined had been killed by contact with the neonicotinoid clothianidin. Wild bees and other insects are also suffering from a significant loss of population. In communications with German beekeepers, Manfred Hederer, president of the German Professional Beekeeper's Association reported that 50 to 60 percent of the bees have died on average, and some beekeepers have lost all their hives. Beekeepers and agricultural officials in Italy, France and Holland all noticed similar phenomena in their fields when planting began in April and May. In France most applications of imidacloprid were already banned in 1999. In 2003 the federal government science committee called Comité Scientifique et Technique, convened by the French government, declared that the treatment of seeds with the neonicotinoid imidacloprid produces a significant risk for bees. Only a few months ago Bayer's application for the pesticide clothianidin was rejected by French authorities. French research teams have published scientific evidence that they identified several of these neonicotinoid pesticides in low parts per billion concentrations throughout the plant tissues and organs well beyond the root system, and they also identified the same pesticides in the honey bees which forage on the same crop species. By applying a sophisticated analytical technique using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) coupled to tandem Mass Spectrometry (atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-mass spectrometry or APCI-MS/MS), French scientists were able to precisely measure low amounts of imidacloprid in the soils, plants (leaves and flowers), and pollens. Extraction, separation, and detection were performed according to quality assurance criteria. It's obvious that EPA-OPP should be quite concerned with the fact that neonicotinoid compounds share specific characteristics under the following categories that combine to increase their sublethal effects in honey bees and EPA-OPP has failed to perform a comprehensive evaluation of these combined characteristics that have been devastating American honey bee colonies in recent years:
1.	These neonicotinoid substances and their metabolites are systemic pesticides. Systemic neonicotinoid treatments, which target the entire plant, are probably contaminating all its parts (French team reported average levels 5-6 ppb), including the flower (reported average levels 5-6 ppb) through translocation from the root system and seeds (Bonmatin et al., 2003 and 2005). Corn had a reported tassel average of 4 ppb and the ear averaged 10 ppb. Sunflower and corn pollen contained about 5 ppb imidacloprid after pesticide treatment. Additional French scientists observed imidacloprid in even higher levels in young fast-growing plants where they measured 10-20 ppb in upper leaves, reaching 100-200 ppb in other leaves, 2-3 ppb in pollen, and less than 1.5 ppb in the nectar. It is confirmed today by repeated laboratory analyses, and the pesticide manufacturer's no longer deny it, that the specific active substances are present in the nectar and the pollen of plants coming from neonicotinoid treated seeds and residues in the soils. Besides, this fact is not ignored in the research on imidacloprid and fipronil. These substances are thus found in the food of bees and their brood. See two studies by Bonmatin et al., 2003 and 2005, and two studies by Chauzat et al., 2002 and 2006. Entomologist Dr. Maryann Frazier's June 26, 2008 testimony at a Congressional hearing on honey bee colony losses stated: "We are becoming increasingly concerned that pesticides may affect bees at sublethal levels, not killing them outright, but rather impairing their behaviors and their abilities to fight off infections." Pesticides and metabolites are being identified in pollen she added, a disturbing finding! In fact, she testified that 46 different pesticides including six of their metabolites were identified out of 108 pollen samples analyzed. Up to 17 different pesticides were found in a single sample. Samples contained an average of 5 different pesticide residues each. One of the most striking points in Dr. Frazier's testimony is that 97.2% of pollen samples had pesticides and only three (2.8%) of the 108 pollen samples had no detectable pesticides [perhaps using a lower detection limit may have found pesticides at lower trace concentrations]. In 88 wax samples analyzed, 20 different pesticides including two of their metabolites were identified. As identified in pollen, the most commonly detected pesticides were fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, and the fungicide chlorthalonil, with fluvalinate and coumaphos detected in 100% of the samples. Extraordinary levels of fluvalinate were measured up to 204 parts per million in the brood nest wax and pollen.
2.	These neonicotinoid substances and metabolites are neurotoxic to insects including honey bees in low concentrations in the low parts per billion range. The neonicotinoid substances are powerful insecticides that irreversibly block the receptor sites for acetylcholine and neurotransmission in the adult insect or in the larval stage (J. Pest. Reform, 2001). In very small doses (approximately one part per billion - ppb) these compounds are able, without killing the insect, to cause behavioral disturbances (e.g. orientation errors) that could be deadly for the colony, whose survival relies on the integrity of the ability of its members. EPA knows that neonicotinoids are a new class of insecticides since 1992 that specifically act on the central nervous system of insects (J. Pest. Reform, 2001). One of imidacloprid's breakdown products, called the Olefine metabolite, is particularly troubling since it is known to be more toxic to insects than imidacloprid itself, according to a 1996 study (Rouchaud et al.). French researchers measured imidacloprid's metabolites in addition to imidacloprid in 69% of the pollen in concentrations as low as 1.1 ppb to 5.7 ppb. A serious concern is that imidacloprid's metabolites have powerful sublethal effects on honey bees and may act in combination with imidacloprid to induce additive toxic effects. However, EPA has failed to consider effects of such metabolites.
3.	These neonicotinoid substances and metabolites have greater neurotoxic effects on honey bees due to genomic vulnerability. Research on mapping the honey bee genome discovered that its nicotinic acetylcholine receptor possesses eleven vulnerable subunit members in its nervous system (Jones et al., 2006). The honey bee possesses more nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than either the mosquito or the fruit fly, research has found. In short, the problem for honey bees is they possess more vulnerable acetylcholine receptors to be blocked by pesticides like imidacloprid compared to other insects, and from a theoretical perspective, the honey bee is made more sensitive to pesticides like imidacloprid and similar neurotoxins. French scientists led by Dr. Marc Colin (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA) in 1998 videotaped one set of their experiments on bees exposed to low ppb concentrations of imidacloprid to demonstrate that the honey bees became too groggy and intoxicated effectively impairing their short-term memory in smell and theoretically blocking normal foraging behavior. After only a few days, the honey bees exposed to low ppb levels of imidacloprid stopped feeding and their numbers sharply dropped compared to the control groups. Dr. Colin compared videotapes of exposed bees and unaffected control bees to dramatically demonstrate the powerful sublethal effects of imidacloprid. If the bees stopped their feeding behavior, they will quickly die.
4.	These neonicotinoid substances are persistent in the environment. Evidence confirms the environmental persistence of imidacloprid and fipronil as well as for some of their metabolites. The same applies to clothianidin and thiamethoxam. Persistence was expected since the stability of these compounds is necessary for the systemic action supposed to last for the entire growing period of the plant over several months. An imidacloprid fact sheet (J. Pest. Reform, 2001) cited 1993 EPA information on a field test showing the concentration of this insecticide did not decrease for a year following treatment. As the pesticides are widely used and may be used on all cereals, maize, sugar beets, potatoes (as spray), as well as on beetroot, oilseed rapes or sunflower, for several consecutive years and in a systematic rotation, it is necessary to study the behavior of the substances in the soil after several successive years of treatment, and the possible contamination of untreated flowering crops that have been grown in a soil being treated for several consecutive years.
5.	These neonicotinoid substances and metabolites may act synergistically with fungicides in complex combinations. Research at a North Carolina University laboratory found certain neonicotinoids when combined with specific fungicides acted synergistically to increase the toxicity to honey bees over 1,000 times (Iwasa et al., 2004). This presents a concern for honey bees because both neonicotinoids and fungicides (Terraguard and Procure) are used rather widely. Due to the archaic science and theories being applied at the agency, the EPA Office of Pesticides does not even address or investigate the possible biological effects including sublethal effects of combinations of pesticides, but synergistic pesticidal effects can no longer be ignored when complex multiple combinations of toxic pesticides are being measured in bees wax and pollen without EPA having a clue as to what adverse effects they may be causing.
6.	Honey bees may avoid higher concentrations of neonicotinoids in plants with pollen and nectar. Evidence suggests that honey bees have an innate ability to detect higher concentrations of neonicotinoids in plants and may avoid feeding on those plants to avoid chemical exposures, which lead Bayer scientists to conclude there were no effects below 20 ppb (Schmuk et al., 2001). But the Bayer's studies may not have considered that honey bees have an innate detection ability to sense the presence of neonicotinoids above 20 ppb.
7.	These neonicotinoid substances carry acute toxicity that is extremely harmful to bees. EPA-OPP has identified imidacloprid and clothianidin as highly toxic to honey bees. According to the EPA Fact Sheet on Clothianidin, "Clothianidin is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute basis (LD50>0.439 mg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other non-target pollinators through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen. In honey bees, the affects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and sublethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects on the queen." Seeds are treated with clothianidin in advance or sprayed with it in the field, and the insecticide can also be blown onto other crops. The chemical is often sprayed on corn fields during spring planting to create a protective film on cornfields.
Conclusion The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs needs to promptly suspend use of the nicotinyl insecticides until EPA obtains scientific evidence that sublethal effects do not cause harm to America's honey bees. Sincerely yours, Laurel Hopwood Chair, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee 2459 Queenston Road Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118-4315 cc: members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture; Marcel Howard Citations 1. Bonmatin, J. M., I. Moineau, R. Charvet, M. E. Colin, C. Fleche, E. R. Bengsch. 2003. Fate of imidacloprid in fields and toxicity for honeybees. Environmental Chemistry. 2. Bonmatin, J. M., P. A. Marchand, R. Charvet, I. Moineau, E. R. Bengsch and M. E. Colin. 2005. Quantification of Imidacloprid Uptake in Maize Crops. J. Agric. Food Chem. 53, 5336-5341. 3. Chauzat, M. P., J. P. Faucon, A. C. Martel, J. Lachaize, N. Cougoule and M. Aubert. 2002. A Survey of Pesticide Residues in Pollen Loads. Agence Francaise de Securidad Sanitaire des Aliments 4. Chauzat, M. P., J. P. Faucon, A. C. Martel, J. Lachaize, N. Cougoule and M. Aubert. 2006. A Survey of Pesticide Residues in Pollen Loads Collected by Honey Bees in France. J. Econ. Entomol. 99 (2):253-262 5. Colin, M. E., J.M. Bonmantin, I. Moineau, C. Gaimon, S. Brun, J.P. Vermandere. 2004. A Method to Quantify and Analyze the Foraging Activity of Honey Bees: Relevance to the Sublethal Effects Induced by Systemic Insecticides. Arch. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 47, 387-395. 6. Decourtye, A., C. Armengaud, M. Renou, J. Devillers, S. Cluzeau et al.. 2004. Imidacloprid impairs memory and brain metabolism in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Pestic. Biochem. Phys 78:83-92 7. Frazier, Maryann, Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture on Update on Colony Collapse Disorder in Honey Bee Colonies in the United States, June 26, 2008 8. Iwasa, T. N. Motoyama, J. T. Ambrose and R. M. Roe. 2004. Mechanism for the differential toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Crop Protection 23, 371-378 9. Jones, A.K., V. Raymond-Delpech, S.H. Thany, M. Gaulthier, and D.B. Sattelle. 2006. The nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gene family of the honey bees, Apis Mellifera. Genome Res. 16(11). 1422-30. 10. Rouchaud, J., F. Gustin, and A. Wauters. 1996. Imidacloprid insecticide metabolism in sugar beet field crops. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxic. 56:29-36. 11. Schmuk, R., R. Schoning, A. Stork, and O. Schramel. 2001. Risk posed to honey bees (Apis mellifera) L., Hymenoptera) by an imidacloprid seed dressing of sunflowers. Pest Manag. Sci. 57(3), 225-38. 12. U.S. EPA Fact Sheet on Clothianidin 13. Imidacloprid Fact Sheet, Journal of Pesticide Reform, Spring 2001, Vol. 21(1), 15-21. _______________________ GM crops row boils over Lampeter Today / Tindle Newspapers (Wales, UK), 31 July 2008. A LEADING organic farmer from a village near Tregaron has hit back after a visiting academic at the Royal Welsh Show bemoaned the "prejudice" against genetically-modified crops. Professor Wynne Jones, of Harper Adams University College, Shropshire, said that there was a need to educate the public about the technology and "have a debate based on fact and not heated emotions." "When you look at the difficult of getting GM-free food proteins, particularly for pig and poultry meat, you can see that there are problems in our present anti-GM position", he said. "Everybody is embracing GM. "We need to push more science and more investment in science." Domestic hostility to the technology is deterring companies from investing in the UK, who are instead taking their business to countries like Argentina and Ukraine, he added. Responding to Professor Jones's statements, Patrick Holden, who runs an organic farm in Llwyny-groes and holds a directorship in the Soil Association, told the Cambrian News: "His position is unreconstructed, and actually it would seem to me that he's suffering from a dangerous delusion that some kind of technical fix can rescue us from all the challenges we face. "He's an old friend, but I'm afraid he's no longer in tune with the times. "If he'd wandered round the Royal Welsh Show, talking to the punters, he would have got a very different impression of what people want for the future of food. "The truth about GM is there have been no public benefits from the first generation of crops. "The only benefits have been to companies like Monsanto, which have a vested interest in owning the seed and herbicides. "It's the very antithesis of farming in Wales, and good on the Welsh Assembly Government for holding a good stance on this and being true to public opinion. "There is still a small circle, both in academic life and in the scientific community, that think it's grown-up to believe in high-tech solutions and treating farming like an industry and a chemical laboratory. "That's old thinking. "It is my view that most farmers will have to switch to methods which are based on organic principles within the next 10 to 15 years and, in that respect, Wales is ahead of the curve � so let's keep it that way!" _______________________ 2nd International Non-GMO Soy Summit Strategic Alliances for Sustainable, Responsible, Non-GMO Soya 7-9 October 2008, Brussels Conference details and registration: http://www.nongmosoysummit.com Social responsibility and environmental sustainability will take centre stage at the 2nd International Non-GMO Soy Summit, which will take place in Brussels on 7-9 October 2008. The event will provide an interactive platform for industry members where they will work together to develop new strategies and alliances to meet the growing demand for non-GMO soy and derivatives and also select the winner of the Summit Development Grant for 2008. Summit Objectives In early December 2007, the EU Committee of the Regions and other organisations hosted a conference in Brussels focusing on Non-GMO animal feed and its use in production of premium quality food products in Europe. More than 360 participants from 65 European Regions and from as far away as Japan, China, India, Brazil and North America took part in the conference. They represented a wide range of trade and industry organisations, governmental institutions, and non-profit institutions, as well as more than 117 food businesses having 638 industrial sites with 90,152 employees, supplied by more than 683,810 farms. Speakers presented compelling evidence that EU consumers continue to have a strong aversion to GM foods, including dairy, meat, and poultry products produced using GMO feed. Speakers also documented that consumer concerns continue to strongly motivate producers and retailers to use non-GMO soy and maize to produce their products. Recent developments in the German retail sector also strongly support this conclusion, as do new developments in Austria, France, and Italy. Authorities from several producer countries also presented abundant evidence that put to rest concerns of the EU feed, meat, dairy and poultry industries that supplies of non-GMO soy, and soy in general, might be becoming sparse. These speakers documented that current supplies are more than adequate, with strong potential for growth, and presented robust evidence that it is unnecessary to resort to GMO feed ingredients to sustain the EU meat, dairy, and poultry industries. Data presented also strongly challenged doomsday scenarios from within the EU Commission regarding availability of feed ingredients and proposals to scrap current GMO regulations in order to permit the unrestricted use of GMOs in animal feed. Not only was evidence presented demonstrating that Brazil's production is already sufficient, by itself, to meet Europe's non-GMO soy needs several times over, but that substantial and growing supplies are also available from India, China and, to an increasing extent, from eastern Europe. The lively discussion that took place at the conference has sparked sustained dialogue and expanded cooperation between EU users of non-GMO soy and suppliers of these materials from South America, Asia, and even North America. Over the last three months, this on-going dialogue, energized by recent developments, such as the new German "ohne Gentechnik" labeling regulation, have led EU buyers, along with suppliers from South America and Asia, to conclude that a further conference was needed in the near future to create a forum that will enable all parties to make maximum use of these new developments, as well as to further facilitate cooperation and the creation of new strategic alliances between international suppliers and EU soy users. This follow-up conference has been scheduled for October 7th-9th in Brussels, and will achieve the following objectives:
•	Provide participants with the latest, in-depth information regarding market and regulatory developments and conditions in the EU related, not only to non-GMO milk, meat, and poultry, but also to a wide range of other food products that contain soy and soy derivatives such as lecithin, oil, protein isolate, and fiber.
•	Provide users and suppliers of non-GMO soy derivatives with additional opportunities for networking and cooperation, and will enable them to develop and expand strategic alliances, leading to expanded supplies of soy and soy derivatives and more favorable business conditions for all.
Speakers invited include the following:
•	Government agricultural and regulatory officials from across Europe,
•	Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the European Commission,
•	Leading EU retailers and brand owners,
•	Producers of premium animal products, animal feed, and food products who make use of non-GMO soy,
•	Government officials, agricultural scientists, and producers/ processors/ suppliers of non-GMO soy and derivatives from South and North America, and Asia.
A new and increasingly important dimension will be introduced in this conference�the issue of social responsibility and environmental sustainability in soy production and processing. Not only do EU consumers wish to avoid eating GMOs, but they are also very concerned that their foods be produced in a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable manner. Food and agricultural companies are strengthening the social and environmental responsibility of their operations, not only because of consumer demand and their recognition of a range of other collateral benefits that improve their bottom line, but also because industry leaders are recognizing that attention to this issue is essential to assure the welfare of future generations. This conference will explore the responses of producers, manufacturers and retailers to this trend and future developments in this area. Several of the companies sponsoring the conference have already embarked on programs designed to strengthen their corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. For these companies, sponsoring and participating in the conference are, themselves, part of their corporate programs for social responsibility and environmental sustainability. In keeping with this, all profits from the conference will be donated to community development projects in the Third World. All participants are invited to nominate candidate projects to receive these funds, and to vote during the conference to select the programs that will be funded. Conference details and registration: http://www.nongmosoysummit.com _______________________ EU Rules Risk Creating Soybean Shortage The Wall Street Journal, 31 July 2008. By Matthew Dalton. BRUSSELS -- Europe's unease about genetically modified crops is threatening to create continent-wide shortages of soybeans, a crucial source of protein in the diet of Europe's livestock. The European Union's strict regulations on genetically modified crops could prevent the import of millions of metric tons of new biotech soybeans likely to be planted in the U.S., Argentina and Brazil, the world's main soybean growers. EU livestock farmers might not be able to get enough soybean for feed in the coming years, because exporters won't ship to Europe for fear that their cargos could contain unapproved biotech soybeans in the normal course of production and shipping. A similar obstacle exists for many corn imports, but, unlike soybeans, the EU can grow plenty of corn within its borders. Farmers across the world already have been hit hard by rising fuel and feed prices. In Europe, a shortage-driven rise in soybean prices would likely spill over into meat prices, particularly of pork and chicken, prompting steep declines in their consumption and production. The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, is debating how to respond, with one possibility being permitting trace amounts of unapproved biotech crops in imports. "We need to make sure we can source sufficient quantities of soy and proteins from outside Europe," said Michael Mann, the commission's agriculture spokesman. An analysis published in 2007 by the commission found that under a "worst-case scenario" -- an interruption of soybean imports from the U.S., Brazil and Argentina -- European pork production would fall 34.7% in 2010 and poultry production would fall 43.9%. Argentina and Brazil have in the past been careful only to allow planting of biotech strains approved by the EU for import. But China's emergence as a major soybean importer may reduce the EU's sway over the growers, the commission's report said. The commission's options are limited by Europeans' deep suspicion of genetically modified crops. Almost 60% of Europeans oppose allowing genetically modified, or GM, crops into the food supply, according to a poll released in March by Eurobarometer, the commission's polling office. The EU is accordingly one of the world's hardest places to grow or import biotech crops. The approvals process usually takes three years or more, compared with average 16 to 18 months in the U.S., say officials from the biotech industry. Those long approval times have already blocked U.S. corn growers from exporting to Europe, because the U.S. has approved biotech varieties that aren't approved in the EU. Europe has managed without U.S. corn because the continent can grow much of its own. But it probably won't be able to do the same with soy. The EU imports nearly 40 million metric tons of soy annually, or three quarters of its total soy consumption. Soybeans account for 55% of Europe's protein-rich animal feed, according to GMO Compass, a Web site sponsored in part by the commission. There is one variety of genetically modified soybean planted widely -- Roundup Ready 1 developed by Monsanto Co. -- which has been approved for import to the EU. But two new varieties, one each from Monsanto and Bayer AG, will be planted in the next year in the U.S. Brazil and Argentina are expected to begin planting later. These crops appear likely to get import clearance into Europe, as the EU took several steps this month toward approval. But it's not clear whether the EU will approve Monsanto's Roundup Ready 2 for import by the fall of 2009, when the soybean crop will be harvested from 400,000-800,000 hectares in the U.S. With 22 other genetically modified soybeans under development by the industry, according to the American Soybean Association, a trade group, uncertainty over whether a new soybean variety will get EU approval in time for the fall harvest could become an annual ritual. One solution being considered by the commission would be to set a tolerance level for the presence of unapproved GM materials in food and feed imports. U.S. exporters could then ship approved soybeans to Europe without worrying that tiny amounts of unapproved GM soybeans in the shipment would block the entire cargo from being delivered. However, the proposal, which the commission said it wanted ready before its summer vacation that started this week, is still under discussion. It is also unclear if EU law allows the commission to set the tolerance high enough to make those imports practical. If the issue isn't resolved, more farmers will go out of business, farm groups say, and the EU will increasingly be forced to import its meat -- where animals will be fed with GM crops anyway. Comment from GM-free Ireland: The above is propaganda designed to weaken the EU's "zero tolerance" of GM varieties that have failed to go through the EU's risk assessment and approvals process. Contrary to what the article implies, China does not pose a risk to the availability of soya meal in the EU. It has legislation requiring the return or destruction of food imports that contain unapproved GM materials, incorrectly labelled GM materials or materials labelled as non-GM which are discovered to contain GM material. Most EU soy imports (widely used as animal feed) no longer come from the USA. They come from Brazil and Argentina where most farmers carefully avoid growing GM soy varieties that are not approved in the EU. Monsanto's RoundupReady 2 GM soybean is very likely to be approved in the EU by the time it is ready for export from the US, so contamination of the feed and food chain from that source will not be restricted in any way whatsover by the EU's "zero tolerance" policy: the article's suggestion that EU farmers "will go out of business" as a result is yet another case of blatant agri-biotech industry scaremongering, reported as "fact" by a lousy journalist in an irresponsible newspaper. Most importantly, Brazil has the capacity to meet the EU's entire soya import needs several times over from rigorously certified non-GM varieties. Articles like the above are used by the USA to try to force the EU to allow up to 5% of unapproved GMOs to enter the food chain. European consumers and many member states will not allow this to happen. Instead of considering such proposals, the European Commission should leverage the EU's economic clout as the world's largest trading group to recommend that American farmers only grow approved GM varieties and certified non-GM varieties which the EU market demands. See the article above on the 2nd International Non-GMO Soy Summit, which will take place in October in Brussels, and the conference website at http://www.nongmosoysummit.com For more information, download the briefing paper "EU animal feed imports and GMO policy" by the European Farmers Co-ordination, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace, May 2008: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/briefing/Briefing_animal_feed_GMOs_May_2008.pdf See also GM-free Ireland's written presentation for the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture discussion with GM-free Ireland, Monsanto and Teagasc, 2 July 2008: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMFI-JOCA1.pdf _______________________ GM rice products removed from shelves Newstalk Auckland, New Zealand, 31 July 2008. An anti GE lobby group is celebrating following the removal of a genetically modified rice product. The Zhongshan Foodstuffs, Zhong Qiao Brand, Kongmoon Rice Sticks have been ordered off the shelf, because its safety has not been assessed. It contains the rice variety Bt63, which has genes inserted into it, which produces natural toxins that acts as insecticides. GE Free spokeswoman Claire Bleakley says Bt63 can cause health problems, and she is excited the Food Safety Authority is taking her concerns seriously. But she is warning the Food Safety Authority will have its work cut out when it comes to imported Chinese food. She is concerned the free trade agreement with China could see an influx of dodgy food products coming into the country. But the news is not sitting well with the Green Party. The fact it has been imported in the first place is an irritation for Green MP Sue Kedgley. She is aggrieved the FSA seems to have no idea how it entered the country, or where it is grown, and believes it is very uncertain that all of it can be found. She says 3 tonnes of the rice has already been sold and has either been consumed or is sitting in Kiwi kitchens around the country. _______________________ Prime Minister told to drop new regulatory authority From: Deccan Development Society Date: Jul 31, 2008 4:24 PM Subject: Sub: Drop the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority proposals of Department of Biotechnology. To: manmohan@sansad.nic.in, pmosb@pmo.nic.in Respected Sir, The proposed National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority bill being contemplated by your Government, is an extraordinary piece of legislation on an issue that critically affects every citizen of this country either directly or indirectly, which should have been subjected to an intensive democratic debate from all quarters of this country. However, we earnestly feel that it has not been given a chance for a detailed discussion and is being hurriedly pushed through. A huge number of farmers' associations, civil society groups, and consumer organizations who are seriously concerned about the impact of biotechnology on agriculture, human and livestock health and welfare, and its environmental impact, are feeling shortchanged because the proposed legislation has certain serious shortcomings and following objectionable clauses. The institutional mechanism of decision-making in the NBRA, with a 4-member committee consisting of scientists taking all decisions is undemocratic and authoritarian (Section 11(1)). It has been found time and again that even a broad-based and inter-ministerial body like the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is unable to address all stakes and concerns during decision-making. Even though the NBRA proposals talk about various committees and offices to be set up, all of them have been given only an advisory role and the narrow 4-member 'Products Ruling Committee' clearly is not bound by the advice and recommendations of all these various units and committees. The NBRA denies and violates the constitutional right of state governments over their agriculture. There is not only no role allowed for state governments in decision-making under the NBRA, there is a denial of their state level mechanisms and regulations over their agriculture pertaining to biotechnology. This is completely unconstitutional (Section 25, 33(2)). As per the provisions of Section 31 the NBRA is allowed to amend the first schedule, and this defeats the very purpose of a separate legislation for regulation and takes away the power of the elected parliamentarians over this law The over-riding effect of the NBRA on other existing regulations is a matter of serious concern. It tramples upon the Biological Diversity Act, for instance. (Section 29) The NBRA proposals do not contain any clauses related to conditional approvals, for a limited period, subject to review and revoking of approvals. It appears that an approval would be valid for all time to come, irrespective of other considerations! There are no provisions in the NBRA for liability, redressal and remediation. As we know from past experience from across the world, even confined trials could involve losses and damages related to contamination and recalls which will cost a lot in terms of redressal and remediation. NBRA makes no mention of making the GM developer liable for redressal and remediation. Even the penalty clauses have been left to be evolved in the Rules. Section 16 related to penalties and offence; an offence is narrowly defined to include only offenders "who knowingly fail to comply" and leaves room for misuse. Under Section (8), no wrongful decision of the NBRA can be invalidated and leaves room to justify almost anything. The NBRA proposals don't talk about any mandatory prior informed public consent in its decision-making; this is a violation of the principle enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol. The NBRA proposes to make only decisions of the body public, but not the bases on which decision-making took place; it also does not talk about how public will be involved in decision-making. All of this will only reinforce the current non-credible, opaque functioning of regulators. The NBRA seems to negate and discount the existing systems of seed assessment and regulation by having over-arching and over-riding decision-making authority. The NBRA seeks to make amendments to the Food Safety & Standards Act with regard to clauses that govern GM foods' regulation. The proposal to alter the definition of GM foods under the FSSA is obviously a way to scuttle the labeling regime of GM foods and this is objectionable. The Appellate Tribunal proposed to be set up under the NBRA is not acceptable in its constitution and is not broad based to include farmers' and consumers' representatives. Further, an appeal to be filed within 30 days is unreasonable � given that GM technology is unpredictable and any appeals mechanism cannot be time-bound with such technologies. Further, bar on judicial reviews on decisions taken by the Appellate Tribunal is objectionable (Section 20(2), (4), 26). In the wake of the above objections, a single-window, fast-track clearance system proposed in the NBRA draft is not at all necessary and actually leaves much space for unscientific, undemocratic and corrupt functioning with very little checks and balances. We are very doubtful about the unbiased functioning of the proposed set up of NBRA under the Department of Biotechnology, which has a blind mandate to promote the Biotechnology as the panacea for all the problems. As you know, a recent United Nations report pointed out the lack of biosafety capabilities in India (like in many other countries) especially with regard to bio-terrorism with the use of biotechnology. In this context, it would be disastrous to go in for a single-window, fast-track clearance system in the form of NBRA, just to appease the biotech industry at the expense of the security, health and environment of the nation. In fact, till date, there has been no conclusive evidence in India that GE crops are beneficial to human and cattle health. On the contrary, there have been a large number of studies and experiences reported from all over the country which indicate that genetic engineering in agriculture, as evidenced from Bt cotton cultivation, has given rise to huge pest problems, soil toxicity and human health problems. To mention a few, the resurgence of sucking pests on Bt cotton, the huge incidence of mealy bugs in Punjab, AP and Vidarbha, an alarming rise of root rot disease from 2% in 2002, the year Bt cotton was introduced in AP, to 40% in 2007, and five years later, the early evidences of the development of the resistance by bollworms to the Bt cotton, the death of thousands of small ruminants and allergic reactions to farm labourers who worked on Bt cotton fields have already been recorded evidences in India. While this is the Indian reality vis-a-vis the impact of genetic engineering on a non-edible crop, it would be extremely dangerous to go ahead with a Bill that will open up the doors for a string of genetically engineered food crops that are waiting in the queue for clearance with the Indian government. Highly respected scientists such as Dr P M Bhargava, former Director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad and a recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, have openly raised questions about the way biosafety issues have been sidelined by the Indian genetic engineering regulators. Similar apprehensions have been expressed by leading environmental scientists such as Dr Vandana Shiva and Dr Suman Sahai. A number of concerned scientists and environmentalists as well as farmers and consumer organisations have also been questioning the way biosafety has become a casualty in the aggressive push for GM trials as well as the commercial approval being considered by the Government of India, under the relentless pressure exerted by the biotech industry. In the wake of this situation, we demand that the proposed NBRA be dropped immediately in the larger public interest. India being a basket of biodiverse species and genera, should not hurry for proposals such as NBRA which, in the long run ruthlessly destroy our diverse genetic base, and make us vulnerable to all kinds of threats especially in the wake of bioterrorism. As a people oriented democratic country, we should raise up to the occasion and learn from across the world's intense scientific processes like the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science & Technology for Development) are concluding that Genetically Modified crops and foods are not the way forward and that ecological agriculture is the way forward. Any proposal like the NBRA would therefore be unwise and incongruous and we urge you to intervene and get the current proposals dropped immediately. Sincerely, Sd/ [by more than 100 organizations/individuals - first few given as examples] 1. P. V. Satheesh Director, Deccan Development Society 101, Kishan Residency, Street No-5, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16, AP, India 2. S. Kiran South Against genetic Engineering, Hyderabad 3. A. Giridhar Babu AP Alliance for Food Sovereignty, Zaheerabad 4. C. Jayasri Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defense of Diversity, Hyderabad 5. C. Suresh Kumar Millet Network of India, Hyderabad 6. P. Chennaian National Alliance of Peoples Movements (NAPM), Mumbai 7. P. Chennaiah National Agricultural Workers Forum (NAWF) 8. P. S. Ajay Kumar Andhra Pradesh Vyavasaya Vruthidarula Union (APVVU) _______________________ Zespri [Kiwi] Staying GE Free Zespri press release (New Zealand), 31 July 2008. Zespri�are keeping Kiwi fruit 'GE free' and say that�new DNA research will be used ethically to enhance traditional breeding without genetically engineering New Zealand's iconic fruit. Bryan Parkes, Innovation Leader�for New Products at ZESPRI says the industry has a significant program in new variety development using�natural breeding, not genetic engineering. "No GM technology is used. The use of gene markers does not�involve any genetic modification and only makes the screening of the�seedlings produced by pollination and germination more efficient," he says. "Industry�support for GE-free agriculture is vital and fits with New Zealand's clean, green, natural image that is vital to�the economy," says Jon Carapiet from GE-free NZ in food and environment. Dairy industry giant Fonterra,�and organisations like Crop and Food Research will harm New Zealand's international reputation�with consumers if they push GE production. "The reputation of Brand New Zealand is worth billions and must not be undermined by the release of GE crops or food products." Zespri are showing the way for other New Zealand industries by using genetic science in a way which is ethical and harmonises with consumer values around the world. Zespri 'get it'; they understand the consumer demand for clean, natural foods produced in a way Prince Charles once described as working 'with the grain of nature', not against it. _______________________ 30 July 2008 In food we trust ScienceAlert/com - Australian & New Zealand. 30 July 2008. By Greg Newell. For most of us, it's likely that it was at most only a few hours ago that we had a meal, and if we're lucky we have three of them a day. But how many of us have even momentarily paused to consider how the food that we consume comes to be before us? Where is the food made, who makes it, and perhaps more importantly - how is it made? If you're like most people, you probably don't give it so much as a fleeting thought; and there's good reason for that. As a society, we have developed a powerful bond of trust with those who produce our food. Trust in our food producers is all powerful but delicate; and understandably so. With the exception of air and water, human life cannot be sustained without it. Since time immemorial, farmers have traditionally been entrusted with the responsibility of producing clean, safe and nutritious food. We rely on their knowledge of the land, the soil and the growing cycles to produce the amazing cornucopia of food we enjoy today. Of all their qualities, most importantly we rely on their intimate understanding of that tiny natural microcosm from which all our food derives - the seed. It is the seed that sustains all human life and in that respect, farmers have been the guardians of our food heritage, participating in a symbiotic relationship with consumers that has sustained societies worldwide since the development of agriculture over 10,000 years ago. In the modern industrialised food system of today, our trust is increasingly stretched out along a complex chain of farmers, agribusiness interests, buyers, transport companies, processors and retailers. Despite this huge paradigm shift in the way we eat, our trust in food is sustained so long as we know that farmers are the first link in the chain. All our food starts with them. Now a new technology is out to re-write that relationship - genetic modification (GM). GM food is a radically different food technology. For the first time ever, scientists and their big business backers are able to directly manipulate the fundamental genetic building blocks of life - a organism's genome and its constituent gene components. GM technology allows for the insertion of a gene (or genes) from one species into possibly another totally unrelated species. Biotech proponents portray GM as being the next in a continuum of technologies from traditional plant breeding through to GM, designed to impart a reassuring sense of naturalness and progression. In reality, GM is a radical departure from traditional plant breeding. Traditional plant breeding is restricted to a closed pool of genes from which new varieties are developed according to the laws of nature. Grasses cross with grasses, fruits cross with fruits, corn with other varieties of corn. Natural species boundaries would dictate the limits of breeding. Fish cannot be crossed with strawberries but in the GM world, this is not only possible but has actually been achieved. Soil bacteria genes have been inserted into corn, human genes into tobacco, and genes have been inserted into plants to confer herbicide resistance. Like all genes, these foreign genes express proteins - proteins that have never before been part of the human food supply. Such a radical technology demanded that questions of safety be addressed and forced us to reassess the producer-consumer bond of trust. In a genetically modified world, consumers are coming to the realisation that food increasingly arrives not from "farm to fork" but "biotech lab to fork". In a GM world, food starts its journey in a petri dish. Why the biotech drive to develop GM seeds? Not content with control of the fertiliser and pesticides market, chemical companies morphed into "life sciences" companies and set their sights on extending their corporate reach by securing control of the genesis of life - the seed. By redefining traditional patent law to include living organisms, the self-organising, self replicating machinery of nature became private property. This new intellectual property rights regime redefined life in terms of its economic value. Genes were excluded from their social and environmental contexts and thousands of years of indigenous knowledge were discarded. Genes were no longer classified as inherently natural and part of the intellectual commons of mankind, but rather were reduced to entities; units of information that can be precisely counted, added or subtracted, altered, switched on or off - and owned. With ownership came the ability to sell to the highest bidder. Life has been reduced to a commodity to be traded in accordance with the laws of a neoliberal free-market economic framework. The new patent regime allowed biotech companies to supplant farmers as the guardians of our food heritage by securing control of the beginning of the food chain. A buying spree ensued creating an oligopoly in which just four companies now control more than 60 per cent of all the world's commercial seed sales - the final act in the usurpation of the food chain was complete. Farmers, and by extension, consumers would now become serfs to the dictate of major biotech companies who would determine what crops would be grown when and by whom. The question is: are we as consumers ready to cede our trust to a handful of multinational biotechs in this dramatic takeover of our food sovereignty? Trust in food has two important dimensions: trust in the food products themselves and trust in food control institutions. The latter assumes greater importance the further the consumer is "distanced" from the product, that is, in terms of the complexity of its makeup. Current Australian biotech food regulation has meant that GM food breaks both cardinal rules. Such is the radical departure of GM food from its traditional counterpart, there is in intuitive mistrust of it by consumers. Having failed this hurdle, this leaves just one other channel for trust to be built - trust in food control institutions. Australian governments and industry have stumbled on that one too, having failed dismally to allay valid consumer concerns. Rather than an inclusive approach, the government, at the behest of biotech interests, has chosen to restrict access to the clear and independent information on GM food that consumers demand, further exacerbating the climate of distrust. Increasingly isolated, consumers turned to labelling and assurances of independent scientific testing by reputable agencies without financial ties to the GM industry, yet current GM labelling laws in Australia are so weak that 48 of the 50 or so approved GM foods would escape labelling, including the entire maiden GM canola crop this year. Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the body charged with the responsibility of ensuring food safety, does none of its own testing on GM foods - it merely accepts data from the biotech companies themselves and evaluates the data on the fundamentally flawed concept of "substantial equivalence" - if the GM products looks, smells and tastes like its non-GM counterpart, then no further testing is required. Throughout the world, food is revered for its ability to define culture, family and social identity and trust in food is a powerful cohesive social force. Until such time that genetic modification can ingratiate itself into those social and trust structures, GM food will always be rejected by the consumer. Greg Revell is the director of sustainable food policy with Gene Ethics. _______________________ Monsanto beets lead to Kellogg's boycott SeattlePi.com, 30 July 2008. By Rebekah Denn. The Organic Consumers Association has called for a boycott of Kellogg's products because the company indicated it won't have a problem using sugar from genetically modified sugar beets. The issue grew out of a November New York Times article noting that farmers will, for the first time, be planting "Roundup-ready" beets engineered to resist Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. No one is using the sugar yet, including Kellogg's, but the opportunity is on the way.
	Seven years ago, beet breeders were on the verge of introducing Roundup-resistant seeds. But they had to pull back after sugar-using food companies like Hershey and Mars, fearing consumer resistance, balked at the idea of biotech beets. Now, though, sensing that those concerns have subsided, many processors have cleared their growers to plant the Roundup-resistant beets next spring. It would be the first new type of genetically engineered food crop widely grown since the 1990s, when biotech soybeans, corn and a few other crops entered the market. "Basically, we have not run into resistance," said David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar, the nation's largest sugar beet processor. "We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology."
The interesting point to me is that Kellogg's told the consumers group it would not use GMO sugar for products sold in Europe. All of its European products are "free of any ingredients derived from biotech sources." But they don't think U.S. customers care, and "consumer preference is the critical factor Kellogg uses in determining the products being provided in every market." In short, if we objected to genetically modified food the way Europeans do, they wouldn't put it on our food either. I think the OCA does consumers a service in keeping tabs on these things, but I have two questions: One, why call for a boycott, rather than call for people to write Kellogg's and let them know how many Americans do care? (Right now, the two sides are just presenting dueling statistics.) Second, why focus on Kellogg's, the company that gave an honest answer about its policies, while ignoring companies like Mars, who ducked the Times reporter's questions and refused to let the public know whether their foods will contain GMO sugar or not? Seems to give a message that avoiding the question is a better strategy than being straightforward. I'm still trying to figure out what's going on with Hershey's. The company also didn't talk to the Times for that article, but an item on the OCA page claims Hershey's is encouraging farmers not to grow genetically engineered sugar beets. I have a call into Hershey's and will update if they provide an answer (or, for that matter, if they don't.) _______________________ Nano-foods: The next consumer scare? Reuters, 30 July 2008. ORLANDO, Florida - - Those consumers already worried about genetically engineered or cloned food reaching their tables may soon find something else in their grocery carts to furrow their brows over -- nano-foods. Consumer advocates taking part in a food safety conference in Orlando, Florida, this week said food produced by using nanotechnology is quietly coming onto the market, and they want U.S. authorities to force manufacturers to identify them. Nanotechnology involves the design and manipulation of materials on molecular scales, smaller than the width of a human hair and invisible to the naked eye. Companies using nanotechnology say it can enhance the flavor or nutritional effectiveness of food. U.S. health officials generally prefer not to place warning labels on products unless there are clear reasons for caution or concern. But consumer advocates say uncertainty over health consequences alone is sufficient cause to justify identifying nano-foods. "I think nanotechnology is the new genetic engineering. People just don't know what's going on, and it's moving so fast," Jane Kolodinsky, a consumer economist at the University of Vermont, said at the conference. American consumers are generally more complacent about genetically modified or cloned foods than their counterparts in Europe. But Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with the Consumers Union, said polls show that 69 percent of Americans are concerned about eating cloned meat. He said that in focus groups run by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, no parents were willing to feed their children meat from cloned animals or their offspring. In a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 53 percent of Americans said they wouldn't buy genetically modified foods. Scant awareness Hansen said there is scant public awareness, however, about foods produced through nanotechnology. New consumer products created through nanotechnology are coming on the market at the rate of 3 to 4 per week, according to an advocacy group, The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), based on an inventory it has drawn up of 609 known or claimed nano-products. Nano-products in common use today include lightweight tennis rackets and bicycles, and sunscreens containing clear, nonwhite versions of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. They also include lipsticks, and many items labeled as anti-microbial that contain silver ions such as socks, washing machines, salad spinners and food containers. On PEN's list are three foods -- a brand of canola cooking oil called Canola Active Oil, a tea called Nanotea and a chocolate diet shake called Nanoceuticals Slim Shake Chocolate. According to company information posted on PEN's Web site, the canola oil, by Shemen Industries of Israel, contains an additive called "nanodrops" designed to carry vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals through the digestive system. The shake, according to U.S. manufacturer RBC Life Sciences Inc., uses cocoa infused "NanoClusters" to enhance the taste and health benefits of cocoa without the need for extra sugar. The tea, says manufacturer Shenzhen Become Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. of China, is prepared with nanotechnology to "release effectively all of the excellent essences of the tea" and increase by a factor of 10 "the selenium supplement function." Hansen, whose organization publishes the nonprofit product-testing magazine Consumer Reports, said there is no requirement that nano-products be identified as such. He called for stronger federal regulations to require safety testing and labeling. "Just because something is safe at the macro level, doesn't mean it's safe at the nano size," Hansen said. "All scientists agree that size matters." Hansen said recent studies have shown that nano-sized particles in some cases can invade cells and breach the blood-brain barrier, and that some forms of nano-sized carbon could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in quantity. "This represents science at the cutting edge. These technologies raise basic scientific issues," Hansen said. (Editing by Michael Christie, Maggie Fox and David Wiessler) _______________________ Mexico Demands Moratorium on GM Corn Prensa Latina, 30 July 2008. Mexico -- About 200 farmers organizations in Mexico demanded the government an unlimited moratorium on Genetically Modified corn. By a communiqué spread in this capital the plaintiffs ask for more attention to farmers and native agriculture and a special protection regime around original corn as the Mexican people's main food. They denounced speculation and privatizing practices of transnational companies which are interested in spreading growing of GMOs in hectares devoted to national production. Several sectors of the Mexican society have demanded the government to keep a precaution police of GMO corn due to the threat that modality means for the genetic integrity of this traditional crop. The farmers' organizations questioned that US and Europe are promoting this technology with the Mexicans basic food while preserving wheat from its use as basic cereal. _______________________ Indian farmers shun GM for organic solutions Genetically modified cotton was to be the saviour of India's farmers, but ill-health and financial worries are fuelling a backlash The Guardian (UK), July 30 2008. By Sue Branford. "My family was one of the first to stop using pesticides," says Sattemma, a lively Indian woman in her mid-40s, confidently talking to a group of visiting farmers. "Three years ago, we realised we were spending over half our income on chemicals. It was too much. We were getting into debt and the pesticides were making us ill." Sattemma is in the village of Lakshminayak Thanda in Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh. The visitors are keen to know how she and other villagers are progressing after their decision to stop using pesticides and Bt cotton, the genetically modified variety manufactured by US biotechnology firm Monsanto. Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed of a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has a natural insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin. When it was introduced into India at the turn of the century, it was promoted as the "wonder product" that would solve the serious problem of pests, which many of India's 17 million cotton farmers were facing. Many of the farmers had not been growing cotton as a cash crop for very long. In the late 1980s, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, India had opened up its strongly protected economy and encouraged its farmers to switch to modern farming, with its hybrid seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. The idea was to turn India into an important exporter of commodities, including cotton. At first, cotton farmers did well. They got high yields and enjoyed a real increase in income. But then problems arose. The hybrid cotton proved susceptible to pests and diseases, and it was not uncommon for farmers to spray their fields up to 30 times in a single season. Production costs went through the roof and farmers got trapped in debt. They became desperate for a technical fix, and Bt cotton seemed to be the answer. In its first year of sales, Mahyco-Monsanto sold its entire stock of Bt cotton. According to the company, the area in India under Bt cotton rose from 3.1m acres in 2005 to 14.4m acres in 2007. According to Sekhar Natarajan, regional leader of Monsanto India, Bt cotton yielded 700kg-900kg per acre, compared with 300kg-400kg an acre with conventional seeds. However, some say that what has been happening on the ground has been very different from the official success story. Scientists Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakhari assessed Bt cotton's performance in the first three years and found that, despite claims by the company, farmers were not achieving big yields. This perhaps was to be expected, because Bt cotton had been engineered to reduce pesticide use, not to increase yields. But, more surprisingly, they found that pesticide use was not falling either, because farmers were facing serious problems with secondary pests. They worked out that, on average, the income of non-Bt farmers was 60% higher than that of Bt farmers. Monsanto contests these numbers. There have been other, more alarming problems. In her chat with the visiting farmers, Sattemma says she had seen several of her neighbour's goats die after spending all day grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton plants. Such a story could be dismissed as anecdotal, if it were not backed up by more solid evidence. In 2006, more than 1,800 sheep died in similar circumstances in other villages in Warangal district. The symptoms and post-mortem findings suggested that they had died from severe toxicity. Hundreds of agricultural workers had also developed allergic symptoms when exposed to Bt cotton. Safety investigation One might have expected such reports to have led to a thorough investigation into the safety of Bt cotton but, according to the US-based Institute for Responsible Technology, this has never happened. Again, Monsanto contests this account. According to Natarajan, Bt cotton was exhaustively tested for six to eight years before it was authorised for release and there were no reports of adverse impacts on the health of humans or animals. Less controversial is the financial risk that Bt cotton, along with other hybrids, brings to small farmers. Farmers have traditionally saved seeds from one harvest to another, but this is not possible with hybrids, as they lose vitality. So farmers purchase on credit from middlemen a package of hybrid seed, fertiliser and pesticide, paying back the loan once the crop is harvested. The problems start when a farmer loses a crop through bad weather. Unable to repay, they can easily get caught in a debt trap. Problems were serious before Bt cotton but have got worse because Bt cotton seed is expensive. Despite these problems, the Indian government believes that cotton has proved a success. In 2006, India overtook the US to become the world's second largest cotton producer (after China). The biotechnology industry is taking the credit, though some farmers are reporting new problems, saying Bt cotton is highly susceptible to wilt. On one occasion a Mahyco-Monsanto representative was taken hostage by irate farmers demanding compensation. More difficulties could lie ahead: a recent study by the Nagpur-based Central Institute for Cotton Research showed that the main cotton pest, bollworms, is becoming resistant to Bt cotton. Many farmers, like Sattemma, have not followed the debate around Bt cotton. She says it was practical considerations that led to the change in farming. "It was the 15 women in our village's self-help group who got things going," she says. "We were worried about the health of our children. We got the men on our side by showing them that they would save money." Sattemma points to a chart on the wall of a nearby house, on which, with the help of a non-governmental organisation, they have recorded side-by-side the expenses of growing cotton with and without pesticides. Non-pesticide management (NPM), as the system is called, is clearly more profitable, not because yields are higher but because expenditure is so much lower. In Yenabavi, about 30 miles away, the farmers have gone further, becoming organic and declaring their village GMO-free. Their conversion also began with dissatisfaction with pesticides, this time because they didn't work. "Ten years ago, this field was covered with red-headed hairy caterpillars," says Malliah, the farmer who has led the change. "I kept applying more pesticides but I couldn't get rid of them." By chance, an organic agronomist was visiting. He showed Malliah how to set up solar-powered light traps and, to Malliah's delight, they worked. Since then, he and the other farmers have developed other natural pest controls. Other villages are following suit. Almost 2,000 in Andhra Pradesh have adopted NPM. Raghuveera Reddy, the state's minister for agriculture wants 2.5m acres under community-managed sustainable agriculture within a few years. The long-term goal is for 10m acres, 45% of the state's cultivable land. Sustainable agriculture involves hard work and does not guarantee huge profits, but it will not harm the farmers' health, brings personal satisfaction, and involves fewer financial risks. It is crucial to remember what is truly sustainable for small farmers. _______________________ Food Watchdog Praised for Withdrawing Contaminated Rice GE Free New Zealand press release, 30 July 2008. New Zealander's 'food watchdog' - The NZFSA - deserves praise for pulling GE-contaminated rice off the shelves. But it needs to do much more to encourage compliance amongst companies who ignore the problems of GE-contamination in certian countries when sourcing their ingredients. GE Free (NZ) would like to congratulate the NZ Food Safety Authority for their action to test and subsequently pull from sale rice contaminated with the unapproved GE rice Bt63. New Zealand's food watchdog took action after overseas Food Safety Agencies found a comprehensive range of rice products from whole rice to rice flour noodles, rice paper, and pasta had been contaminated with the unapproved strain of GE Bt63 rice coming from China in March 2008. "Bt is a insecticidal toxin and has known deleterious effects on the blood and organs," said Claire Bleakley of GE Free NZ in food and environment. "This rice has not been approved in the EU, Australasia or even in China where it came from". This incident adds to concerns that the integrity and safety of the whole global food supply is threatened by GE mix-ups in the lab, in distribution of seeds, through field-contamination of crops, and in post-harvest production. Liabity for resulting harm is a major isssue in New Zealand and overseas as the insurance industry have refused cover leaving the public and taxpayers exposed to harm and left paying for the clean up. Innocent farmers and manufacturers are also threatened and are already suffering. In 2003 the NZFSA asked the Commerce Commission to investigate a New Zealand company for labelling a product GE Free when it was then found to contain trace amounts of GE in its soy ingredients. The business was nearly bankrupted but at the same time other businesses that had products containing up to 60% GE and which were not labelled escaped with a reprimand and 'asked to comply' with the law in future. This double-standard reveals a bias in application of the regulations and the need to genuinely hold to account those responsible, including companies who claim patent-ownership of the genes that have illegally contaminated other foods. "The importer must be held accountable and dealt with by the Commerce Commission. Identity preservation procedures would have shown that this rice contained an illegal contaminant. To encourage compliance it is not enough to just ask them to remove the dangerous product off the shelves," she said. "It is very concerning that the NZFSA deals with companies pursuing a GE-Free policy in the harshest terms, and quite differently to the light-handed response to companies deliberately using GE ingredients or which make no effort to ensure their ingredients are not GE-contaminated. For consistency and accountability all breaches must be dealt with equal rigour by the Commerce Commission". "With the advent of the China Free trade deal the NZFSA will have to be highly vigilant in monitoring imports of foods for unapproved contaminants" said Claire Bleakley."But the fear is they will just turn a blind eye except in the case of major contamintaion identified by other authorities overseas. This is because they see promotion of trade as more important, and would prefer not to have to do anything unless overseas markets demand action." "The government also needs to take action to support the integrity of the food system. It must ensure that Country of Origin labelling is implemented to stop the export and re-packaging of foods in other countries. But if the regulations are breached they must treat all businesses with the same stick, not let the poluter off-lightly while throwing consumer-oriented GE-free producers against the wall." Contact: Claire Bleakley (06) 3089842 References: Unauthorised GM rice found and withdrawn 30 July 2008, Press Release: New Zealand Food Safety Authority http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0807/S00379.htm Chinese rice products containing an unauthorised rice UKFSA, Wednesday 16 July 2008 http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2008/jul/bt63update _______________________ Food scare reinforces need for country of origin labelling New Zealand Green Party, 30 July 2008 Consumers who have purchased a product containing unapproved genetically engineered rice should be being warned not to eat it as its affects on human health are unknown, the Green Party says. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority has revealed today that testing has found that an imported rice vermicelli containing Bt63 is being sold in New Zealand. "While NZFSA should be congratulated for carrying out these tests when problems were discovered in rice products from China imported into Europe in 2006, consumers should be warned not to eat these products," Safe Food Spokesperson Sue Kedgley says. "Bt63 has not been approved for consumption by either humans or animals anywhere in the world. Authorities cannot issue any assurances that its consumption is safe as its affect on human health is unknown. "According to the NZFSA just over four tonnes of this rice vermicelli product was imported and the whereabouts of three tonnes of this is unknown at this stage. I suspect that much of this has already been consumed by unsuspecting New Zealanders or is sitting in pantries around the country. "More than 550 tonnes of whole grain rice was imported into New Zealand from China in the last 12 months I urge the NZFSA to conduct random tests to confirm that none of this contains Bt63. "This latest food scare is just one of many over recent years that reinforce the need for county of origin food labelling. Consumers have the right to know where their food comes from so that in cases like this they can choose whether or not to consume products imported from the affected country until the issue is fully resolved." For more information: Sue Kedgley, MP, 04 817 6728, 021 270 9088 Fran Tyler, Communication Coordinator, 04 817 6679, 021 936 940 _______________________ 29 July 2008 Soybean Farming in Argentina Takes Heavy Toll on Fragile Lands Inter Press Service / Global Information Network, 29 July 2008. By Marcela Valente. BUENOS AIRES, Argentina -- Family agriculture experts and environmental groups are warning about the severe social and environmental effects of soybean production, even as the price of soy soars on the international markets. Soy is Argentina's main export crop. Covering 16.6 million hectares, more than half the country's cultivated land, soybeans, which command prices of around $600 a ton, are expanding at the expense of maize, wheat, citrus fruits and cattle ranching, among other farming activities. This expansion is likely to continue after the recent repeal of the controversial hike in export taxes on soy adopted by the government in March. "Soy is an example of the 'boom and bust' model, much like fishing, mining or intensive logging," said Jorge Cappato, of the Fundaci�n Proteger. "An ecosystem is pressured beyond its limits, to generate enormous profits in the short term, at the cost of renewable natural resources." "With such high profits guaranteed, who is going to be interested in producing wheat or milk?" Cappato asked. "But the soybean model is flawed because of its medium- and long-term social, environmental, health and economic impacts. It destroys family agriculture and forces rural workers to migrate to the cities." The area sown with soybeans grew by 126 percent over the space of a decade, to the detriment of other crops and activities. Various nongovernmental groups have pointed out that the advance of soy has also displaced native forests and taken over land once used for family agriculture or inhabited by indigenous peoples. "In the last nine years, according to official figures, 2.5 million hectares of native forests have been lost, especially in the north of the country, and this is largely due to deforestation to plant soy, which is elbowing out all other activities," Herman Giardini of Greenpeace Argentina said. The Center for Human Rights and the Environment said this month that in 2007 an average of 821 hectares of forest a day were lost. Although a law has been passed for the protection and sustainable use of forests, some fear that the will to apply it in the provinces may waver in the face of booming soy prices. Apart from the damages to biodiversity, experts say glyphosate, the herbicide used in combination with transgenic soy, pollutes groundwater, and that aerial spraying is a health hazard for thousands of rural people living near the crops. Agronomist Walter Pengue, a researcher with the Ecology of Landscape and the Environment Group at the University of Buenos Aires, said that in the early 1990s, 1 million liters of glyphosate a year were sold in Argentina, compared to 180 million liters last year. "It's a useful strategic input, like diesel, but it must be used rationally," he said. However, complaints put forward by the Rural Reflection Group, another environmental organization, indicate that uncontrolled spraying causes health problems such as allergies, intoxication, fetal malformations, miscarriages and cancer. Pengue recognizes that no-till direct sowing, associated with transgenic soybean cultivation, is a practice that can diminish soil erosion. But he warned that the method also makes it possible to grow crops on fragile land systems, where cultivation itself poses risks to the soil, for instance in Argentina's northern provinces. According to Pengue, a professor of agricultural and environmental economics at several universities, "Johnson grass" or "Aleppo grass," a weed that is becoming resistant to glyphosate, has already appeared in six provinces. Alternatives being discussed to combat it include herbicides that were discontinued in the 1980s as too toxic. "Because of transgenic soy, we have been losing our experts on weeds, and those who remain are working for the companies that produce genetically modified seeds and glyphosate," he said. Furthermore, the soil is losing nutrients that cannot fully be replaced, even with large quantities of fertilizer. Since the 1970s, when soy began to be planted in Argentina, the soil has lost a net 11.3 million metric tons of nitrogen, 2.5 million metric tons of phosphorus, and very high amounts of other nutrients, Pengue said. Farming analysts also say that the soy model of agriculture is not socially sustainable. "There is short-term prosperity in some cities because of the high prices. Small landholders are renting their land and receiving more income than they have ever seen in their lives," Pengue said. But this kind of bonanza "does not amount to development," he said. "A country cannot depend exclusively on the price of one product -- it has to produce a broad range of foods, as Brazil is doing." In rural areas today, he said, technology is displacing agricultural workers in favor of better qualified labor, capable of driving harvesters and other machines. "These are the new rural workers; the others have been pushed aside and left out of the system." Greenpeace's Giardini also addressed this question. In the northeastern province of Chaco, where cotton was the traditional crop, the encroachment of soy reduced the rural population from 40 percent to 20 percent. The effects can be seen in the overcrowded shantytowns on the outskirts of the provincial capitals. According to official statistics, 20.6 percent of Argentina's 38 million people are poor. But in the northeastern region, where soy is king, 37 percent are below the poverty line, and 13.6 percent live in absolute poverty, unable to feed themselves properly. "Small farmers in provinces like Salta and Santiago del Estero, who have precarious rights to the land, are facing the threat of the land being sold with them on it, and this is also related to large-scale soy cultivation," Giardini said. "In some small towns, hotels, casinos and even nightclubs are being built, but there is no trickle-down effect," he said. "Many of these places do not even have sewer systems." Comment by TraceConsult: It seems noteworthy that this critical article has been published by the global soy industry's most important information portal, Soyatech.com, who also publish the benchmark industry reference source, the Soya and Oilseed Bluebook. This brings information to soy industry mainstream players they may otherwise never receive. _______________________ Peruvian Government suspends production of GMOs Agrolink.com Brazil, 29 July 2008. The government of Peru suspended the production of transgenic crops in the country. The Peruvian Minister of the Environment, Antonio Brack, introduced legislation regulating the generation of genetically modified organisms, quoting risks to health and to biodiversity. Minister Brack announced that rural producers and organizations of civil society have the right to enforce their manifestations in regards to risks of GMOs. "The country must take a position of utmost caution over genetically modified organisms," he said. The Peruvian Minister of the Environment is also assessing the position of the 35,000 Peruvian organic producers who criticize GMO production and caution that their crops would be threatened by GM contamination. Item issued by: Government of Paraná (second-largest soy producing state in Brazil) _______________________ UK: GM crop vandals 'like Nazi book-burners' Press Association, 29 July 2008. A University of Leeds scientist has likened protesters who destroy GM crop trials to people who burned books in Nazi Germany. Professor Howard Atkinson, whose trial of genetically-modified potatoes was vandalised in June, has accused campaigners of being closed-minded zealots. He told the BBC's Farming Today programme: "I have great difficulty in seeing what the difference is between burning university books in 1933 and now trying to prevent new information finding its way into scientific journals to underpin policy development." Of the protesters, he said: "I think they are people who believe in what they are trying to do but I don't think they are open to rational scientific debate. They have not opened their minds, they have closed their minds to that, that's what I mean by a zealot." Prof Atkinson suggested the location and details of small-scale trials could be kept from the public, as they are in Canada, to prevent them from being vandalised by anti-GM protesters. Researchers speaking at a press briefing in London said other options could include a national, secure field testing site for GM crops, or that universities conducting trials should not have to bear the costs of security measures such as fences or guards. They said the number of field trials had declined in recent years because of sabotage, damaging the UK's ability to inspire innovation and commercial investment. Professor Jim Dunwell, of the University of Reading, said GM crops were being created which would be more drought-resistant or would take up nitrogen more efficiently, cutting the need for increasingly expensive chemical fertilisers. Field trials were an important part of developing the "exciting opportunities" GM was presenting to tackle rising food prices and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, he said. Prof Atkinson said his study into resistance to crop-damaging nematodes in potatoes could be developed for Africans who depend on plantains for food. _______________________ UK: Scientists want top security for GM crop tests The Guardian, 29 July 2008. Ian Sample. Trials of genetically modified crops should be conducted within a national high-security facility or in fields at secret locations across the country to prevent them from being attacked and destroyed by anti-GM activists, scientists said yesterday. Researchers spoke out after protesters ripped up crops in one of only two GM trials to be approved in Britain this year, and ahead of a meeting with government ministers, which has been called to discuss ways of providing better protection for crop trials in future. Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming, and whether GM variants will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests. Since 2000 almost all of the 54 GM crop trials attempted in Britain have been attacked to some extent. In a meeting planned for early September environment ministers will be asked to consider establishing a secure GM crop facility at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (Niab) in Cambridge, where the last remaining GM crop trial - of a blight-resistant potato developed by the German company BASF - is being conducted. Security for that trial, which includes a perimeter fence and 24-hour security guards, has cost more than £100,000. An identical trial at the site last year was damaged by activists in a night raid. In other proposals scientists will be seeking permission to conduct small-scale GM crop trials at undisclosed locations, and possibly a secure register to hold full details of their trials, instead of making them public. Under an existing EU directive GM crop trials in Britain can only go ahead once a full description of the crop, along with a six-figure grid reference that effectively pinpoints the planned location of the trial, have been made public. Last month a Leeds University trial of cyst-resistant GM potatoes was destroyed by anti-GM activists. Howard Atkinson, who led the research, said the trial, which involved only 400 plants, was too small to be considered a threat to the environment, and that paying for costly security "to protect against zealots" was hard for a university to justify. Atkinson called on the government to adopt a strategy similar to that in Canada, where small experimental trials of a few acres and less can be conducted in secret, with full disclosure only required for larger commercial trials. "We demand the academic freedom to gain knowledge and a society that doesn't allow scientists to do that has got a problem," he said. Wayne Powell, director of Niab, backed the calls for greater security of GM trials, adding that the exact locations of trials was originally required to inform local farmers and growers that GM crops were being planted close by. "We have to look at the way we're doing trials in a way that ensures they don't get vandalised," he said. "The consequence of not having field trials is you reject these crops before society has had a chance to consider the benefits." While North America and other countries have adopted mass growing of GM soya, cotton and maize, there are no GM crops grown in Britain. Clare Oxborrow, a food campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: "The government must stand firm and resist this attempt to keep the public and farmers in the dark over GM crop trial locations." Comment by GM Watch: We understand that Prof Atkinson apeared on BBC Radio 4's Farming Today this morning comparing GM crop pullers to Nazi book burners! Nazi book burners, of course, had not just the power of the Nazi Party behind them, but the power of the state. GM crop pulling, by contrast, is occuring in a context of extreme democratic deficit. New Labour have determinedly ignored public feeling on this matter throughout and even the results of its own official Public Debate. It's no wonder that whenever GM crop pullers have been subjected to trial by jury, they have been wholly acquitted. In the case of the Lyng crop pullers, the jury even waited behind outside the court after the end of the trial to have the chance of congratulating the protesters. And nothing could underline democratic deficit more clearly than the ready access pro-GM lobbyists have always enjoyed to the Government. As the extract (above) from the BBC piece (below) reveals, Prof Atkinson is due to have a meeting with environment minister Phil Woolas in early September, ie during the parliamentary recess! Woolas, of course, notoriously met with the biotech industry lobby group - the Agricultural Biotechnology Council - just before recently declaring the Government's renewed support for GM. It's also worth putting Prof Atkinson's views in a historical context. Nobody should believe that he's come to the views he's currently projecting in the media - with the expert help, of course, of the Science Media Centre - simply as a result of the digging up of his recent GM potato trial. In comments Atkinson submitted to the Government some six years ago - in the context of an economic costs and benefits analysis on GM being run at the time by the Cabinet Office, Atkinson complained not just about crop pulling but even about entirely conventional campaigns of protest and about the giving of information - deemed "misinformation" by Prof Atkinson - to the public, the supermarkets and even to governments. "NGOs and INGOs have been allowed to use misinformation and scientifically unsound information to scare the general public and build unjustified outrage." "There has been a political failure to ensure that misinformation of activists used to create outrage is removed from the debate and not perpetuated by the media." "[There's been a] failure to prevent activists from targeting supermarkets to force them from stocking GM products." "Those who misinform developing world governments or people (examples could be provided) are actually being anti-poor by forcing their dogmas upon them." There is even the suggestion that within developing countries it may be too "complex" to allow people an informed choice: "The issue of informed choice is practically complex when illiterate people and informal markets are considered." http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/gm_crops/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ strategy/atkinson%20pdf.ashx Prof. Atkinson's comments raise very serious questions - not least, in the light of his book- burning remark - as to who is really seeking to act as censor. _______________________ Australians eating GM food rejected overseas: Greenpeace The Land (Australia), 29 July 2008. Greenpeace is demanding that Food Standards Australia follows the lead of other countries overseas by banning several genetically modified crops from the human food chain. The demand comes after Austria banned the import of the GM maize variety, MON 863, produced by Monsanto, because of human health concerns. Greenpeace says the decision follows the release last year of a peer reviewed study, which revealed evidence of liver and kidney toxicity in rats fed the maize. However, it says the same maize variety has been approved for consumption in Australia by the national food regulator, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), and is currently present in food products in Australia. "It is appalling that Australian consumers are eating products which have been banned in other countries because of health concerns," Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner Louise Sales said. "FSANZ should take urgent action to protect consumers and remove Monsanto's MON863 maize from the food supply." "Not only is FSANZ approving potentially dangerous products, but our inadequate labelling laws also mean that the majority of GE foods do not require labelling - so consumers have no way of avoiding these products." _______________________ 28 July 2008 UK: GM Test Locations Should Remain Public says GM Freeze GM Freeze press release, 28 July 2008. Calls for the location of test sites for GM crops to be made secret should be rejected. The call was made by scientists involved in testing GM potatoes in the UK at a press conference today. GM Freeze want full public involvement in deciding if test sites should go ahead based on local considerations. To illustrate why local involvement is needed, the group point to last year's an application to grow a test site of GM potatoes was made by the German biotech corporation BASF near Hedon in East Yorkshire. On this occasion the site owner withdrew the site after it was announced because of the concerns of local borage growers and beekeepers who were worried about contamination of high value borage honey. If the test had gone ahead in secret, the presence of GM pollen from the test site in honey may have been the first indication of a problem and impacted upon sales of honey. GM Freeze also point out that the last major set of GM trials covering over 150 sites [1] were completed on time and the results published despite the location being openly available. Several sites were voluntarily withdrawn because of concerns about possible GM contamination in the neighbourhood after local referendums or public meetings. France does not make locations of GM test sites public and this has not stopped protests. Claims by scientists that direct action against GM test sites is the reason for very few taking place are dismissed by GM Freeze. They list many other reasons related to the regulations and commercial decisions by biotech corporations:
•	GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape and beet were not approved because of evidence of long term harm to farmland wildlife so no further tests were needed.
•	No market for GM crops because of supermarkets and manufacturers banning gm ingredients so there was no reason to test new crops.
•	Monsanto abandoned plans for GM cereals because of lack of EU markets demonstrated by public rejection of GM products.
•	Bayer Crop Science halted work on GM maize after being given approval by the UK government.
•	The biotech industry has not come forward with any insect resistant crops that would find a market in the UK because pest levels do not merit them.
•	Modern applications of traditional plant breeding are progressing and producing good quality crop varieties without resorting to GM, eg: marker assisted breeding [2].
•	All GM seed varieties which had been entered for National Listing were voluntarily withdrawn by the applicants because of lack of market demand thus removing the need for further outdoor testing.
Public announcement of sites would also enable local monitoring of the site to ensure conditions of the authorisation were being adhered to. Commenting on the proposal to make GM test sites secret, Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "It is ridiculous to suggest that direct action is the main reason for lack of UK test sites when the biotech industry's commercial decision have far more to do with it. Secret test sites would not work in a country as small as the UK. We don't have prairie-scale farms like Canada where, in any case, big problems of GM contamination have occurred. Secrecy would disrupt rural communities and potentially cause long-term harm to relationships. GM is not a popular technology because people have concluded that it is impossible to contain pollen in the field where it is grown. If the Government is minded to change the law regarding the location of test sites then they should allow local communities decide what is best for their parish. It's called local democracy". Contact: Pete Riley + 44 (0)845 217 8992 or + 44 (0)7903 341065. Notes: 1. The farm scale evaluation were sponsored by DEFRA to test the environmental impact of GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape, beet and forage maize. They ran from 1999 to 2003 in England, Scotland and Wales. A full set of results were published and used by the Governent to ban GM herbicide oilseed rape and beet. 2. Marker assisted breeding identifies which genes are present in individual plants before they are crossed to ensure that the desired characters are in the off spring. _______________________ UK: GM crop trials 'should be secret' BBC News, 28 July 2008. By Pallab Ghosh. Senior researchers have called for the location of small open-air trials of GM crops to be kept secret. The researchers say that vandalism of GM crop trials is holding back research in the area. Current legislation requires the exact location of GM crop trials to be publicly available. But according to those engaged in active research, that information is invariably used by anti-GM protesters to disrupt experiments. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which licenses open air trials commented: "EU legislation says that we must disclose GM trial locations to the public. "We are awating a European Court of Justice ruling, likely later this year, on a French legal case that should clarify how the EU law in this area can be interpreted by Member States." Professor Howard Atkinson began a trial of GM potatoes earlier this year which he hoped would be resistant to disease. The crops were pulled up three weeks after they were planted. Professor Atkinson is due to meet with the environment minister Phil Woolas in early September and will ask him to consider making changes to the current legislation. "We should follow the same approach as that followed in Canada for very small scale trials of say 400 plants or so - where the risks are looked at by a panel but the location of those sites is not revealed," Professor Atkinson explained. "The other possibility is to identify some national testing centre or centres where such trials could be run securely without the risk of zealots destroying them". Security issues Professor Atkinson said that open air trials were necessary to develop crops that could not only help farmers in the UK - but also help increase food production in Africa. The disruption of trials, he said, has already led to companies moving away from the UK and academic research in the area has begun to decline. "Academically, there has been a reduction in the attempt to do work of this type - they've found other problems to look at - but these are not generating practical benefits immediately and certainly not facing up to the big issue of food security in Africa," he said. "As far as companies are concerned, they can do this sort of work elsewhere" Jim Dunwell of Reading University and a member of ACRE, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, said there had been a sharp drop in the number of GM crop trials in Britain over the last few years with just one application for this year, down from about 20 to 30 per year in the late 1990s. Local communities Wayne Powell, who is the director of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany in Cambridge, was engaged in a trial of a crop that had the potential to benefit banana growers in Uganda. It was disrupted by protesters last year. As a result, he said: "We now have 24-hour security, we have fences around materials." However, anti-GM campaigners, such as Claire Oxborough of Friends of the Earth, believe that the trials should be stopped altogether. She commented: "Friends of the Earth would have deep concerns about making them secret because of the potential risks that they pose. "They are at the very early stages of development - we don't know the impact they'll have on the environment and on health and very often these trials are not set up to look at that." She added: "What you don't want to do is get into a situation where in rural communities you have an air of distrust - rumours, speculation going on because no one knows what their neighbours might be growing. "We need transparency - we need to know where these field trials are taking place so that farmers and the public can be adequately protected." _______________________ USA: Genetically engineered not wanted by people Jackson Citizen Patriot, 28 July 2008. By Deborah Ellenwood. HUDSON � Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets are hitting the marketplace this year and major food companies, like Kellogg's, have chosen to not guarantee that their products are free of any GE ingredients. Consumer groups, led by the Organic Consumers Association, have launched a boycott of Kellogg's products, including Kellogg's subsidiary Morningstar Farms, until Kellogg's commits to sourcing GE-free sugar. Genetically engineered foods are untested and unlabeled, and continue a toxic model of food production. GE sugar beets are designed to withstand massive doses of Monsanto's controversial Roundup herbicide. If given the chance, many Americans would avoid eating GE foods. Poll after poll have demonstrated that most people want mandatory labeling of all GE foods. Protecting the environment and providing safe food for my family is very important to me. _______________________ Growing Number of Domestic (Korean) Companies Go GMO-Free The Chosun Ilbo, 28 July 2008. Seoul, Korea -- Food safety comes first. This is what a growing number of domestic companies and consumer groups are saying through a campaign against foods that come from genetically-modified organisms. The safety of so-called GMO foods has long been debated. At the center of the issue are the ultimate, unknown effects on the health of both people and the environment of altering the genetic makeup of plants and animals. Amid the controversy a leading Korean food company has decided not to use GMO beans in its tofu bean sprouts and soybean oil. Other local food, beverage and pharmaceutical companies are also saying no to GMO. Anti-GMO groups could not be happier. They promise to promote companies that participate in the recent movement while boycotting firms that don't. The campaign has received 70,000 signatures supporting the ban on GMO foods. However some food companies say it will not be easy to stay free of GMO grains. That is mainly because those products have dominated the market in recent years and are cheaper as opposed to organic grains. And that is becoming increasingly important in light of rising food prices around the world. On the other hand, some of these companies are fearful they might become a target of a food safety issue given the recent heated debate over beef imports from the United States. _______________________ 27 July 2008 Too many unknowns in the manufacture and use of GM foods Canberra Times (Australia), 27 July 2008. By Judy Carman. In her guest column in this space on July 14, Paula Mathewson of CropLife put forward the genetically modified crop industry's view of GM food. Unfortunately, she left out some critical facts. First, most GM foods come from GM crops. To make these crops, genetic engineers insert bits of DNA from animals, plants, bacteria and/or viruses into the food plants that we eat. While the GM crop industry boasts about how accurate the process is, the reality is rather different. A classic insertion method is to actually fire the DNA into the plant using a modified shotgun. As the inserts land randomly, they can interfere with the plant's normal genetic functioning, and may cause a previously unknown substance to be made. To date, almost all GM plants have been designed to make a new protein that makes the plant able to survive herbicide spraying or to make its own insecticide (which we then eat), and not to benefit consumers. Like the GM industry, Paula likes how our food regulator regulates GM food. What she hasn't told you is that the regulator does not do any safety experiments of its own, but only does a paper-based safety assessment, based largely on what the GM crop company decides to tell it. It also does not require any animal or human studies to be done at all before it approves a GM crop as safe. If any animal studies are actually done, they are almost always done by the GM company that wants to profit from the crop and not by independent researchers. This is like accepting the safety statements made by tobacco companies without requiring independent studies. Furthermore, these animal studies generally just involve feeding only the new protein that the plant is designed to make as a single oral dose and measuring how many animals die within seven to 14 days. There are serious problems with this method. First, the actual protein tested does not come from the GM plant that we eat but from a GM bacterium that we don't eat. Our regulator simply assumes that the protein is the same when it may not be. Also, it assumes that the plant will only make that substance and nothing else. It also assumes that any animal that is not actually dead must be healthy and will stay that way, when it may in fact be seriously ill. If feeding studies of actual GM plant material are done, they are usually completed within only four weeks and animal production measures such as meat production are usually measured rather than matters relevant to human health, for example organ health. Allergy is only assessed using a paper-based method, not by animal studies. Proteins with similarity to known allergic substances have been passed as safe. Reproductive effects are not measured. Study periods are not long enough to allow cancers to develop. Now consider that we will be eating these crops for generations. Is there evidence of harm from eating GM crops? Yes, mostly from independent researchers using animal models. Effects have been found on the liver, kidney, pancreas, testes, digestive system, respiratory system, immune function (including allergy) and reproduction. Are any of these occurring in people? We simply don't know. There have been no studies into whether any of the millions of people who have been hospitalised or died since GM crops were introduced got ill due to eating these crops. Our food regulator has allowed 55 different GM crop varieties into the Australian food supply, mostly corn, soy, canola and cotton. They are likely to be present in much of our daily diet, including fried and baked goods, such as soy in bread and processed food, cottonseed oil in chips and canola in margarine. Refined products like oil are exempt from labelling, as are meat, milk, cheese and eggs from animals that have eaten GM feed. Why? Because our food regulator believes that they do not contain any DNA or protein from the GM crop. Scientific studies show otherwise. Meals from restaurants and take-aways do not require labelling. Moreover, the labelling laws are not policed. Finally, Paula uses one survey to "show" that people have no concerns about eating GM foods. Unfortunately, she didn't mention all the surveys by bodies such as Swinburne University, Roy Morgan Research and Biotechnology Australia that show the opposite. Polling also shows that 92 per cent of Australians want all GM food labelled. Of course, the GM crop industry doesn't want this and continues to vigorously oppose it. Labelling allows for consumer choice, traceability, easier investigations into the effects of GM crops on human health and easier legal action. Dr Carman is director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research _______________________ 25 July 2008 Austria bans Monsanto's GE maize Greenpeace International, 25 July 2008. Austria banned the import of the highly dangerous genetically engineered maize MON 863 today. The maize (corn) is produced by United States agro-chemical giant Monsanto. The announcement was made by Minister of Health and Family, Dr. Andrea Kdolsky, on health safety grounds. MON 863 is genetically engineered to produce a toxin against the cornborer, an insect that can cause damage in maize. Tests carried out on rats fed with MON 863 maize revealed they suffered liver and kidney damage. In 2005, we passed evidence of these tests to a team of experts headed by Professor Gilles Eric S�ralini, a French governmental advisor on genetic engineering (GE), for independent evaluation. The study found "it cannot be concluded that GE corn MON863 is a safe product". The maize has been controversial since 2004, when French newspaper Le Monde reported rats fed with MON863 maize showed changes in the composition of their blood and possible damage to internal organs. In spite of the scientific evidence, in January 2006, the European Commission allowed the maize to be imported into the European market for human and animal consumption. It is also authorised for human consumption in Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan and the US. MON863 is mainly grown in the US and Canada. "The Austrian import ban sends a strong signal to the EU Commissioners, to EU member states and other governments around the world, that Monsanto's MON 863 maize is a risk to human health and needs to be withdrawn from all markets as soon as possible. Governments must put the safety of their citizens above the commercial interests of companies such as Monsanto," Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE campaign coordinator said. In addition to banning imports of MON 863, Austria has already banned growing Monsanto's GE maize MON 810, as have France, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Poland over safety concerns. Scientific studies showed MON 810 is harmful to wildlife, soil and human health. Its inbuilt toxin, which is also designed to kill the cornborer, seeps into soil harming animals critical to soil health, such as earthworms, and other wildlife including butterflies, ants and spiders. MON810 � the only GM crop currently grown in the EU � is currently due for re-authorisation under EU rules. _______________________ Agribusiness alliance sharpens food-versus-fuel debate ADM, Monsanto and others argue ethanol subsidies should stay Dow Jones Newswires, July 25 2008 A group of U.S. agribusiness companies led by Archer Daniels Midland Co. launched a new front in the intensifying food-versus-fuel debate Thursday, maintaining that technology can ease global supply shortages. Decatur, Ill.-based ADM, backed by Deere & Co. of Moline, Ill., and seedmakers Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co., made their call through a new lobbying organization called the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy. The move highlights a sharp divide in the U.S. agribusiness sector over domestic food and energy policy, notably subsidies for ethanol and other renewable fuels. Members of the new alliance have argued technological improvements would continue to boost crop yields and prevent demand for renewable fuels from crowding out food supplies. This view is fiercely opposed by companies such as Tyson Foods Inc., which has called for U.S. ethanol subsidies to be dropped as its profits have been eroded by higher feed costs for its poultry, pork and beef processing business. ADM, Monsanto and others have seen their profits soar in recent years as booming demand for agricultural products in emerging markets has pushed up commodity prices and spurred additional production. Prices of corn, soybeans, and other crops have reached record levels in recent weeks, and global stocks are at historic lows. However, one alliance member said there was not a supply problem. "From a production perspective, we have abundance [of food]," said Rob Fraley, Monsanto's chief technology officer. He said the "challenges" were in distribution and access to food because of wealth distribution. Fraley dismissed concerns among critics of U.S. agricultural policy that productivity is slowing. "The rate of growth is positive," he said. "[We want to] make the same sort of gains in processing efficiency as in agricultural productivity," added Todd Werpy, vice president of research at ADM. The new coalition faces tough opposition, notably from the food producers' lobby in the U.S., which has been calling for the scrapping or reduction of subsidies to the ethanol industry. "While improvements in global agriculture are vital, this work must not distract us from the fact that while we wait, millions of people will be pushed deeper into hunger and poverty because we are diverting more and more food and feed supplies to producing ethanol," said a statement from the Grocery Manufacturers' Association. Tyson Chief Executive Dick Bond attributes rising food inflation in the U.S. to competition for corn from ethanol producers, as well as the rising global demand for protein that pushed corn and soybean prices to record levels. Bond has called on Congress to reduce or drop a federal tax subsidy and end import tariffs on sugar-based ethanol. Current U.S. renewable fuel policy includes a 51-cents-a-gallon subsidy on corn-produced ethanol and a tariff on imports, mainly sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. "My fear is that if the body politic and the general public turns their back on the first generation [of ethanol], we won't have a second generation," said J.B. Penn, chief economist at Deere. Mark Kornblau, the Democratic strategist who serves as executive director of the alliance, said it was seeking to expand its membership to other companies and government and non-government organizations overseas. "We are trying to paint a broader picture [and] raise the level of debate," said Kornblau. _______________________ 24 July 2008 India: Farmers' Union on Seeds Act + GMO authority + US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture Bharatiya Krishak Samaj urges UPA government to delete anti-farmer provisions in its proposed amendments to the Seeds Act Withdraw implementation of US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture Stop introducing the Bill for setting up of NBRA - Make GEAC accountable for addressing health and environmental concerns relating to GM crops and food Bharatiya Krishak Samaj (Indian Farmers' Organisation) press release, 24 July 2008. New Delhi, July 24 : We farmers are very concerned over the haste the UPA government is acting to introduce new legislations which are likely endanger our livelihood security. The UPA government should know that wining trust vote in the Parliament is not enough. It has to face the general elections due in the middle of the next year. Therefore it needs reverse its anti-farmer policies which has favoured the corporate houses at the expense of farmers. On Proposed Amendments to the Seeds Act :---
•	The UPA government is planning to move an amendment to the Seeds Act in the winter session of the Parliament to give greater leverage to the corporate houses in the seeds sector. "We would like to caution the government to incorporate the views of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture headed by Ram Gopal Yadav. I had personally appeared before the Parliamentary panel and had suggested that seeds used by farmers should not be registered," said the president of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary. Bharatiya Krishak Samaj firmly believes that there should be only law for regulating the seed sector and the Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers' Rights Act should be the only law for this purpose. The Seeds Act and other laws should be repealed. The Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers' Rights Act should be further strengthened in the interests of farmers. It would be a crime to hand over seed sovereignty to corporate houses It is the duty of the Samajwadi Party which is now supporting the government and its leading MP, Ram Gopal Yadav in particular to see that the government do not move any amendment to the Seeds Act which would jeopardize the interests of farmers
On US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture ;-----
•	The UPA government should also withdraw from implementing the IUS-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture as it seeks to an upper hand to the US-based multinationals in Indian agriculture. Agri products would be opened for patent rights by US companies in the name of research. This pact is aimed at thrusting controversial technology for genetically modified (GM) crops in the country It is strange to note that while the Opposition parties opposed tooth and nail the US-India Civilian Nuclear Deal, they did not say a word on US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture which is aimed at destroying food security and livelihood security of farmers
On the Proposed Setting Up of NBRA :-----
•	The government must clarify why it is setting up the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA), replacing the existing regulator Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) which is already acting as a single window clearance for biotech products. If the government feels that the GEAC is incompetent and inefficient, it should bring it to the public knowledge. The Supreme Court, in the course of hearing a writ petition seeking a moratorium on GM crops, had ordered some improvements for introducing transparency in the functioning of GEAC. The government had always defended the functioning of GEAC in the Supreme Court. Has it got any moral right now to say that GEAC is not functioning well and needs to be replaced by NBRA? The fact is that the GEAC, without caring for any biosafety norms and transparency, has been very fast in the approval of GM crops with a view to benefit the multinational seed companies. Since 2002, GEAC approved over 175 Bt cotton hybrids, five events and one Bt cotton variety. It has conducted field trials of Bt brinjal, Bt okra, GM mustard, Bt cabbage, GM tomato, GM groundnut and GM potato. The functioning of GEAC has been questioned by many independent scientists, like the founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Pushpa Mittra Bhargava. He called for a total review of India's experience with Bt cotton, including how Bt technology was brought into the country. He has also sought a two to three years moratorium on GM crops, unless and until proper independent studies are done on biosafety like pollen flow, seed germination, soil microbial activity, toxicity, allergenicity, DNA finger printing, proteomics analysis, and reproductive interferences.
At the global level, independent scientists like Arpad Pusztai have questioned the safety of GM food. Pusztai has pointed out by saying "Well-designed studies, though few in number, show potentially worrisome biological effects of GM food, which the regulators have largely ignored." In India, there were reports of sheep mortality on account of grazing over Bt cotton fields in Andhra Pradesh, which the GEAC did not consider with seriousness. There are reported cases of illegal imports of hazardous GM food, which are not approved in the country and the government has remained a mute spectator. Illegal imports of GM food are in violation of the Rules, 1989 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The annual amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy made in April 2006 said unlabelled GM food import would attract penal action under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. But this is not implemented in absence of guidelines. The panel of experts and stakeholders headed by the additional director-general of National Institute of Communicable Diseases, Shiv Lal had recommended mandatory labeling of GM food, irrespective of the threshold level. But the recommendations were not implemented either by the health ministry or GEAC. Rather, the GEAC allowed free imports of oil extracted from GM soybeans without any labeling, tests and restrictions. The plan to set up NBRA is largely based on the recommendations of the two panels headed by MS Swaminathan and RA Mashelkar. The suggestions made and apprehensions raised by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in its paper � Regulatory Regime for Genetically Modified Foods : The Way Ahead � have not been considered. Monsanto is charging a high technology fee, which has raised the prices of Bt cotton seeds and the issue is subjudice before the MRTP Act. There are fears that pollen flow from GM crops to non-GM crops may cause problems for farmers, who may be asked to pay high technology fee for their own seeds as had been the case with the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser. Indian farmers, in many areas have suffered heavy losses on account of failure of Bt cotton. States like Kerala and Uttarakhand have banned GM crops and the Centre, through the NBRA, is planning to override states governments' power to regulate agriculture. The government should make GEAC more accountable to address health and environmental concerns, rather than set up NBRA. If the government cannot ensure health and environmental safety of GM crops then there should be a moratorium on GM crops. Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary President Bharativa Krishak Samaj New Delhi, India _______________________ Bioengineered apples, bananas may be next in line ThePacker.com, 24 July 2008. By Tom Karst. A nonbrowning apple variety and a disease-resistant banana may be the next commodities to test consumer acceptance of biotechnology in fresh produce. The U.S. has more than 144 million acres of biotech crops under cultivation, but virtually none of that acreage is represented by crops grown for the fresh produce market. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported this year that 80% of the nation's field corn crop and 92% of soybeans were biotech varieties. The slow development in biotechnology for fresh produce has been rooted in caution about consumer attitudes. The genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato was unveiled in 1992 but ran aground amid activist resistance, prolonged regulatory reviews and lukewarm market acceptance. "There are very few biotech derived fruits and vegetables on the market and there is not too many being actively developed that are close to being on the market," said Michael Wach, managing director for science and regulatory affairs for the Food and Agriculture Department of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Washington, D.C. "I don't see anybody in the Washington (state) apple industry trying to market a genetically modified apple at this point in time for fear of getting clobbered by the activists," said economist Desmond O'Rourke, president of Belrose Inc., Pullman, Wash. However, commercial acceptance of bioengineered apples may not be that far off, said Herb Aldwinckle, Cornell University professor at the Geneva, N.Y.-based New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. "I think there might be some genetically engineered varieties out within five years, and some of those might be the nonbrowning apple varieties," he said. Meanwhile, Cornell's biotechnology work on disease-resistance for apples � primarily for fire blight and apple scab � is a little further off, he said. "I can see us having some varieties commercialized between five and 10 years," he said. About 50% of the Hawaiian papaya crop is genetically modified (to combat the potentially industry-killing ringspot virus), and Aldwinckle estimated about 20% to 25% of the summer squash supply is grown from seeds developed by biotechnology. Aldwinckle said Cornell has a small trial of the biotech non-browning apples, developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc., a privately-held agriculture biotechnology company based in Summerland, British Columbia. Neal Carter, president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, said the firm has a couple of field trials ongoing for five varieties of nonbrowning apples. He said it is unknown how long the approval process will take, but it could be perhaps two years. That means a limited amount of trees could be going in the ground by the spring of 2011, perhaps under a permit process. Fruit from those trees wouldn't be expected from those trees for another couple of years. The company's patented polypheunol oxidase technology is able to halt browning. All bioengineered plant varieties marketed in the U.S. must be approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Tony Freytag, marketing director for Cashmere, Wash.-based Crunch Pak, said a nonbrowning apple could be considered for fresh-cut purposes if the variety turns out to be commercially viable. However, he said Crunch Pak has not been able to test the variety and said any consideration of the variety is premature. In the event the variety is commercially available, said processors would have to be careful not to overlook microbiological issues just because the flesh doesn't turn brown. "We spend a great deal of our time on is controlling the microbiological loads on an apple," he said. On the other hand, said the nonbrowning variety could be a positive if it eliminates the cost of treating fruit with antioxidants like Nature Seal. Another mitigating factor in its acceptance could be cost of the product, he said. If fruit from the variety is priced too high, it could be of little value to the fresh-cut industry. Carter said he believes the Okanagan technology will be accepted by consumers, because the genetic engineering only involves "silencing" an apple gene, not introducing something foreign to the apple. He noted a virus resistant biotech plum variety was cleared without fanfare by the USDA last year. Wach said bananas may be on the short list of commodities that will benefit from biotechnology. "Bananas, like papayas, are susceptible to a large number of devastating diseases for which there is no known treatment and no known resistance within the species," he said. Wach predicted biotech bananas being developed now in tropical countries will be shipped to the U.S. within 10 years. _______________________ China's GMO solution: genetically modified rice to be cultivated in the near future Greenpeace: "Risk of an environmental catastrophe" WineNews.it, 24 July 2008. When the Chinese magazine Caijing came out in May with the cover title asking whether China was ready for the cultivation of genetically modified rice, the environmental organization, Greenpeace, responded immediately "No". But now, the Chinese government has just passed a program � of which full details are yet to be released - for the development of genetically modified crops with the goal of "increasing sustainable agriculture, promoting technological innovation, improving quality of life in rural areas and competitiveness for the agricultural sector". According to Greenpeace, China should be blocking the commercialization of genetically modified rice in order to "to avoid an economic and environmental catastrophe". According to Luo Yuannan, director of Greenpeace's food and agriculture program, the technologies that are the key to this type of experimentation, in particular that of the three species of genetically modified rice that China wants to cultivate, are the property of the biggest chemical multinational industries like American DuPont and Monsanto, French Rhone Poulenc Agrochimie, British Agricultural Genetics, and German Bayer CropScience. And if the government gives the go ahead for large scale cultivation of these crops, the market would automatically pass under the control of these foreign colossals with obvious repercussions for agriculture. Genetically modifying organisms has been the object of studies by Chinese research entities since the early 1980's. The cultivation of genetically modified cotton (in collaboration with Monsanto) is already largely widespread. Last year, China produced 4.83 million tons (69% of total production) of GM cotton, together with smaller percentages of genetically modified potato, tomato, papaya, and bell pepper crops. From 2002 to 2007, China has authorized experiments on 2,361 GM seeds from a vast variety of plants, and has approved 1,109 of them. But the go ahead for GM rice cultivation � China is the largest rice producer in the world � has still not been given even though authorities have completed controls on experimental crops located mostly in the southern provinces of Hubei, Hunan, and Fujian. As well, due to the appeal made by Greenpeace, the Chinese government has promised to conduct more in-depth studies. But, according to the Chinese daily Hong Kong South China Morning Post, the increase in investments and programs is most probably a signal of rapid development favoring the use of these crops. The program has been passed just before the meeting of national commission for food safety that is set for the end of July. China's goal is to increase grain production to over 540 million tons per year in order to cover 95% of national demand. But because arable land continues to decrease in the face of industrialization, the country claims it has no other option than recourse to genetically modified organisms. Another in important factor for the move towards GMO are the recent increases in food prices. Since 2001 the Chinese government has adopted measures to control GMO, creating a system that categorizes both foods and seeds. Seeds are put into categories based on the seriousness of their potential impact on the environment and health. For example, Chinese researchers have already demonstrated that the pollen from transgenic rice can arrive up to one hundred meters away, resulting in the potential to contaminate nearby traditional rice crops with their modified genes. _______________________ New U.S. group defends ethanol in food vs fuel fight Reuters, July 24 2008. By Lisa Shumaker. CHICAGO - A new group is adding its voice to the debate on using crops to produce alternative fuels such as ethanol amid rising food prices and shortages in some countries. The Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy in Washington D.C. was created by Archer Daniels Midland Co, DuPont Co, Deere & Co, Monsanto Co and the Renewable Fuels Association (www.foodandenergy.org). "There are critics who are trying to create an either-or decision between food and fuel," said Mark Kornblau, the alliance's executive director. "We believe this is a false choice. Today, more than 90 percent of crops in the United States and around the world are used exclusively for food." The group believes that agricultural innovation -- such as genetically modified crops -- is the best way to address global hunger, not reducing biofuel production. Decatur, Illinois-based ADM is one of the world's largest producers of biofuels, and Monsanto is a leading producer of GMO seeds. Kornblau did not say exactly how much money the founding members contributed but said "the initial budget is in the multimillions." The food versus fuel debate heated up as U.S. food prices last year saw their biggest increase in 15 years and are forecast to rise by 5 percent this year. World food prices rose by 40 percent last year, causing food riots, hoarding and bread lines in some countries. At the heart of the debate is to what degree the popularity of biofuels has contributed to the rapid rise in food prices. Corn, soybean and wheat prices at the Chicago Board of Trade hit record highs this year amid increased global demand for food, rising oil prices and government mandates for biofuels. About 34 percent of the U.S. corn crop this year will be used to make ethanol, compared with 23 percent last year, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. "Most credible studies say the rising price of food right now can be attributed to the high price of oil," Kornblau said. "To get your Idaho potatoes to Massachusetts or Florida, you have to have them shipped." Crude oil prices have soared by 70 percent in the past 12 months and hit a record high of $147.27 a barrel on July 11. U.S. oil futures closed at $125.49 a barrel, up $1.05, on Thursday. The new alliance faces tough opposition. Both livestock and food producers have lobbied to reduce or eliminate subsidies for ethanol. Their efforts may have succeeded to some degree. The new U.S. farm law cuts the tax credit for corn-based ethanol by 6 cents to 45 cents a gallon beginning in 2009. The law extends the 54-cent import tariff on ethanol through 2010. Tyson Foods Inc has backed eliminating U.S. ethanol subsidies and has seen its profits hurt by higher feed costs for its poultry, pork and beef processing business. The Grocery Manufacturers' Association has criticized ethanol for driving up food prices. _______________________ Mexico: Want to cut food production? Sow GM seed! Scoop (New Zealand) / Tortilla con Sal, 24 July 2008. By Silvia Ribeiro. Monsanto has told the press media over the last few days that the upcoming publication of the so-called special protection regime for maize will allow it to start experiments with genetically modified (GM) maize. What a historic irony that such a regime, instead of protecting maize and its peoples, is yet another gift from the government to multinational companies that have privatized seeds, the key to the whole food network and rural families' legacy to humanity. To cap it all: the seeds are less productive! After analyzing yields in the US cereal grain belt over the last three years, Kansas University published a study in April 2008. It showed that the productivity of GM crops (soya, maize, cotton and canola) was less than in the era prior to the introduction of GM seeds. Soya showed a drop in yield of up to 10%. The productivity of GM maize was less in several years, in some the same, or else imperceptibly greater, giving a totally negative result compared with conventional varieties. GM canola and cotton also showed lower yields taken over periods of several years. (In all these cases the seeds are dearer that the conventional seed, for which reason the farmer's profit margin is less.) This study confirms various earlier ones. In 2007, Nebraska University found that Monsanto's GM soya produced 6% less than the company's same variety in its non-GM version and up to 11% less than the best available variety of non-GM soya. Other studies including one of the US Department of Agriculture in April 2006 show similar results. Categorically, GM seeds are not the most high-yielding. The main reason, the studies explain, is that genetic modification changes the metabolism of the plants which in some cases inhibits the absorption of nutrients and, in general, demands more energy to express characteristics that are not natural to the plant, denying it the ability to develop fully. Monsanto's explanation faced with the University of Kansas study was "genetically modified seeds are not designed to increase yields". (The Independent, April 4th 2008) Monsanto, Dupont-Pioneer and Syngenta are the three biggest companies in the world of genetic modification and also in every type of commercial seed. Monsanto controls almost 90% of GM seeds. Together these companies control 39% of the world market in all seeds, as well as 44% of seeds subject to intellectual property. Why then do these companies - who also own non-GM hybrid seeds - insist on selling their seeds when they yield less and need more agro-chemicals? In part because they are also big agro-chemical producers but above all because, since all the GM seeds are patented by them, GM seed contamination of non-GM crops makes them big business. Hybrid seeds also cross with native varieties. But they are crosses, for example, of maize with maize. Whereas GM seeds when they are crossed contain genes of bacteria or viruses or whatever else via which they have been genetically modified. But the fundamental difference for these companies is that, with GM seeds, contamination is an offence for which the victims can be blamed. Any rural farm worker or producer whose seed gets contaminated or who replants GM seed that they bought from Monsanto (exercising the "agriculturalist's right") uses the patent without permission and commits an offence for which they can be sued.Monsanto has already won more than US$21.5 million in lawsuits against farmers in the United States (Centre for Food Safety). Now it has just started a more aggressive lawsuit against a whole farmers' cooperative, the Pilot Grove Elevator Cooperative of Missouri. According to Monsanto, they do not pay enough royalties. Farmer David Brumback, who describes himself as having been a "loyal buyer" of Monsanto's GM seeds for years, expressed his anger and declared "for Monsanto, we are all guilty." (CBS 4, Denver, July 10th 2008) This is what awaits the farmers of north Mexico who are asking for GM maize. And also those who do not want it, but get contaminated. Once in the field, GM contamination is inevitable. It is only a question of time. The measures suggested by the shameful "protection regime" sketched out by Semarnat and Sagarpa are not only limited and ill-informed. Immediately, they are nonsensical because, if commercial planting is approved, they will never be reproduced under real conditions in farmers' fields. The so-called "experiments" are another fallacy, like the law and its regulations favouring Monsanto. Legalizing GM crops for the multinational companies also makes legal wholesale contamination and the persecution of farmers. It strikes at the heart of the people and will cost Mexico it's most important genetic patrimony. *********** Silvia Ribeiro is a researcher with the Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group _______________________ Green Edge 3: Small Farmers, Ecofeminism, Vandana Shiva The Huffington Post, 24 July 2008. By John Tepper Marlin. For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and pest control have been getting more uniform. Led by farm suppliers, it has raised productivity. But negative byproducts of this trend include increasing chemical dependence and loss of biodiversity. Ecofeminist Vandana Shiva is at the Organic World Congress to protest the human and environmental cost of monoculture. The pendulum may be swinging back her way as consumer preference (among "locavores") for locally grown food and organic food increases, as the public becomes more aware of the impact of chemicals on the environment, and as higher petroleum prices result in pricier fertilizers and pesticides. Vandana is one of the speakers at the opening ceremony of the Organic World Congress in Modena's large Piazza Grande, which fills the center of the city behind the famed (Michelin three-starred) Romanesque Duomo, shown below earlier in the day as the seats were being set up. An eloquent defender of the property rights of small farms in India and other countries, Vandana has devoted much of her life to research on the effects of loss of biodiversity resulting from monoculture and has allied herself with the Slow Food Movement. Her books include The Violence of the Green Revolution and Monocultures of the Mind. She decided that science was not serving the interests of small farmers, so she left the academic world and formed her own organization, Navdanya. Because she associates monoculture with a masculine wish to dominate -- and sees it as threatening both small farmers and biodiversity in the name of temporarily higher productivity -- Vandana has been called an ecofeminist, a term attributed to the late Francoise d'Eaubonne describing someone resistant to abuse of either women or mother nature, and adds in empathy for the small farmer in developing countries. Small-farm consolidation continues, as was highlighted in South Africa just this week. The Valley Trust has for years been working with rural communities to provide health and other services and support organic farms. It has recently broken ranks with the South African Department of Agriculture for its pressure on small-scale farmers to join cooperatives. Small farmers are promised financial help, farm equipment, water piping and free seeds in return for joining the larger farming unit. The catch is that the small farmer must plant genetically modified seeds, which create farmer dependence on commercial monoculture. The director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming, says: "In the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilizers and pesticides". For her work with small farmers, Vandana was awarded the Alternative Nobel Award -- the Right Livelihood Award -- in 1993 and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. At dinner after the opening ceremony, I ask her if she sees any optimistic signs, any evidence that destructive forces in the world may be losing ground. She says, without a moment's hesitation: "I see three kinds of developments that inspire hope. "First, forces that used to deny the viability of organic farming are having to come over. They must now at least pay lip service to the need for ways to farm that do not require such expensive inputs. "Second, the fringes are becoming more mainstream. A little town like Modena is leading the world by sponsoring this conference. Obama in the United States is now in the center - he is redefining it. The lobbyists who used to be the world are seeing their influence diminished. "Third, we are seeing in floods and other disasters the role that humans play in setting the stage. Many of the disasters are not natural, they are anthropogenic. The impact of the disasters is magnified by human decisions." Scientists say that people who are working on addressing the problems of their day feel more control over their lives and are happier. On that basis, you would expect Vandana to be a very happy person, and so she is. At the same time she is empowering farmers to make their own decisions, save money, and lead lives more in harmony with their communities. _______________________ Campaign to force GM crops into Ireland Letter to the Editor of the Irish Independent, 24 July 2008. Dear Sir, The campaign to force GM crops into Ireland continues unabated for one simple reason. Ireland without GM crops could be the bread basket of Europe because of all the Europeans (about 70%) that don't want them. We would have a competitive advantage and that is what the people that are pushing the GM monster don't want. If we get bullied dishonestly down the same road as the other countries, Irish agriculture can start closing down now. May I briefly recap on some of the facts about GM crops, rather than the self-serving, half-truths that are being put out by the chemical companies behind this totally unnecessary assault on food quality. 1. It is well known that GM crops do NOT increase yields. 2. It is well known that the total resistance to specific herbicides comes at huge cost to the quality of the crops that can now be drenched in those poisonous chemicals (sold by the same company, of course) before being sold to us to eat. And let's not go into the damage to the environment caused being able to safely smother crops and the surrounding area in chemicals for the chance of a little more profit. 3. It is well known that the limited research that has been done (guess who is trying to stop such research) shows clearly that there ARE potential dangers to human and animal health and that MUCH more research is needed in this area. 4. Simply because lots of people were using asbestos and smoking many years ago did not mean that it was therefore ok for more people to do so, which is what one government adviser, Patrick Cunningham, recently stated was true for GM foods. If he is really a professor, he is intelligent enough to know well the dishonesty of that circular argument. 5. It is well known that most small farmers will be driven out of business because of the need to buy seeds every year instead of using the old ones (the infamous terminator gene). This will be especially cruel to the poorer areas of the world. Admittedly corporations are not in business for human welfare but our politicians should at least pretend to be interested. In summary, GM crops offer several disadvantages but not one single benefit to the food supply of the humans of the world - us. Anyway, when enough brown envelopes from increased chemical company profits find their way into a few pockets in Brussels, who will give a damn about facts? Long live asbestos, tobacco, thalidomide, GM foods and dodgy research. Yours faithfully, Richard Barton (Consultant in nutritional medicine, counsellor and writer) Kevin Street Tinahely, Co.Wicklow Rep. of Ireland. _______________________ Dangers of GM farming Irish Farmers Journal, letter to the editor, 26 July (published 24 July) 2008. Dear Sir, Please allow me to put forward another fact on the Genetically Modified food debate. Firstly, I would like to go back to 2001 and the threat of Foot and Mouth disease. The country closed down the importation of meat and the movement of cattle; onlyh urgent visits were allowed onto farms. The threat united urban and rural people in support of the backbone industry of the country. The consequences of an outbreak would be horrendous, both in animal and human tragedy. The call of rural people to save the industry was heard and everyone agreed to cancel events, from sports fixtures to parades and even children's parties. When the call came, every man, woman and child played their part to stop the threat of disease. We now have a threat to farming more deadly than Foot and Mouth - GM food, which can wipe out crops and, in time, animals, farmers and all livelihoods dependent on farming. GM seed does not stop in its own area, but invades in an insidious and silent way. Any interference to the balance of nature means no return. When invaded, native varieties cannot come back - they are gone. GM should not be compared on the same level as other basic and ethical farming, which place the care of animals, crops, the environment and farming people at the heart of their reason for farming: care and concern for all, not cold, hard commercial benefit for short-term gain. Cath Sheehan Clondrohid Macroom, Co. Cork Ireland _______________________ Safety of cloned animal products uncertain: EU agency Reuters, 24 July 2008. By Darren Ennis. BRUSSELS - The European Union's top food safety agency said on Thursday cloned animal products may not be safe and further study was needed. "It is clear there are significant animal health and welfare issues for surrogate mothers and clones that can be more frequent and severe than for conventionally bred animals," Vittorio Silano, chair of EFSA's Scientific Committee, told reporters. "For cattle and pigs, food safety concerns are considered unlikely. But we must acknowledge that the evidence base is still small. We would like to have a broader data base and we need further clarification." "That has been one of the challenges throughout this work," he added. In its initial response to the issue of cloning -- which many consumer and religious groups strongly oppose -- EFSA said in January that cloned animals could be safe to eat. It also said it saw "no environmental impact from animal cloning". But when asked if cloned products such as meat and dairy would be safe for people to buy in European supermarkets, Dr. Dan Collins of EFSA said: "There are possible concerns ... there is an impact of animal health and welfare on food safety. We need more data." Investigation requested In March 2007, the European Commission -- the EU's executive arm -- asked the Bologna-based food agency to investigate the merits of cloning -- which takes cells from an adult and fuses them with others before implanting them in a surrogate mother The move by Brussels was prompted after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave its backing to meat and milk products from cloned cattle, pigs and goats. Hundreds of animals have been cloned mainly in the United States, while Britain and Germany are leading the push to allow cloned products to be sold in the EU and London has already confirmed that it has imported a cloned offspring. Advocates of livestock cloning say the technology will help produce more milk and lean, tender meat by creating more disease-resistant animals. They insist it is perfectly safe. But opponents say scientists don't know its effects on nutrition and biology. With or without EFSA's backing, the EU executive says consumers will need to be convinced and intends to carry out an EU-wide consumer survey on the issue in September. More than half of shoppers in a recent survey by the International Food Information Council said they were unlikely to buy food made from cloned animals. The largest U.S. dairy producer and distributor, Dean Foods, said last month that it would not sell milk from cloned animals due to consumer concerns. _______________________ EU food safety experts say NO to cloned meat The Daily Mail, 24 July 2008. By Sean Poulter. [image aption: Fourth-generation cloned pigs - DEFRA has so far refused to ensure cloned products do not reach consumers] Selling meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring is expected to be rejected by EU watchdogs today. Experts at the European Food Safety Authority are understood to have raised serious questions about animal welfare and food safety. The conclusions represent a major U-turn for an organisation which initially supported clone farming in a draft report earlier this year. The authority's investigation followed a Daily Mail report in January 2007 that the offspring of cloned milking cows had been born on a UK farm. Last month, this newspaper also revealed that eight 'clone farm' calves have been born in Britain over the past 18 months. Frozen embryos taken from the clones of prizewinning Holstein cows in the U.S. were flown to the UK and implanted into farm animals. One source close to the European Commission investigation explained the expected Uturn, saying: 'EFSA says it has increased concerns regarding animal welfare and possible-concerns regarding food safety due to the limited data available.' Animal welfare campaigners welcomed the change of view and called on the Government to take action to keep food from clones and their offspring off dinner plates. The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming are among a number of groups opposed to animal cloning for food. Joyce D'Silva of CiWF said: 'We know cloning is responsible for huge amounts of animal suffering. With every successful birth, we know there is at least one other animal that did not make it. 'Many either die before they are born or soon after because of organ failure. It is time for Britain and the European Commission to take a strong stance to keep clones and their offspring out of the food supply.' The food and farming department, DEFRA, has refused so far to ensure products do not reach consumers. A study published by the Food Standards Agency last month flagged up widespread opposition to clone farming and food. The research found that the more consumers learned about cloning, the greater and more widespread were the objections. Steve Griggs, who led the project, said: 'The majority of people came to the conclusion that they would not want to eat such food. There was a strong sense from the public that this represents a quantum leap. 'They struggled to identify any convincing benefits for them as consumers.' On the issue of food, Dr Griggs said opinions were strongly affected by the scandal over human BSE and the attempted introduction of GM products without proper checks and consultation. _______________________ Germany's BASF takes GM potato case to EU court Reuters, July 24 2008. By Mantik Kusjanto. FRANKFURT - BASF has taken legal action against the European Commission for failure to act on its genetically modified Amflora potato, the German chemicals company said on Thursday. BASF said in a statement it filed the action with the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg because the Commission unjustifiably delayed the approval of Amflora after a 12-year process. "EU commissioners have postponed Amflora's approval despite repeated positive safety assessments by EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority," said Stefan Marcinowski, a member of BASF's executive board. Marcinowski said the company was "not prepared to accept any further delays". Amflora is engineered to yield high amounts of starch, eliminating the viscous gel-like substance amylose so it contains only one starch ingredient: amylopectin. It is not intended for human consumption but rather for industrial use such as in the paper industry to make glossy magazine coatings, in textiles for yarn sizing and as an additive in adhesive or sprayable concrete. _______________________ Negative attitudes 'hindering' China GM commercialisation SciDevNet, 24 July 2008. Jia Hepeng. [BARCELONA] European nations should take a more positive attitude towards genetically modified (GM) food because their negative stance is seriously affecting developing world policies regarding commercialisation of GM crops to feed hungry people, says a leading Chinese scientist. "The attitudes of Chinese policymakers are deeply influenced by your views and I appeal to you to reconsider your stance so that modern agricultural technologies can benefit more people in China and other developing countries," said Yang Huanming, director of the Beijing Genomics Institute and China's leading researcher of human genomics and rice genomics projects. Yang's remark was made on 18 July at a session organised by European Action on Global Life Sciences (EAGLES) during the Euroscience Open Forum. It came days after the Chinese government approved a gigantic seeding research project that focuses on using a GM approach to improve plants' nutrition, yield, and tolerance to drought and floods. Details of the research project were not revealed, but the China Daily newspaper reported that the funding for the long-term research programme (2006-2020) could be up to 20 billion Chinese yuan (US$2.92 billion), around 20 per cent of which would be used for biosafety inspection of new species and infrastructure construction. Yang believes that this project will make the approval of GM crops easier, especially GM rice of which several varieties are under pre-commercialisation trials in China. But environmental organisations, like Greenpeace, say that GM food poses a danger. They say there is risk of 'gene pollution' - where the inserted gene of GM plants affects non-target plants of similar kinds via pollination. Earlier this year, Chinese scientists developed a strategy that could potentially minimise this (see New method 'prevents spread of GM plants'). Yang told SciDev.Net that claims made by environmental organisations have posed a major barrier to commercialisation. "[Environmental groups] say the majority of Chinese agricultural products will be polluted by the modified genes, seriously influencing Chinese exports to Europe [as the continent will ban Chinese exports due to the risk of gene pollution]," Yang says. "This claim is threatening enough to some policymakers although there is no scientific evidence of 'gene pollution'." David McConnell, a professor of biotechnology at Trinity College, Dublin and co-vice chairman of EAGLES, welcomes Yang's appeals. "These voices from the developing world help European scientists to deliver more correct sounds, such as scientific basis of GM foods, to European public," he told SciDev.Net. "The GM-free organic farming in Europe [cherished by environmental groups] relies on huge government and financial support and cannot be realised among small farmers in the developing countries with urgent need for modern agricultural biotechnologies to improve their productivity." Comment by GM-free Ireland:** David McConnell's belief that GM-free organic (and conventional sustainable) agriculture "cannot be realised" by small farmers in the developing world willfully ignores the findings of the United Nations' International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). In April, IAASTD published a 2,500-page report based on peer-reviewed publications which concluded that the yield gains in GM crops "were highly variable" and that in some places "yields declined". Asked at a press conference if GM crops were the answer to world hunger, IAASTD director Prof Bob Watson (now chief scientist at the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) said: "The simple answer is no... The absence of GM crops is not the driver of hunger today". Regarding the patenting of GM seeds, the report states:
	"The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional issues. In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability. In this regard, there is particular concern about present IPR [Intellectual Property Rights] instruments eventually inhibiting seed-saving, exchange, sale and access to proprietary materials necessary for the independent research community to conduct analyses and long term experimentation on impacts. Farmers face new liabilities: GM farmers may become liable for adventitious presence if it causes loss of market certification and income to neighboring organic farmers, and conventional farmers may become liable to GM seed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops."
The IAASTD concludes that for food and crop production "business as usual is no longer an option". It calls for a shift to "agroecological" food production. It specifically questions GM's claims to be the solution to global poverty, hunger or climate change. In fact, large sections of the IAASTD favour organic production, much to the irritation of the GM lobbyists like David McConnell. For details see http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=Plenary&ItemID=2713 Comment by GM Watch: For all of us engaged in the global struggle to prevent the imposition of GMOs, this article is a direct encouragement to campaign harder and raise our voices louder as a counterbalance to the vested interests promoting this technology. Incidentally, it's hard to know what to make of Yang's statement that "there is no scientific evidence of 'gene pollution'". There is indisputable evidence of GM contamination and it is already affecting the trade in goods from China - witness the Chinese rice products that have been found to be contaminated by the illegal experimental GM rice - Bt63. This has led the European Commission to adopt an emergency measure requiring imports of products from China to be certified free of Bt63, while trade authorities in member countries hunt down contaminated products that have already been imported. _______________________ 23 July 2008 Was your takeaway cooked using GM oil? Cost Sector Catering (UK), 23 July 2008. A Surrey County Council trading standards survey has revealed that customers may be unwittingly eating food that has been cooked in oil produced from genetically modified ingredients. It is illegal for caterers to use GM ingredients unless they are clearly labelled on their menus or displayed on a prominent notice, despite this 66% of the cafes; restaurants, takeaways and pubs visited by Surrey Trading Standards Officers were using GM oil in their cooking without letting their customers know. In many cases businesses were not aware of the rules and many unaware of the GM content themselves. Officers visited 56 catering establishments in the county to determine the extent to which GM ingredients are being used to prepare meals - and whether those ingredients are being declared to customers. Thirty-seven (66%) of the businesses visited were using vegetable oil produced from genetically modified Soya, but none appeared to be aware of the rules on GM labelling. David Harmer, Surrey County Council's Executive Member for Environment, said: "Consumers have a right to make an informed choice on the type of food they eat, whether it be GM or non-GM. Caterers need to declare if their foods contain GM ingredients" Peter Denard, Trading Standards Manager, said: "Following these results we are sending GM labelling advice to caterers in Surrey, and are also looking at ways in which the suppliers of the cooking oils could make their customers more aware of the rules on GM labelling." If anyone has concerns about the labelling of food they have bought they should contact the Food Team at Surrey County Council on + 44 (0) 1372 371799. _______________________ Never mind the earth-lovers, GM food is what the world badly needs Irish Examiner, 23 July 2008. By Stephen King. IN Gulliver's Travels, the King of Bobdingnag - the land of the giants - claimed that whoever could make two ears of corn grow where only one grew before was a greater patriot than all the politicians put together. It's sad to note then that nearly 300 years on from the publication of Swift's satire, the politicians are still standing in the way of an agricultural technology that has the potential to do just that. Despite food prices having risen by 50% in two years, the Government appears to have no strategy to reverse things. On the contrary, the direction of policy is all towards supporting the inefficient organic sector. Moreover, it shows no sign of dropping its opposition to new food technologies that offer the prospect, among other things, of higher yields from the same acreage. It's not hard to guess from which quarter in the current coalition the opposition to GM (genetically modified) food principally emanates. Earlier this month, Environment Minister John Gormley mused out loud that Ireland must keep open the option of declaring itself a GM-free zone. This despite the fact that the Food Safety Authority - the expert body - has been generally positive about GM-derived foods. In delaying cultivation, the anti-GM lobbies have exacted a heavy price, not least in the Third World. Closer to home, incredibly, the programme for government not only stakes out an anti-GM position but declares itself in favour of biofuels which require land to be given over from food to fuel production. Is it any wonder supermarket prices are skyrocketing? The politicians believe, of course, that they are reflecting public concerns. If the entire world was well-fed and food prices were static, stay-as-we-are might be an affordable luxury. But when a large proportion of the world's population is still undernourished, don't politicians have a responsibility to show leadership, to support the scientific and agricultural sectors as they explore ways to grow more, better food? In a free society, shouldn't the ultimate decisions lie with consumers who can make up their own minds? As long as the relevant experts are satisfied that GM food is safe - and they are - shouldn't we be left to decide whether or not to purchase it? Isn't that the correct approach rather than engaging in a spurious, never-ending public debate that will inevitably be hijacked by the tiny number of green fundamentalists? 'Safe' is the last word the romantics would use to describe GM. Despite Americans having eaten it for years with no discernible side-effects, these so-called earth-lovers continue to raise claims that eating GM food can cause cancer and liver disease (and heart failure and brain damage and any other unpleasant health complication they can concoct on the basis of some kooky laboratory experiment, one suspects). All credit to the self-styled defenders of our environment, though: they have managed to scare the life out of most of us. They are working with the grain: in the current zeitgeist anything processed or industrialised is potentially harmful, while anything that appears to be close to nature is pure and uncorrupted. So, rather than embracing GM as opening up the possibility of greater control over the properties of plants, the environmentalists reject it as dangerous interference in nature with all sorts of unknown potential problems. Have they forgotten that Mother Nature supplies not only delicious things for us to eat, but also its fair share of toxic fungi, bacteria and viruses? There is a clear paradox here. While we in the developed world enjoy prosperity and health as never before, when it comes to GM foods superstition, ignorance and fear appear to be triumphing over human reason. One suspects that if matters had been left to the likes of Greenpeace, we would all still be hunter-gatherers. Superstition, of course, is as old as time. When Charles Darwin provided a mechanism for the origin of species by means of natural selection, he violated the ancient notion that species are immutable and created by God in a hierarchy - with humans near the top, just below angels. The superstition about GM is similar: a sense that we are 'playing God' by moving genes around. The further each generation is from the land and, thereby, a direct knowledge of crop production, the more susceptible to the scaremongering we become. Many other innovations that are now commonplace in our lives were met with similar scepticism and opposition when first introduced. Some might be able to recall the horror stories about microwave ovens. Before that, pasteurisation and even technologies such as canning and freezing provoked alarm. For all the frightening talk about 'Frankenstein foods', though, GM is simply a new tool for plant breeding, a development of what humans have been doing successfully for centuries: breeding wild grasses into wheat and barley, wolves into dogs and so on. In each case, human choice replaced biological chance. The difference is that now we have the ability to isolate the genes which carry specific traits: the randomness has been taken out of the equation. Throughout history there have been those who embraced this kind of change and those who clung to the old ways because they felt at least the risks were known. And since feeding ourselves was the primary occupation of mankind for most of our history, changes in food production have tended to be accepted only very slowly. Modern intensive agriculture has a bad press. The need to increase food production has resulted in the loss of one-fifth of the world's topsoil and one-third of its forests. BUT organic farming is scarcely the answer: it requires even more land to be devoted to agriculture. This is the dirty little secret the disillusioned financiers who give up the rat-race to sell organic jam, the New Age religionists and the middle-class hypochondriacs don't want you to know. Their response is to turn their fire on new technologies to make agriculture more efficient so more land can be left wild - or to call for us all to eat less and breed less. This hostility to GM makes no sense. Already, GM crops have been designed which are insect-resistant or have a herbicide resistance so they need less spraying. Another benefit is that agricultural land doesn't require such extensive tilling, which allows more organic matter to accumulate in the soil. This is just the beginning. The future holds promise for new GM crop varieties with increased tolerance of drought, heat and cold; with improved disease resistance or nutritional value, or as production systems for pharmaceutical compounds (such as edible vaccines for the developing world) and renewable industrial compounds (such as biodegradable plastics). These ideas might be unfamiliar, but that is no reason to reject them out of hand. The discussion of food illustrates a broader need to remind ourselves just how much modern society has achieved in changing the lives of people for the better through the application of science, industry and reason. Perhaps then we will all be better able to see the ideas of the anti-GM brigade for the manure they really are. Comment from GM-free Ireland: Stephen King's rant lacks scientific accuracy.
•	His belief that chemical-based agriculture is more "efficient" than organic fails to take into account the externalities required for industrial agriculture, including unsustainable fossil fuel inputs to produce the fertiliser and pesticides, topsoil erosion, water table depletion, loss of biodiversity, contamination of the food chain, health impacts, and food miles.
•	His faith in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland ignores the fact that this body is run by a former director of a controversial biotech industry lobby group (the International Life Sciences Institute), and that its GM food safety claims rely on assumptions by the European Food Safety Authority which relies on claims made by the industry it is supposed to regulate.
•	His trust in the biotech industry's myth that GM crops are needed to solve world hunger ignores numerous scientific reports that GM crops on the whole have lower yields and have little or no prospect of increasing food supply, according to the recent report by the United Nations International Assessment of Agriculture, Science and Technology for Development (IAAST).
•	His plea for consumers' freedom to decide ignores the reality that European consumers - who massively reject GM food - are being denied the mandatory labelling of meat, poultry and dairy produce produced from livestock fed on GM ingredients required to make consumer choice possible.
•	His claim that public debate has been hijacked by "green fundamentalists" flies in the face of the Irish media's demonstrably pro-industry bias on GM food and farming, especially in the Irish Times and the Irish Farmers Journal.
•	His assumption that Americans have eaten GM food for years with no discernable side-effects ignores the fact that the U.S. regulatory bodies prevent epidemiological studies by the lack of mandatory labelling required for traceability. Moreover, biotech companies refuse to provide independent scientists with reference material and source data, and no long-term human health studies justify their safety claims.
•	His description of scientific health risk assessments that have set off alarm bells as "kooky laboratory experiments" shows his bias. He views opposition to GM food as "superstition, ignorance and fear" even though scientists have shown that most GM foods contain novel proteins and enzymes our immune systems can not recognise, and that most GM crops have severely damaged genomes, whose impacts on the modified organisms, surrounding ecosystems, livestock and humans are scientifically quite impossible to predict.
•	His description of "moving genes around" as "superstition" flies in the face of the fact that most GM crops are modified by the introduction of DNA from foreign species including viruses and bacteria. His characterisation of such transgenic organisms as "a development of what humans have been doing successfully for centuries" is totally untrue.
•	His characterisation of organic farming's lower output per acre of land as a "dirty little secret" ignores the economics of the hidden subsidies and fossil fuel inputs required for chemical farming.
•	His description of those who support GM-free farming as "disillusioned financiers, New Age religionists and middle-class hypochondriacs" reveals his own emotional hostility, which he ascribes to them.
•	His claim that GM crops need less chemical spraying is false. GM Bt crops are internally saturated with the pesticide which they themselves produce, which enters the food chain directly. Sales of weedkiller have increased dramatically in countries where Monsanto's RoundupReady and other weedkiller-resistant GM crops are grown.
•	His embrace of GM pharma crops which produce drugs and industrial chemicals ignores the collosal health risks that result when these modified crops cross-contaminate food crops.
•	Philip King maintains a deafening silence on the issue of GM crop patents, patent infringment lawsuits, cross contamination, and related economic losses ($1.5bn to US rice growers in 2007 as a result of one GM experiment going out of control).
•	His characterisation of those who oppose GM food and farming as "manure" reveals the nature of his rant.
In reality, Irish farmers are blessed by a fortuitous combination of factors including the lowest levels of topsoil dioxins in Europe, a grass-based beef, dairy and sheep production system with lower use of GM animal feed than most of their European competitors, our world famous green image, and our geographical isolation and western winds which protect us from contamination by trans-boundary wind-borne GM pollen drift from other countries. Irish farmers and food producers have the potential to brand their produce as the safest GM-free food brand in Europe. To realise this potential two things are necessary: they should urge the Government to prohibit GM crops immediately, and follow the lead of 43 EU regions which have adopted a voluntary phasing out of GM animal feed. They should act now to defend this competitive advantage for present and future generations. _______________________ Professor urges Wales to embrace GM crops Western Mail (Wales), 23 July 2008. By Rhodri Clark. WALES was urged yesterday to put aside its "prejudice" against genetically modified food as world food and fuel prices increase. A respected academic warned at the Royal Welsh Show that farmers would be disadvantaged if Wales did not embrace GM technology. But opponents claimed GM crops would not necessarily be cheaper or address farming's main challenge � reducing energy consumption. Professor Wynne Jones, of Harper Adams University College, Shropshire, praised the Welsh Assembly Government for investing in the new Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences at Aberystwyth. He also acknowledged widespread consumer resistance in Europe to GM food, but said the public needed to be educated about the technology. "We must show leadership, and we must encourage young people to take up science," he said. "It's up to us as educationalists and scientists to inform the public and have a debate based on fact and not heated emotions. "When you look at the difficulty of getting GM-free food proteins, particularly for pig and poultry meat, you can see that there are problems in our present anti-GM position. Everybody is embracing GM. We need to push more science and more investment in science. "Our general anti-science approach in the UK means that companies are investing in places like Argentina and the Ukraine rather than our own country. "The public is generally prejudiced against GM technology, and the stand taken by the Welsh Assembly Government feeds that prejudice. "But from 10 to 15 years onwards, biotechnology is going to be the biggest industry. We will be using crops for medicines, fuel and food. "The use of GM crops worldwide and the availability of GM foodstuffs worldwide will make it difficult for any country to remain competitive if it has not been able to adopt the latest technology." Meurig Raymond, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, said non-GM soya already commanded a premium of £60 a ton. "It's anti-competitive for a livestock farming country like ours to be GM-free," he said. "Scientists, politicians and retailers ought to be driving this debate, but retailers in particular don't want to know. As we become less self-sufficient in food, there will be more GM material in imported food anyway." GM crops have been trialled in Wales, but only on a small scale. In 2000 Flintshire farmer John Cottle was allowed to plant GM maize, despite an Assembly vote banning GM crops, because officials in London thought his farm was in England. The crop was damaged by protesters. The Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said the public was well-informed about GM food. "There's been a more sophisticated debate in the UK than in any other country in the world, and when the people have had the information they've decided: �No'," said director Patrick Holden, who farms near Lampeter. "I've got a huge respect for Wynne but I think on this he's wrong. At the moment the farming system uses 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce one calorie of fuel. That's wholly unsustainable. "To my knowledge, there isn't a single example of a GM crop which is being commercially grown which delivers any public benefit. "The benefits are all to do with enhanced sales of seeds and herbicides. The GM agenda is driven by vested interests." - "Small is beautiful, local is beautiful, Welsh people eating Welsh produce is beautiful. That's the future." Gordon James, of Friends of the Earth Cymru, questioned whether GM food would be cheaper than non-GM. "People are concerned about the quality of the food they eat, and what they're focusing on in Wales is good-quality natural food. We could lose that image [by embracing GM] and it would clash with the Assembly's sustainable development brief. "I think we'll see much more emphasis on local food, and people growing their own in gardens and allotments." But potato grower Walter Simon, who farms near Pembroke, said GM foods had not damaged California's reputation for high-quality food. New life in GM debate On both sides of the GM divide yesterday, there was agreement that politicians could be increasingly interested in GM technology due to recent shortages of food and rapid price rises. Pembrokeshire potato farmer Walter Simon, who supports GM crops, said: "For quite a while the public and politicians have been more interested in looking after the landscape and flowers than in food. I think that's changing now, because rising prices are symptoms of the fact that we've got a short- age of grains in the world. That changed the politicians' view of the world for food production." Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, said there was a "danger" politicians would think GM food a good idea. "There are some significant politicians close to the lever of power who have a belief that GM could deliver a new era of greater food security. How would a politician who has never farmed, or been directly involved in agriculture, know better?" Welsh opposition to GM crops March 1999: Two GM trials near Cardiff are announced but later abandoned after protests. May 2000: Assembly votes unanimously for a GM-free Wales; GM crop is sown in Sealand, Flintshire, but later damaged. October 2000: Assembly votes against GM seeds although the rest of the UK has voted in favour. April 2001: Three test GM crops in Wales are licensed in Whitehall, one in Flintshire and two in Pembrokeshire. May 2001: Pembrokeshire trials called off after protests; Assembly makes European law by insisting on separation between GM and other crops. July 2001: More than 100 protesters damage the Flintshire GM maize crop. March 2008: WAG proposes to make GM companies and farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for contamination or "genetic trespass". Western Mail comment THE era of cheap food has come to an end and it may be time to think again about GM crops. The Assembly Government was yesterday accused of feeding prejudice against genetically modified food by Professor Wynne Jones, principal of Harper Adams University College. The United Kingdom has not raced to embrace the GM future. At present there are no GM crops under commercial cultivation. While the UK has been eager to pioneer other areas of biotechnology, the fear of "Frankenstein foods" runs deep in the national psyche. During the past decade we came to expect cheap bread and have been shocked at the recent escalation in the cost of the weekly shop. During the carefree years the only enthusiasts for GM crops appeared to be animated boffins or executives for multinational companies � neither of whom excited the public imagination or attracted sympathy. But now cool-headed experts are urging policymakers to approach GM food with an open mind. Sir David King, the Westminster Government's former chief scientific adviser, believes there is an "urgent" need to begin work in this controversial area of science. Competition for foodstuffs is accelerating at the same time that climate change threatens to make food production more difficult. The rising costs will be passed on to consumers � us � but there is real danger that the world's poorest people will find it even harder to survive. This brings an important ethical dimension into the argument which requires us to put emotions to one side. It is right that we venerate nature and tamper with it only under the tightest regulatory conditions. But just as our understanding of genetics has created the hope that debilitating medical conditions may one day be eliminated, so there is the potential for more dynamic and less wasteful agriculture. Any exploration of GM would need to be balanced with real efforts to halt the spread of deserts and advance safe and equitable access to water. It would be a travesty if the only GM crops brought to market were ones able to withstand a drenching of pesticides. But it is equally wrong that science should be restrained by fear of protests and acts of vandalism, if regulations are the result of rational research and debate � this is a democratic principle. It is "trendy" to boast of a GM-free Wales. The nation takes pride in beating England in the race to ban smoking in public places. But at a time when Welsh farmers are paying a £60 premium on each tonne of non-GM soya, it is foolish not to ask if our aversion to fusing the twin sciences of genetics and agriculture is wholly justified. If prejudice has taken root and shaped our decisions, then it is time to weed it out. _______________________ 22 July 2008 California's GMO Bill Approved by Senate Ag & Judiciary Committees Bill Would Protect Farmers from Monsanto's Harassment Californians for GE-free Agriculture, 22 July 2008. AB 541 is close to becoming California's first state law protecting farmers from the hazards of genetically engineered crops. Having already passed the Assembly, it has since cleared the Senate Agriculture and Judiciary committees and will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 4th and then the full Senate. It has the support of Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the California Farmers Union, California Certified Organic Farmers, the California Farm Bureau, and many food safety and environmental organizations. Introduced by Assembly Member Jared Huffman (6th AD) early in 2007 as a comprehensive bill to address many aspects of the problems associated with genetic engineering (GE) contamination, the bill was held over in the Agriculture Committee in April. Since then, AB 541 has been scaled back to address two provisions related to farmer protections. AB 541 will enact protections for California farmers against frivolous lawsuits that intimidate and harass those who have not been able to prevent the inevitable - the drift of GE pollen or seed. It will level the playing field for farmers accused by agricultural biotechnology companies and other patent holders of contract violations, and discourage the practice of biotech companies sampling crops without explicit permission from farmers and prosecuting based on unverifiable testing results. Specifically, the newly amended bill would provide for:
1.	1. Protection from patent infringement lawsuits for farmers unknowingly contaminated by GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of such lawsuits without clear recourse or defense.
2.	The establishment of a mandatory crop sampling protocol to be used by patent holders when investigating farmers they believe may have violated patents or seed contracts. This protocol would require the farmer's written permission for sampling, and provide for a state agriculture official to accompany the patent holder during the sampling and collect duplicate samples for independent verification if requested by either party.
"I am very pleased that the stakeholders on this issue have found a way to address one of the issues related to genetic contamination of crops," stated Assembly Member Huffman. "While there is still work to do on other issues concerning genetic engineering contamination, AB 541 would be an important step in establishing basic protections for California farmers." "While AB 541 as currently amended represents only a small piece of what our stakeholders identify as issues to be addressed, we think this represents a move in the right direction," stated Renata Brillinger, director of the Genetic Engineering Policy Project, the 13-member coalition of organic and conventional farmers, food industry, environmental, and faith organizations sponsoring AB 541. Background on AB 541 In February 2007, Assemblymember Jared Huffman introduced AB 541, the Food and Farm Protection Act. The original bill would have put in place several important protections against genetic contamination caused by GE crops. It had broad support from dozens of diverse organizations and hundreds of individuals. The State of California has no policies regulating GE crops, and the federal government is failing in its oversight role. Given this regulatory void, eight counties attempted to pass local restrictions on GE crops, four of which now have county bans or moratoria on GE crop production in place. In the 2005/06 legislative session, biotechnology and agribusiness interests sponsored a bill that would have pre-empted local authority over GE, but failed due to a groundswell of opposition from grassroots organizations, citizens, and elected officials around the state. The original scope of AB 541 included the following provisions:
1.	Establishes the right of farmers and landowners to compensation for economic losses due to genetic contamination of their crops
2.	Protects farmers from being sued by a GE manufacturer if their crop is contaminated by that company's GE product.
3.	Establishes a county-level GE crop notification process so that farmers can trace contamination to the GE manufacturer.
4.	Protects the food supply by prohibiting the open-field cultivation of genetically engineered food crops used to produce drugs and biologics such as hormones and antibiotics.
AB 541 passed through its first committee, the Assembly Judiciary, in February 2007 with a vote of 7 - 3. It was then tabled in the Assembly Agriculture Committee in April when it became clear that there were not enough votes to pass. In the intervening months, the bill's supporters and opponents engaged in negotiations which yielded the current version of the bill. It now has the support of the bill's thirteen co-sponsors (the Genetic Engineering Policy Project) as well as the California Farm Bureau Federation who were opposed to the original version. A full copy of the bill as currently amended can be found at the following web site: http://www.legislature.ca.gov The Issues GE and non-GE plants can cross-pollinate and crops can be mixed together during harvest, handling and processing. It is widely known that it is virtually impossible in every case to prevent contamination of non-GE crops by patented GE plants or seeds. In spite of the uncontrollability of genetic contamination, farmers contaminated by GE crops can be and have been sued by GE manufacturers for patent infringement and breach of contract. The State of California has no state laws or regulations governing GE crop production. In 2000, the legislature created a California Biotechnology Task Force. It disbanded without making any recommendations for state oversight. Four California counties have enacted local restrictions on GE crops, and a state pre-emption bill (SB 1056) to override these local laws failed in 2006. In spite of their pervasiveness in food and agriculture, the federal government has no mandatory human or environmental safety testing requirements for GE crops or food. AB 541 Supporters California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations California Certified Organic Farmers California Farm Bureau Federation California Council of Churches IMPACT California Farmers Union Center for Food Safety Center for Environmental Health Community Alliance with Family Farmers Earthbound Farm Occidental Arts and Ecology Center Natural Products Association West Pesticide Action Network North America United Natural Foods Inc. - and many others For more information on this issue, please go to www.gepolicyalliance.org. _______________________ 21 July 2008 During a world food crisis, Monsanto just raised the price of its corn seed $100 a bag Organization for Competitive Markets, July 22 2008 Lincoln, NE - The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) says Monsanto's market power is driving up seed prices and devastating farmers and their communities. OCM sent a letter explaining the economic implications of Monsanto's seed prices on rural communities to 23 state attorneys general today. The organization continues to encourage several state attorneys general to expand their antitrust investigation into Monsanto's suspected anticompetitive practices in the U.S. seed industry "Monsanto's market power has been quietly accruing over several years and has now begun materially impacting price," said Keith Mudd, OCM's board president. "The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmers' choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered." Monsanto executives recently told DTN that they expect to raise the price of some seed corn varieties to $300. The Monsanto executives consider themselves only restrained by the "red-face test." "There is no competitive restraint to this price hike," said Mudd. OCM points to a specific quote from the DTN article: Even the list price on seed corn will topple the $300 per bag barrier starting this fall, up about $95 to $100 per bag, or 35 percent on average, according to Monsanto officials who met with DTN and Progressive Farmer editors this week. For 2009, 76 percent of the company's corn sales will be triple stack, 'so we think we can get the pricing right to show farmers the benefits,' John Jansen, Monsanto's corn traits lead. 'We can pass the red-faced test from the Panhandle of Texas to McLean County, Ill.' "A $100 price increase is a tremendous drain on rural America," said Fred Stokes, OCM's executive director. "Let's say a farmer in Iowa who farms 1,000 acres plants one of these expensive corn varieties next year. The gross increased cost is more than $40,000. Yet there's no scientific basis to justify this price hike. How can we let companies get away with this?" continued Stokes. The lack of innovation and choice in the seed industry, as well as increased prices, will only get worse over time. "If and when the ethanol boom subsides, Monsanto will not lower its prices, farmers will be forced into bankruptcy, and the lack of an effective remedy for antitrust in crop seed will be a substantial cause," added Stokes. OCM is a nonprofit organization working for open and competitive markets and fair trade for American food producers, consumers and rural communities. OCM's Seed Concentration Project aims to foster competition, innovation and choice in the crop seed industry. Contact: Fred Stokes, tfredstokes@hughes.net, +1 601-527-2459 Michael Stumo, stumo@competitivemarkets.com, +1 413-717-0184 Organization for Competitive Markets P.O. Box 6486 Lincoln, NE 68506 USA www.competitivemarkets.com _______________________ Organic route to improved Kenyan soil fertility Financial Times (Letters), July 21 2008 From Mr Hasit Shah and Ms Anna Bradley Sir, Though soils in Africa may be old they have not been intensively farmed as have the lands in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Contrary to the suggestion in 'Soil under strain' (July 17), we have found farmers in Africa willing and able to work their land in a sustainable manner utilising their meagre resources as efficiently as possible. Sunripe farms in the Rift Valley, Kenya, are on well-drained soils formed millions of years ago from volcanic activity. They have been farmed for the past half-century and in recent years have built up composting regimes using cattle manure from the Masai bomas with green matter from crops, and as a result have tremendously improved soil fertility. At the same time crop rotations are carried out diligently with a fertility-building crop every fourth cycle. This has improved the nitrogen levels and organic matter such that subsequent crops come through much stronger and fight off soil-borne diseases and pathogens naturally. We also use earthworms to help break down organic matter and utilise the wormcast in composting regimes to increase other vital soil nutrients such as phosphorus and potassium. These organic agriculture techniques are practical, low-cost and can be easily extrapolated and carried out across Africa to ensure that soils remain viable and sustainable. We wait to see if the large philanthropic funds, like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which have been set up to produce more food using high-tech techniques, will deliver what has been achieved already on a smaller scale in the Rift Valley. We believe there is huge potential in Africa for sustainable, organic practices that improve soil structure and fertility. Organic farmers in Africa have demonstrated that organic techniques can lead to higher yields and improve resilience to pests, disease, drought, and flooding - and the Soil Association is working closely with farmers like Sunripe to promote organic agriculture in East Africa. Hasit Shah, Managing Director, Sunripe, Nairobi, Kenya Anna Bradley, Chair, Soil Association Standards Board, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK _______________________ Enforce GMO ban - Zayco The Virayan Daily Star (Philippines), 21 July 2008. By Carla Gomez. Gov. Isidro Zayco yesterday said he has instructed the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist and other government agencies to fully implement the ordinance banning the entry of Genetically Modified Organisms into Negros Occidental. Provincial Ordinance No. 7 Series of 2007 bans the entry, importation, introduction, planting, growing, selling and trading of GMO plants and animals within Negros Occidental. The first phase of the ordinance implemented on July 19, 2007 banned the entry of living GMOs, and the second phase that took effect Saturday banned the entry of non living GMOs, Renato Bañas of the Negros Organic Agriculture Movement , said. The NOAM yesterday spearheaded a call for the strict enforcement of the ordinance to make Negros Island GMO free. Present were Board Members Mae Javellana and Adolfo Mangao Sr. Provincial Agriculturist Igmedio Tabianan bared information drives and efforts undertaken by his office to ensure compliance of the ordinance. _______________________ Canada approves GM corn Mon 89034 CheckBiotech.org, 21 July 2008. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has approved the commercial release of the genetically modified corn Mon 89034. The GM corn, expressing the cry1A.105 and cry2Ab2 genes for lepidopteran pest resistance, has been authorized for use as livestock feed in the country. Based on thorough scientific assessment, CFIA has determined that the GM corn does not present any livestock feed safety concerns or environmental risks compared to currently commercialized corn varieties in Canada. Any corn lines derived from event MON 89034 may also be released into the environment and used as livestock feed, provided that no inter-specific crosses are performed, the intended uses are similar and the novel genes are expressed at a level similar to that of the authorized line. Comment from GM-free Ireland This new GM variety will inevitably contaminate Canadian and US maize seeds, crops, and maize gluten exports destined for European livestock, further shutting North American farmers out of the lucrative EU market. The Canadian and US governments will then use the resulting economic losses (a) as fresh ammunition in their current attempt to force the EU to give up its "zero tolerance" policy for contamination of the food chain by unapproved GM ingredients, and (b) as a pretext for the WTO to force the EU to legalise this latest mutant maize. Why don't Canadian and American farmers simply grow the GM-free maize which European consumers want their livestock to be fed on? Does Monsanto have monopoly control, and refuse to sell GM-free seed? _______________________ Tests on animals soar as GM studies fuel record number of lab experiments Daily Mail (UK), 21 July 2008. By David Derbyshire. Scientists carried out a record number of experiments on animals last year, with the rise fuelled by genetic modification research. Latest figures show there were 3.2million 'procedures' on lab animals in 2007, a rise of 6 per cent on the previous year and the sixth year in a row that the figure has gone up. More than a third involved genetically modified animals - mostly mice and fish created to mimic human diseases, develop drugs and test chemicals. Scientists said animal experiments were essential for medical research into diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and childhood leukaemia. But animal welfare campaigners described the rise as an 'appalling failure' by the Government. Around 83 per cent of experiments involved mice, rats and other rodents. Fish were used in 10 per cent of tests and birds in 4 per cent. There were 3,964 experiments on monkeys, a fall of 6 per cent. There were 8,795 experiments involving horses and donkeys and 308 using cats. Genetically-modified animals were involved in 1.2 million experiments, 36 per cent of the total. Under Home Office rules, a procedure includes anything from cutting open an animal to breeding a mouse. No experiments were done to test cosmetics and make-up, the Home Office annual report said. The Dr Hadwen Trust, a non-animal medical research charity, said the number of animals tested had exceeded 3million for the first time in 16 years. _______________________ Animal research experiments in UK up 6 pct in 2007 Reuters Life!, 21 July 2008. London -- Animals were used in a little more than 3.2 million medical experiments in Britain in 2007, a 6-percent rise from the previous year, the government said on Monday. The increase was the sixth consecutive annual rise, according to figures released by Britain's Home Office. Most of the animals used in the experiments were mice, rats and other rodents. Less than one percent included dogs, cats, horses or non-human primates, the government said. The rise was due mainly to breeding genetically modified animals -- mostly mice and fish. By turning off or inserting genes in animals scientists hope to improve understanding of human diseases and to develop new treatments. Drug companies say animals are a vital part of the research and development of new medicines and vaccines. Animal rights groups who have fought a campaign against the experiments say the figures mark a 16-year high. _______________________ Small Farmers Pushed to Plant GM Seed Inter Press Service, 21 July 2008. By Kristin Palitza. [image caption: Many small-scale farmers are suspicious of genetically-modified seed, but may plant it anyway when it's offered for free.] Durban, South Africa -- Baphethile Mntambo has been farming organically for the past five years because she knows that avoiding chemicals will in the long-term benefit her yield. She decided not to plant genetically modified seeds because she has heard that they cannot be saved for the next season and will eventually deplete her soil. But she is not entirely sure how and why. "I have heard about GMO, but I don't understand what it is exactly," she says. "The only thing I know is that it will cost a lot of money to buy the seeds, the fertiliser and the pesticides." Mntambo is one of 50 small-scale farmers in the Valley of a Thousand Hills in South Africa's KwaZulu-Natal province who have been taught how to farm organically by non-governmental organisation Valley Trust. The farmers learn to plant seasonal crops that will provide their families both with food security and an opportunity to generate income by selling their produce at local markets. "We decided to promote organic farming to create sustainability for small-scale farmers. We believe it is the only way to give them food sovereignty and stability," explains Valley Trust food security facilitator Nhlanhla Vezi. The Valley Trust used to cooperate with the Department of Agriculture, according to Vezi, but the collaboration ceased when the department started to put pressure on small-scale farmers to form cooperatives if they wanted its support. "The Department makes very attractive offers to provide farming equipment, water piping and seeds, but then uses this as a strategy to push GMO because of agreements they have signed with multinational GM seed patent holders," says Vezi. Rural farmers are often lured into planting GM seeds by the Department of Agriculture by promises of substantial bank loans and the prospect of huge earnings, agrees Lesley Liddell, director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming by encouraging farmers to inter-crop, use natural fertilisers and non-chemical crops. "But in the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilisers and pesticides." Yet, small-scale farmers are often so desperate for financial support that they consider planting GMO crops against better knowledge if they are offered the seeds for free. "I know that GMO is not good in the long run, but if someone gave me these seeds I would still plant them," says Tholani Bhengu, another small-scale farmer who works with the Valley Trust. "For me, the most important thing is to bring food on the table every week. I can't afford to think now about what will happen next year." Because small-scale farmers in rural Africa often have little or no formal education, they are generally unable to make informed choices around GMO farming. "We encourage them to attend portfolio committees that discuss GMO regulations, but the farmers' knowledge is very limited, so it's difficult for them to contribute. They understand the issues but not the legislation," says Liddell. South Africa is the only country within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to grow GM crops -- maize, cotton and soya -- commercially. Since 1997, GMO farming is regulated by the Genetically Modified Organisms Act. "The adoption of GM crops in SA has increased over the last ten years and this has also filtered down to small-scale farmers," confirms Priscilla Sehoole, chief communications officer of the national Department of Agriculture. "As with any other technology, there are potential risks associated with GMO technology and these include those related to human and animal health and also the environment," she admits. "Therefore, the regulation of all activities involving GMOs is subjected to a scientific safety assessment process that evaluates the potential risks." Seehole says the South African Department of Agriculture would like to harmonise GMO policies across SADC to "eliminate some of the technical barriers that (currently) hinder trade in the region." But anti-GMO activists, such as the African Centre for Biosafety, are opposed to this approach. "The GM industry is pushing for harmonised legislation because it will make it easier to commercialise varieties of GM crops across countries. But those concerned with biosafety very much doubt if regional harmonisation (of biosafety legislation) would be of advantage," says African Centre of Biosafety director Mariam Mayet. "At the moment, each SADC country has its own policies and all these laws are very different from each other. This means that each GMO application has to go through the approval system and public consultation of each country, which is good for transparency and accountability " she explains. "When South Africa passed GMO legislation in 1997, most people weren't aware of how highly contentious the technology would become. But now there is no way back. Once you're in it, you're in it," says Mayet. South Africa's food industry is already saturated with GM, she says: "Everything is contaminated, and to make matters worse, labelling of GM content is not mandatory. We need serious policy reform and to implement a testing system that traces which foods contain GMO and which do not." Over the past decade, South Africa has entered trade agreements with large, multi-national agricultural biotechnology corporations, such as Monsanto, which -- in an attempt to control the world's agricultural production -- promote the subsidisation of patented GM seeds. Through an incentive system supporting monocultures, small-scale farmers are systematically integrated into commercial agriculture, mainly for export, and encouraged to put together their land. "It all looks very nice on paper, but it is actually a clever ploy to get access to people's land. Small-scale farmers who sign up for GM deals quickly lose control over seed management, production and eventually their land. This means they lose their food sovereignty," says Mayet. "GMO marginalises poor, small-scale farmers. We are in for hard times and need to fight for people's right to land and resources. But we won't give up." _______________________ CSIRO scientist's GM letter campaign 'backfires' Crikey (Australia), 21 July 2008. By Katherine Wilson. Health scientists have accused CSIRO Plant Industry Deputy TJ Higgins of making innacurate claims, following a CSIRO campaign urging Australian chefs not to boycott genetically modified (GM) food products. As reported in last week's Crikey, Higgins wrote on CSIRO letterhead to more than 50 chefs who had signed Greenpeace's GM-free Chef's Charter. But his letter campaign has "backfired spectacularly", according to Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales, who says health scientists and chefs are angered over public resources being used for pro-GM lobbying. Sydney restaurateur and cookbook author Holly Davis told Crikey some chefs are "very concerned. I thought that CSIRO was an impartial research organisation." Dr Higgins, whose promotion of GM foods is strongly supported by Australia's Chief Scientist Jim Peacock and Victoria's Chief Scientist Gus Nossal, is CSIRO's co-inventor of the GM Field Pea, abandoned because toxicologists found it caused immune problems and lung damage in mice. Does this finding contradict Dr Higgins' assurances to chefs that "independently reviewed tests have not found any connection between health problems and GM"? No, according to Dr Higgins. In a letter to Crikey, he wrote:
	My GM pea research emphasises the effectiveness of case-by-case evaluation of GM plants and the important role science can play in decision-making around the introduction of GM crops. The research does not imply that all GM plants are inherently bad. Food Standards Australia New Zealand undertakes comprehensive evaluation of GM foods to ensure they are safe for human consumption.
But these claims are "simply wrong" says nutritional biochemist and epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman, whom the West Australian government commissioned to undertake independent studies into the safety of GM foods. Carman told Crikey: "TJ Higgins' GM pea provides a clear example of the failings of our current GM food regulatory regime. The pea failed miserably on all the [independent health] tests conducted." And despite Higgins' claims, "these tests are not required by our food regulator". Her assertions are backed by health advocate Dr Kate Clinch-Jones, a director of the Institute for Health and Environment Research, who is concerned that preliminary independent studies, which suggest allergic responses, organ damage and precancerous growth in mice fed GM foods, have not been followed up. And Crikey has confirmed that contrary to what might be implied in Higgins' letter, FSANZ did not request any of the independent testing that found health hazards in Higgins' GM Pea, which was initially meant for livestock consumption. Nor do FSANZ and the US Food and Drug Administration require such testing for any GM food for human consumption. FSANZ spokesperson Lydia Buchtmann said such testing "does not conform to validated methods for GM food safety assessments". But she says FSANZ has "a rigorous process for approving GM foods to ensure they are as safe as the conventional variety", including tests for allergens. Dr Higgins is also accused of making innacurate claims on two other fronts. First, his claim to chefs that:
	It is untrue to say that GM food has not been tested for human safety. It has, and very widely. These independently reviewed tests have not found any connection between health problems and GM.
This is disputed by toxicologist Dr Aprad Pusztai, who co-authored a study on Higgins' GM Pea. "There is only one partial clinical study with one GM crop (RR soybean) done in Newcastle and published in 2004," says Pusztai. This study apparently produced worrying evidence that GM material might survive in the human gut -- a finding which, says Pusztai, is "hardly a resounding confirmation of Dr Higgins' claim. No other human study has been published." Higgins, as a plant industry scientist, is not qualified to make the claims in his letter campaign to chefs, says Dr Pusztai. "He has no background or track record in nutritional research and thus he should refrain from making comments on the safety or otherwise of any GM product." "We published a paper on this study in 1999 in which he is a co-author but his role was confined to providing the GM and non-GM pea samples for our study and he contributed nothing else." Professor Paul Foster, who led the Australian National University team that found immune problems in rats fed Higgins' GM Field Pea, was contacted for comment, but did not respond in time for this story. Given scientists' criticisms of his claims, Dr Higgins reiterated that CSIRO "supports FSANZ's comprehensive evaluation of GM foods. We back the case-by-case assessment of GM products." To which Pusztai responded: "Higgins' response dodges the issue by referring to FSANZ assurances." And other health scientists have complained to Crikey about "inadequate" FSANZ GM safety testing. Their complaints and FSANZ's responses will be published in a future report. Another scientist, Dr Maartan Stapper, disputes a third claim made by Dr Higgins in his Crikey letter. Higgins wrote that "No-one has been sacked from CSIRO for speaking out on GM." Stapper, who worked at CSIRO for 23 years, said he spoke out about inadequate testing of GM foods, but met with stonewalling from CSIRO. He said the organisation "doesn't allow internal questioning of GM, no scientific discussion, and as a farming systems agronomist I was told not to talk to farmers and in public against GM, with the threat of being fired." While CSIRO continues to support pro-GM public campaigning, Stapper was fired last year, allegedly for speaking out about the hazards of GM food crops. _______________________ 20 July 2008 Hungry for solutions Sunday Business Post (Ireland), 20 July 2008. By Garvan Grant. It has probably come to most people's attention by now that the world is in rag order. Global warming is getting worse, the credit crunch is affecting everyone and the Olympics are being held in China. There are wars going on all over the place, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, and Iran is just begging to have some democracy imposed on it. For some bizarre reason, religion - which is supposed to unite people - seems to be causing more harm than good. In Ireland, the recession seems to get worse every day, the weather has been very Irish and Michael O'Leary won't shut up. There is one other major problem which is also affecting people everywhere: the global food crisis. Food is getting more expensive throughout the world. This has been caused by various things, including the Chinese and Indians eating more grain, meat and McDonald's than before, and the west's appetite for biofuels. Many people are saying that the days of cheap food are over for good. Fortunately, it will be mainly the poor, the very poor and the incredibly poor who will suffer from this world food crisis, so those of us living in wealthy countries in the west should be okay. As always, we rich folk manage to do quite nicely, although to be fair to us, it probably wasn't our fault to begin with. If you look at these things carefully, you tend to see that the poor are usually to blame. One cause of the credit crunch in the US was the fact that the poor wouldn't pay back the huge mortgages that financial institutions had given them. The poor are generally hungry anyway, so the global food crisis can't affect them too much. An interesting statistic reveals that, in 2006, there were eight hundred million people in the world who were hungry. However, don't be too concerned because, in the same year, there were one billion people who were overweight, which sort of strikes a nice balance. Those eight hundred million people will be used to hunger so we shouldn't really worry about them. It is the one billion tubby people we need to be concerned about, as international food prices get higher and higher. However, there are solutions to the crisis. First, we must give as much control as possible to huge multinational firms who know what people want to eat and how to force farmers into growing food as cheaply as possible. These companies know how to get the most out of land and know which foods -meat, wheat, corn and soy - are the best to concentrate on. They also have the power to gently persuade farmers to grow what they want them to grow. For example, why would these multinationals want farmers to grow artichokes if no one eats them? We like eating chicken burgers, so more bread and chicken meat should be grown. The multinationals can help by persuading farmers and meat producers to concentrate on tasty stuff like that. Fortunately, some of these firms are also promoting the modern miracle of genetically modified food, which can help to increase yields in a completely unnatural way. What a lovely coincidence that genetically modified food is now being touted as away to feed a hungry world. All those cynics out there who are worried about the risks and dangers of genetically modifying plants and animals to suit our needs obviously hate poor people. In contrast, multinational food corporations obviously love poor people. Mass production and the ongoing industrialisation of the food industry are the only ways to solve the food crisis, and that is why we are so lucky to have big firms taking such an interest. The world needs and wants food that is highly processed. People want and need as much sugar and fat in their diets as possible. We need to increase yields as much as possible, which is also where the use of chemicals comes in. We need to concentrate on growing as much wheat, corn and soy as possible. The world's consumers must stand up and demand to eat the food we want to eat, which is mainly burgers. We must demand to be fed, not nourished. We must demand food that is cheap. It is possible that this will eventually cause an increase in obesity, diabetes, coronary disease and cancer, among other things. But we don't have to worry because there are multinational firms out there who can create drugs to treat all these illnesses. _______________________ Government should listen to public on GM foods Letter to the editor of the Irish Times, 20 July 2008 (not published in the newspaper) Madam, Your recent article quoting the government's chief scientific adviser's argument that the use of GM foods is inevitable in the EU (18 July) is a perfect example of the increasing divide that is developing between European citizens and their governments, and of the distortion of scientific evidence surrounding GM food, GM animal feed and GM crops. Some 70 per cent of people in Europe oppose GM food. In the wake of the Lisbon Treaty referendum, the government should be acutely aware of the consequences of ignoring what its citizens want. Professor Cunningham's assumption that GM crops are flooding the market and filling supermarket shelves does not hold water: 92.5 per cent of the world's arable land is GM-free and 90 per cent of GM crops are produced by only four countries (the US, Brazil, Argentina and Canada). GM crops do not have higher yields and require more pesticides than conventional agriculture. The patenting of GM seeds is also bad news for farmers. The 2008 UN agricultural assessment found that the use of GM patents "may drive up costs [...] while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability." The lack of scientific studies on the impact of GM farming on human and animal health is not a reason in itself to introduce them. There is however plenty of evidence that GM crops have negative impacts on flora, fauna and the environment. The Irish government would be wise to pay heed to the precautionary principle and listen to its citizens. Marco Contiero Greenpeace European Unit Brussels _______________________ Chief Scientific Adviser should resign Letter to the editor of the Irish Times, 20 July 2008 (not published in the newspaper) Madam, Yesterday's article by Dick Ahlstrom (Use of GM foods inevitable � expert) quotes the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Prof Paddy Cunningham, who wants us to accept GM food against the wishes of the vast majority of EU farmers, retailers, and consumers. Contrary to what Prof Cunningham implies, GM crops are grown on 0.21% of EU farmland, and leading EU retailers are beginning to extend their bans on food containing GM ingredients to also exclude meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed. Last year, one million citizens of EU member states signed a petition demanding mandatory labelling for the latter, based on the consumer's right to choose. And 43 EU Regions have already adopted quality agriculture strategies which avoid the use of GM animal feed. Prof Cunningham is is a member of the biotech lobby group European Action on Global Life Sciences (EAGLES), a task force of the European Federation of Biotechnology whose members comprise numerous biotech and pharmaceutical industry groups including Monsanto Europe, the Association of German Biotech Companies, the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (USA), etc. He is also a member of the Irish National Council on Bioethics, whose 2005 report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" was a masterfully crafted piece of spin which concluded that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself". Cunningham is also the former Chairman of the EU Advisory Committee on the Future of Biotechnology, and a former member of the European Group on Life Sciences. He recently worked as a consultant for the US company Elanco (a division of the US pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Co. that markets Monsanto's GM-produced Recombinant Bovine Somatotrophin growth hormone Posilac, which is illegal in the EU. Having a biotech industry lobbyist occupy the post of Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland is a conflict of interest. Prof Cunningham should be told to resign. Yours etc Michael O'Callaghan Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network _______________________ GM foods Letter to the editor of the Irish Times, 20 July 2008 (not published in the newspaper) Dear Madam, Dick Ahlstrom's report on Professor Cunningham's report on GM foods is a perfect illustration of the fact that you can no longer trust anything scientific until you know exactly who paid for it. The report is simply not scientific in the old, ethical sense of the word. Amongst the many inaccuracies in his report are the following. 1. It is well known that GM crops do NOT increase yields. 2. It is well known that the total resistance to specific herbicides comes at huge cost to the quality of the crops that can now be drenched in those chemicals (sold by the same company, of course) before being sold for our consumption. And let's not go into the damage to the environment caused being able to safely smother crops in chemicals for a little bit more profit - they hope. 3. It is well known that the limited research that has been done (guess who is trying to stop such research) shows clearly that there ARE dangers to human and animal health. 4. Simply because lots of people were using asbestos did not mean that it was therefore safe for more people to use it. If Cunningham is really a professor, he is intelligent enough to know well the dishonesty of that circular argument. 5. It is well known that most small farmers will be driven out of business because of the need to buy seeds every year instead of using the old ones. This will be especially cruel to the poorer areas of the world. Admittedly corporations are not in business for human welfare but our politicians should at least pretend to be interested. 5. It is well known that Ireland without GM crops could be the bread basket of Europe because of all the Europeans that don't want them. Ireland without GM crops would have a competitive advantage and that is what the people that pay Cunningham and his like don't want. If we get bullied dishonestly down the same road as the other countries, Irish agriculture can start closing down now. Yours rather angrily, Richard Barton (Consultant in nutritional medicine, counsellor and writer) Kevin Street, Tinahely, Co. Wicklow, Rep. of Ireland. _______________________ 18 July 2008 Call for Irish Government's Chief Scientific Adviser to resign Prof Paddy Cunningham exposed as biotech industry lobbyist GM-free Ireland press release, 18 July 2008. Available as printer-friendly download: www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI40.pdf Today's Irish Times article by Dick Ahlstrom, "Use of GM foods inevitable - expert" [1] quotes the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Prof Paddy Cunningham, who wants us to accept GM food against the wishes of the vast majority of EU farmers, retailers, and consumers. Contrary to what Prof Cunningham implies, GM crops are grown on 0.21% of EU farmland, and leading EU retailers are beginning to extend their bans on food containing GM ingredients to also exclude meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed. Last year, one million citizens of EU member states signed a petition demanding mandatory labelling for the latter, based on the consumer's right to choose. And 43 EU Regions have already adopted quality agriculture strategies which avoid the use of GM animal feed. Prof Cunningham is is a member of the biotech lobby group European Action on Global Life Sciences (EAGLES), a task force of the European Federation of Biotechnology whose members comprise numerous biotech and pharmaceutical industry groups including Monsanto Europe, the Association of German Biotech Companies, the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (USA), etc. He is also a member of the Irish National Council on Bioethics, whose 2005 report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" was a masterfully crafted work of biotech industry spin which concluded that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself". Cunningham is also the former Chairman of the EU Advisory Committee on the Future of Biotechnology, and a former member of the European Group on Life Sciences. He recently worked as a consultant for the US company Elanco (a division of the US pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Co. that markets Monsanto's GM-produced Recombinant Bovine Somatotrophin growth hormone Posilac, which is illegal in the EU. Having a biotech industry lobbyist occupy the post of Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland is a conflict of interest. Prof Cunningham should be removed from his post. The Irish Times' uncritical coverage of Prof Cunningham's advocacy of GM food and farming is to be expected, since the Chairman of the Irish Times Trust which owns the newspaper - Prof Prof David McConnell of TCD - is the Vice-President of the same lobby group, EAGLES. In "Debating GM: An analysis of GM coverage in the Irish Times and the Irish Farmers Journal from March 2004 to February 2006" [2], a Dublin Institute of Technology thesis by journalism student Emma Somers made a quantitative analysis of the sources, and a qualitative analysis of GM coverage in these two papers. The study revealed significant bias towards the biotech industry. Of the 48 articles published in the Irish Times, 65% quoted official sources, 13% quoted biotech industry sources, 10% quoted farming sources, and 6 % quoted biotech industry lobby groups. Only 21% quoted NGOs (which have the most expertise on the subject) and 10% quoted farming sources (which are most affect by GM policies). Most articles framed the issue as scientists versus Luddites. Disinformation of this kind - perpetrated through biased, misleading, irresponsible reporting - and the conflict of interest between Prof. McConnell's dual roles as Chairman of the Irish Times Trust and Vice President of the EAGLES biotech lobby group are not acceptable for the newspaper of record in Ireland's "knowledge-based economy". The paper's demonstrable bias clearly violates the core object of the Irish Times Trust's Memoranda and Articles of Association, "to publish an independent newspaper primarily concerned with serious issues for the benefit of the community throughout the whole of Ireland, free from any form of personal or of party political, commercial, religious or other sectional control." Contact: Michael O'Callaghan Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network Tel + 353 404 43885 o mobile: + 353 87 799 4761 email: mail@gmfreeireland.org web: www.gmfreeireland.org Notes for editors: 1. "Use of GM foods inevitable in EU - expert", by Dick Ahlstrom, Science Editor, Irish Times, 18 July 2008 (see next item below). 2. For details download GM-free Ireland press release "Irish Times slammed for bias on GM issues" (25 October 2007): http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI37.pdf _______________________ Use of GM foods inevitable in EU - expert The Irish Times, 18 July 2008. By Dick Ahlstrom, Science Editor. It is inevitable that EU states will accept genetically modified foods, despite the fact that 70 per cent of people are opposed to them, the Government's chief scientific adviser has stated. Foods containing modified ingredients are already on our supermarket shelves and livestock here is being fed genetically modified feeds. Prof Patrick Cunningham answered questions about the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods yesterday while attending the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. He also handled questions on a range of subjects including future energy supplies, risks posed by overhead power lines and waste incineration and climate change. Prof Cunningham issued a formal report to Government on GM foods last summer. It looked at safety, benefits and risks and, after assessing a range of studies on the issue, he believed GM was of value to Ireland. "The answer has to be yes," he told the Committee. "[GM] is not going to go away and it is advancing at a hell of a rate," he said. Countries around the world were growing about 100 million hectares of GM corn, cotton, soyabean and rice. Genetic modifications impart resistance to herbicides and insect attack, providing cost and yield improvement for the farmer, he said. "This has given a tremendous competitive advantage to those using [GM]." We are already consuming foods with GM content, he said. About 60 per cent of products contain either corn or soya ingredients. "In fact, GM products are on the supermarket shelves," he said. "We are using approved GM corn in pig feed in Ireland today." The safety of these products was a key element of the report, he said. The results of a survey of the limited literature on the subject suggested that the consumption of GM foods did not pose a health risk. Comment by GM-free Ireland See above "Call for Irish Government's Chief Scientific Adviser to resign: Prof Paddy Cunningham exposed as biotech industry lobbyist", GM-free Ireland press release, 18 July 2008, available as pdf download from www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI40.pdf _______________________ Controlled Release of GM Banana in Australia Monsanto.co.uk, 28 July 2008. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has received an approval from Australia's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) for the limited and controlled release of up to 17 banana lines genetically modified for disease resistance. The release will take place in Cassowary Coast, Queensland on a maximum total area of 1.4 ha between July 2008 and April 2010. The GM lines contain the ced-9 gene from the nematode C. elegans that is expected to provide the plants protection against pathogenic microorganisms. The gene encodes a protein that prevents plant cells from undergoing programmed cell death (apoptosis) in response to pathogen attack. The banana lines also contain the antibiotic selectable marker gene nptII. The decision to issue the license was made after extensive consultation on the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) with the public, State and Territory governments and relevant local councils. None of the GM bananas will be used as food or animal feed as the trials only aim to conduct proof of concept experiments on their disease response. For more information, visit http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir079-2007 Comment from GM-free Ireland: If these GM bananas containing DNA from nematode worms cross contaminate natural bananas, billions of people will never eat bananas again! _______________________ Saying no to Fruit Loops: Flint-area people join Internet campaign against Kellogg's and biotech crops The Flint Journal, 18 July 2008. By Elizabeth Shaw. FLINT, Michigan -- The grandkids won't munch Froot Loops anymore when they come to visit Mark Fisher and Kathleen Kirby. "They'll be getting organic oatmeal here," said Kirby, a retired English teacher from the Flint School District. The Flint couple are among those calling for a national consumer boycott against Battle Creek-based Kellogg Co., the world's leading cereal maker, in an effort to block the use of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets in products ranging from candy and breakfast cereal to bread. The Internet-based boycott is spreading mostly through Web sites dedicated to organic foods and natural health. "Kellogg isn't the only one. It's just the one we're going after," said Kirby. "If we can't stop this, there's going to be a domino effect. Pretty soon all processed foods will have genetically altered sugar and we won't be able to tell because it isn't on the label." Other local people are involved besides Kirby and Fisher. "If you just boycott Froot Loops without explaining why, you may have a mutiny on your hands. But kids actually change faster than adults," said fellow boycotter Brenda McCumons of Lapeer, a registered nurse. "Once they hear the 'why' and find out the foods good for them actually taste good, they don't have trouble giving up the junk." Industry officials discount the alarm bells sounded by the health activists and say critics overlook the advantages of GE crops. About half of Michigan's sugar beet crop planted this spring is the new "Roundup Ready" genetically engineered variety, said Jim Byrum, president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association. "Iit took a lot of work all the way through the system to make sure this was no surprise. And it's not as if it's a new technology," said Byrum. "We hear some fringe groups expressing concern ... but we're not hearing a general outcry from the general populace at all." No one has found evidence that biotech foods currently on supermarket shelves present a danger to human health. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration admits there are concerns, such as the potential for introducing new allergens into foods. "When you begin to mess with genes, we don't know what's going to happen in the long run," said Fisher, a retired science teacher. "Nature will allow us to cross-pollinate one kind of corn with another. But when you cross a couple genes out of a fish into a carrot, Ii don't know where that's going to end up. I don't mind if they run the experiment -- I Jjust don't want to be part of it." The new "Roundup Ready" sugar beets are genetically altered to withstand a popular Monsanto herbicide, following on the heels of Roundup Ready corn, soy and cotton. This year, 72 percent of Michigan's corn and 84 percent of soybeans are biotechnology varieties, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Michigan ranks fourth in the U.S. for sugar beet production, producing nearly 3.5 million tons in 2007, according to the USDA. Kellogg doesn't currently use sugar from genetically engineered sugar beets; the seeds were approved for planting for the first time this spring by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles said the company likely will use it once it enters the nation's sugar supply. "Biotechnology is not unique to Kellogg or other food manufacturers in the United States, with biotechnology-produced grains having been grown in the U.S. for the past decade," said Charles. "We use grain from a number of suppliers in our country, so our supply would likely include (GE) grain in the same proportion that it occurs in the United States supply. Our position on use of GE sugar ... is the same." Byrum said GE critics are missing the target for their concerns. "Without these advanced technologies the cost of production would be substantially higher. Plus, there are millions of tons of additional pesticides and herbicides we don't use today because of them," said Byrum. "Even the pope and the G8 Summit have endorsed biotech to help alleviate the scarcity of the food supply around the world." Kellogg products sold in Europe are free of biotech ingredients while U.S. products only comply with U.S. regulations -- which don't require labeling or restriction of gene-altered foods. "In the U.S., most consumers are not concerned about biotechnology, and we receive very few contacts on the subject," said Charles. "We decide whether or not to use biotech ingredients on a market-by-market basis, depending on national regulations, labeling requirements, consumer preferences and production/distribution." Fisher agrees organic foodies such as he and his wife are in the minority of Kellogg customers. "I'm sure we're not gonna hurt 'em at all. Their bottom line won't change because of what we don't buy," he said, jokingly. But that could change, said Lapeer's McCumons. "I think one person can make a huge difference in any effort they're committed to. That to me is the essence by which many people have changed the world," she said. "If we don't make a stand in our grocery stores ... they're not going to do it. "One voice with another voice can create a choir that will be heard." _______________________ Retailers Get Strict on Green Standards for Suppliers Environmental Leader, 18 july 2008. Wal-Mart and Whole Foods made announcements this week requiring that suppliers meet the company's sustainability standards. Wal-Mart Stores recently launched a line of fine jewelry that allows consumers to trace the source of gold, silver, and diamonds online. Working with Conservation International and its supply chain partners, Wal-Mart says it is making sure the gems used in its jewelry line meet the retailer's sustainability standards and criteria, which addresses environmental, human rights and community issues. It is aiming for 10 percent of its jewelry line to achieve these standards by 2010. Another retailer getting tough with its supplier is Whole Foods Market, which recently implemented enhanced farmed seafood standards for all farmed seafood sold at its stores, and requires its suppliers to pass an independent, third-party audit. Whole Foods Market already prohibits the use of antibiotics, added growth hormones, preservatives, poultry and mammalian by-products in feed, and genetically modified or cloned seafood. The new guidelines have the following stipulations: 1. Producers are required to minimize the impact of fish farming on the environment. 2. Producers must provide detailed information on farming practices and pass independent third-party audits. 3. Producers are required to show farm-to-fork traceability. 4. Toxic chemicals such as malachite green and organophosphate pesticides are prohibited. Wegmans Food Markets and Environmental Defense recently announced a purchasing policy for farmed shrimp. _______________________ 17 July 2008 New scientific evidence of GM maize impact on insects Testing Time for Substantial Equivalence: Daphnia magna survival and fitness reduced when fed MON810 (Bt Cry1Ab) maize Bioscience Resource Project, 17 June 2008 http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/news19.php Commercially, insect-resistant transgenic (GMO) plants are made by inserting a gene coding for one of a family of toxins produced by the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. These Bt toxins are regarded by most regulators to be safer for the environment than externally applied synthetic pesticides and this is because, as plant-expressed proteins, they are considered specifically targeted to organisms that consume the crop (Glaser and Matten, 2003). As a result of this understanding Bt toxins expressed by transgenics are managed as a 'public good' by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1998). However, Bt toxins are often expressed at high levels within plant tissues (typically for insertion event MON810 this is around 10ug/g fresh weight of Cry1Ab) and they persist in the soil, either within plant cells or as native protein (Baumgarte and Tebbe 2005; Griffiths et al. 2006). Therefore, contained within a field of Bt maize there can be many kilograms of a Bt protein at any one time. As a consequence, there is potential for significant exposure of non-target organisms, both in and around fields growing transgenic Bt crops. Environmental risk assessments of transgenic crops have until now focused exclusively on consequences for non-aquatic organisms (NRC 2000). A recent study however, showed that debris and pollen of plants transgenic for Bt-toxins can enter nearby agricultural streams in large quantities (Rosi-Marshall et al. 2007). This same paper also reported that two caddisfly species, which are ecologically important stream organisms, are sensitive to Cry1Ab-containing leaves and pollen (Rosi-Marshall et al. 2007). As Bt researcher Angelika Hilbeck (ETH-Zurich) told the BSR News Service: "We have entirely overlooked aquatic ecosystem effects of transgenic toxins". Now, a further aspect of freshwater toxicology has been addressed by a study published in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. This study reports that Daphnia magna, a freshwater crustacean arthropod commonly used in toxicological investigations, can also be negatively affected by Bt transgenic plant debris containing the Bt toxin Cry1Ab (Bøhn et al. 2008). In this study, D. magna populations were fed either kernels of ground transgenic maize (containing event MON810) or non-modified isogenic maize kernels. The plant material for these experiments was grown in adjacent fields. The Results Bøhn et al.'s findings were that mortality, growth and fertility of D. magna were all negatively affected by the MON810-containing line compared to the control maize. Interestingly, however, the animals fed transgenic maize showed early maturation, indicating a likely toxic response to a component of the transgenic maize, rather than a response to malnutrition. The authors suggest that their results reinforce the possibility that Cry1Ab transgenics may have significant implications for aquatic ecosystems. However, the mechanism by which the transgenic maize affects D. magna is not resolved by this data. One possibility is that the assumption that Cry1Ab is lepidopteran-specific may be inaccurate or, alternatively, Cry1Ab may be modified within the cellular environment of plants. In either case, transgenic Cry1Ab, and perhaps other cultivars containing different Bt toxins, may be toxic to non-target organisms to an unexpected degree. Cry proteins may thus be having effects on soil arthropods (for which there are no published studies on Bt toxin effects). Angelika Hilbeck however is cautious: "It is difficult to make cross-comparisons from water to land ecosystems, since they are such different environments". Since MON810 was the only Cry1Ab event studied by Bøhn et al., there remains an alternative mechanistic possibility however, which is that the effects on D. magna are a result of some unanticipated consequence of transgene insertion or expression. Such unanticipated effects are not merely theoretical: Rosi-Marshall et al. normalised their results for C:N ratios because Cry1Ab containing Bt maize varieties have more lignin than non-Bt varieties (Saxena and Stotzky 2001). This normalisation was done to prevent any confounding influences of nutritional quality from affecting their results (Rosi-Marshall et al. 2007). A recent paper detailing the first proteomic analysis of a MON810-containing cultivar may be relevant to this discussion. The authors found at least 43 significant protein expression differences between the MON810 line and a near-isogenic control (Zolla et al. 2008). Given this perhaps surprising degree of difference between a transgenic cultivar and a non-transgenic isoline, it becomes plausible to imagine that one of these differences might be responsible for the effects observed on D. magna. A substantial equivalence connection? Irrespective of whether Cry1Ab (or some other MON810 constituent) turns out to be the specific cause of increased D. magna mortality, Bøhn et al.'s result (and also the caddisfly result) constitute a challenge also to the regulatory doctrine of substantial equivalence. According to this principle, MON810 has been declared 'substantially equivalent' and it should be safe for all organisms (other than known targets of Cry1Ab), whether they are D. magna or humans. Instead, MON810 is apparently substantially equivalent but not safe. These new results may stimulate discussion of the concept of substantial equivalence and its relationship to GMO safety. One possible interpretation of this data is that it disproves absolutely the existence of any fundamental relationship between substantial equivalence and safety. Instead, it supports the view that substantial equivalence was never a true scientific concept, as has been argued, it is a regulatory 'principle' associated with no biological relationship nor any theoretical validity (Millstone et al. 1999). Other interpretations are also possible however: that substantial equivalence is still useful, even if the relationship with safety is not absolute. In this view recent results weaken the relationship but do not disprove it, rather like examples of differences between human and rat toxicology weaken, but do not wholly invalidate, the predictive power of that relationship. In either event it may no longer be appropriate to say that a transgenic crop is substantially equivalent and therefore safe. Thomas Bøhn however takes a very different tack: his answer to this conundrum is that MON810 was originally determined incorrectly by US (and also EU) regulators as substantially equivalent. This answer however, illustrates another apparent problem of substantial equivalence: that there is no agreed, universal or a priori set of criteria of what, in terms of crop composition, constitutes a finding of a substantial difference (Millstone et al. 1999). Other things being equal, substantial equivalence, it seems, will either have to be reconsidered, or it will acquire the probably unique distinction of violating twice, Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria of a scientific theory. Put another way, is substantial equivalence so elastic, either in its specific determination for a particular crop, or in its application as a general measure of safety, that it is not in practice falsifiable? References Baumgarte, S. and Tebbe, C.C. (2005) Field studies on the environmental fate of the Cry1Ab Bt-toxin produced by transgenic maize (MON810) and its effect on bacterial communities in the maize rhizosphere. Mol. Ecology 14: 2539�2551 Bøhn T., Primicerio R., Hessen D.O., Traavik T. (2008) Reduced Fitness of Daphnia magna Fed a Bt-Transgenic Maize Variety. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. DOI 10.1007/s00244-008-9150-5 Glaser, J.A. and Matten, S.R. (2003) Sustainability of insect resistance management strategies for transgenic Bt corn. Biotechnology Advances 22: 45-69 Griffiths, B.S.; Caul, S.; Thompson, J.; Birch, A.N.E.; Scrimgeour, C.; Cortet, J.; Foggo, A.; Hackett, C.; Krogh, P.Soil Microbial and Faunal Community Responses to Bt Maize and Insecticide in Two Soils J. Environmental Quality 35: 734-741 Millstone, E. Brunner, E. and Mayer, S. (1999) Beyond 'substantial equivalence'. Nature 401: 525-26 NRC (2000) Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation Natl. Acad. Press Washington, DC, USA Rosi-Marshall, E.J.; J. L. Tank; T. V. Royer; M. R. Whiles; M. Evans-White; C. Chambers; N. A. Griffiths; J. Pokelsek and M. L. Stephen (2007) Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 16204�16208 Saxena, D. and Stotzky, G. (2001) Bt corn has a higher lignin content than non-Bt corn. Am. J. Bot. 88: 1704-1706 US-EPA (1998) The environmental protection agency's white paper on Bt plant-pesticide resistance management. Washington: . http://www.epa.gov/biopesticides _______________________ Look for the silver lining Piracy is a bad thing. But sometimes companies can turn it to their advantage The Economist, 17 July 2008. [Extract only: full article at http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750492] "Merchant and pirate were for a long period one and the same person," wrote Friedrich Nietzsche. "Even today mercantile morality is really nothing but a refinement of piratical morality." Companies, of course, would strongly disagree with this suggestion. Piracy is generally bad for business. It can undermine sales of legitimate products, deprive a company of its valuable intellectual property and tarnish its brand. Commercial piracy may not be as horrific as the seaborne version off the Horn of Africa (see article). But stealing other people's R&D, artistic endeavour or even journalism is still theft. That principle is worth defending. Yet companies have to deal with the real world�and, despite the best efforts of recorded-music companies, luxury-goods firms and software-industry associations, piracy has proved very hard to stop. Given that a certain amount of stealing is going to happen anyway, some companies are turning it to their advantage. ... Another example, from agriculture, shows how piracy can literally seed a new market. Farmers in Brazil wanted to use genetically modified (GM) soyabean seeds that had been engineered by Monsanto to be herbicide-tolerant. The government, under pressure from green groups opposed to GM technology, held back. Unable to obtain the GM seeds legitimately, the farmers turned to pirated versions, many of them "Maradona" seeds brought in from Argentina. Eventually the pirated seeds accounted for over a third of Brazil's soyabean plantings, and in 2005 the government relented and granted approval for the use of GM seeds. Monsanto could then start selling its seeds legitimately in Brazil. _______________________ WTO deal among keys for food security - UK govt Reuters, 17 July 2008. By Nigel Hunt. LONDON - More fertiliser in Africa, a global trade pact and maybe even genetically modified crops could help tackle global food security as rising prices drive millions into poverty, Britain's farm ministry said on Thursday. Britons are increasingly growing their own food as prices rise and fears mount about future supplies, the ministry said in a report launching a debate on food security. "High energy prices, poor harvests, rising demand from a growing population, use of biofuels and export bans have all pushed up prices and ... have sparked riots and instability in a number of countries around the world," the report said. "The effects of these price increases are pushing millions of people in developing countries further into poverty and hunger," it added. The ministry said global stability depended on there being enough food in the world to feed everyone and for it to be distributed in a way that was fair to all, criticising farm subsidies in the European Union and the United States. "EU and U.S. tariffs and subsidies hinder the development of the agricultural sector in poorer economies," the report said, adding a world trade pact could lift millions out of poverty. "They offer unfair incentives to farmers in developed countries to produce food, they deny poorer countries access to markets through protecting tariff barriers and they undermine local production in poorer countries." Trade ministers from around the world are due to meet at the World Trade Organisation from next Monday as they seek to make a breakthough in the Doha round of negotiations. The report said average the tariff on non-agricultural goods was 4 percent but tariffs of 70 percent were not uncommon for commodities such as sugar and beef under the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. African fertiliser It said increasing productivity in developing countries would require more fertiliser. Fertiliser use in Africa was the world's lowest at 8 kg per hectare, against 311 kg in Britain. Genetically modified (GM) crops could also have a role in helping meet future demand for food. "It is possible that GM crops may be able to make an important contribution to improving crop yields and resilience. We need to see how the technology develops but we must not compromise safety or harm the environment," the report said. The ministry said there was some evidence that growing demand for biofuels had contributed to rising food prices although the extent of the contribution was unclear. Britain now produces 60 percent of its food, down from about 80 percent in the mid-1980s when output was boosted by European Union subsidies and trade barriers. The report said threats to Britain's food security were most likely to come from sudden disruptions to supply chains, which could be caused by factors such as extreme weather or interruptions to fuel or other energy supplies. "The UK, like other countries, is set to become more dependent on a small number of energy suppliers located in less stable parts of the world. By 2020, the UK will be importing the majority of its gas and more than half its oil." The report said Britons had responded to growing fears about future supplies by growing their own food. "In the last 12 months, sales of vegetable seeds exceeded those of flowers and the media reported record waiting lists for allotments," the ministry said. _______________________ 16 July 2008 Dáil committee hears debate on issues surrounding GM crops Irish Farmers Journal, 17 July (dated 19 July) 2008. By Darragh Mullin. Issues surrounding the use of genetically modified (GM) food production technology were debated at a recent sitting of the Joint Oireachtas [Parliament and Senate] Committee on Agriculture. Representatives from Monsanto, GM Free Ireland and academics from universities and Teagasc were in attendance to give their views. Professor David McConnell, a molecular geneticist from Trinity College, told the committee, "GM technology is highly regulated and it is safe." He added: "It is valuable to farmers, for food processors and for consumers. It should be available here, as it is in many leading agricultural countries - notably the US, Argentina and Brazil". Michael O'Callaghan, coordinator of GM Free Ireland, told the committee that the European market wants only GM-free food. He referred to an opinion poll, carried out by the Irish Institute for Bioethics, which showed that a very high percentage of Irish people do not want GM crops and GM animal feed introduced into the food chain. However, Patrick O'Reilly of Monsanto Ireland claimed that Irish farmers and the agricultural industry have been badly served by the anti-GM sentiment that has dominated in Europe over the past decade. "It is high time Irish farmers spoke up and demanded their rights. They have much to gain and a lot to lose if they decline to do so, " O'Reilly said. He added that the we are already using GM technology in the fields of medicine, forensic science and the food industry. He also said the majority of feed imported into this country is of GM origin. The most immediate issue is one of achieving a reliable source of imported feed material for the grain and feed industry. O'Reilly believes Ireland will need to remain very proactive in its policy to safeguard the indigenous feed industry, as it relies more heavily on feed imports than any other country. When asked where the EU will source its non-GM protein from, Michael O'Callaghan said that "Brazil has the capacity to supply all the certified GM-free soya meal Europe might want in response to market demand". He also claimed there is a health risk from GM foods. He believes companies like Monsanto exert too much control over GM production. O'Callaghan claimed that 90% of all GM seeds are controlled in some way by Monsanto. Professor Jimmy Burke from Teagasc told the committee: "As the agri-food sector is worth more than €20bn to the national economy, it is imperative thatwe have access to the latest technology so that we remain competitive." Monsanto's Patrick O'Reilly concluded: "Over the past decade, farmers planting GM crops have increased their income by more than $34bn through a combination of higher yields and lower inputs." Comment from GM-free Ireland: The Minister for Agriculture, Brendan Smith, and the Committee chairman, Johhy Brady TD, refused numerous requests from leading food and farm and other stakeholder groups to allow equal representation from both sides of the GM controversy at this meeting of members of parliament and Senators. There were 5 speakers from the pro-GM side, and only one from the GM-free side, even though GM crop farming is practiced on only 0.21% of farmland in the EU! This democratic imbalance is a totally unacceptable abuse of Oireachtas procedure, and is also in breach of the Aarhus Convention on public participation in environmental decision making, signed by Ireland and the EU. The Minister and the Committee chairman also refused numerous stakeholder requests to avoid the typical misrepresentations and misunderstandings that characterise the polarized and technical nature of any discussion on GM issues, by enabling the Committee to clarify, discuss and question opposing and contradictory statements in the presence of those who make them - by considering the views of all participants in a single sitting. Instead, the participants were separated in three separate back-to-back sittings with no possibility of debate. Open letter of complaint to Minister of Agriculture: www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI-BrendanSmith1.pdf Transcript: www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMO-2July2008.pdf GM-free Ireland's written presentation: www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMFI-JOCA1.pdf _______________________ Naomi Klein: Bush sees crises in fuel, food, housing and banking as chance to exploit us more Democracy Now! 16 July 2008. By Amy Goodman. People are desperate for solutions but instead they're handed policies that don't solve the crises, and are highly profitable for corporations. As the country and the world reel from crises ranging from skyrocketing oil prices and global food shortages to housing and climate change, how best to understand the government policies being pushed through? Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman interviewed Naomi Klein, author of 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism'. (For more about this book see the Shock Doctrine short film.) This online video interview with Naomi Klein may be seen at: http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2008/july/video/dnB20080715a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=11:41 For full transcript see: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/15/with_crises_in_fuel_food_housing Extract only: Amy Goodman: [Let's talk about the] food crisis now around the world. Naomi Klein: Well, this is another example of how the shock doctrine, the strategy that I document in the book of using a crisis, using a situation of desperation, often a situation where developing countries need foreign aid, because they're facing a disaster, to leverage very, very unpopular pro-corporate policies. Now, you know in the book the examples that I give are, for instance, how the tsunami in Asia was used and the fact that countries like Sri Lanka needed aid, and in that moment you had international lenders coming in and saying, "Oh, well, we'll give you aid, but we want you to privatize your water, your electricity system, hand the coastline over to resorts." Well, we're seeing a version of this. We're seeing a version of disaster capitalism in the context of the food crisis, where you have that same desperation, you have a need for aid, for debt forgiveness, for new policies, and now we're hearing another sort of echo chamber response from the World Bank, from the US State Department, from the agribusiness companies, and that refrain is, the cause of the food crisis is that too many of these countries don't allow genetically modified foods, and genetically modified crops can feed the world and solve the food crisis, so trying to use this crisis to break through a legislative barrier that exists for good reason, just as domestically in the United States the oil crisis is being used by the Bush administration to try to break through the bans on offshore oil, on ANWR. So now we have this other talking point that we're hearing again and again, which is genetically modified foods can feed the world. There is no scientific evidence for this. Quite the opposite. Genetically modified seeds do not increase yields for crops. They increase profits for agribusiness companies. They simplify farming. But they don't increase yields, and in many cases they decrease yields. Goodman: Because? Klein: Because this is actually not what they're genetically modified to do. I mean, if you think about Roundup Ready, I mean, what it's genetically modified to do is be compatible -- Goodman: You mean the soy and the fertilizer? [actually it's weedkiller - Ed] Klein: Yes... It's not about increasing crop yields. And they haven't actually figured out the technology for how to increase crop yields. One of the things that I find really worrying is that companies -- and similar to the oil crisis, Amy, we're seeing record profits from Monsanto, from Cargill, from all the big players, in the context of the food crisis. We're also seeing something else, which is that these companies are buying up hundreds of patents on seeds that they claim are "climate-ready." "Climate-ready" is -- we've heard about Roundup Ready, which means they're ready for roundup fertilizer [she means weedkiller - Ed]; now, the new phrase is "climate ready," which means they're ready for climate change, which means that these seeds apparently can grow in the context of drought, can grow in the context of highly salinated earth because there's been a flood. And Monsanto and Syngenta, other of these big biotech companies, have bought up hundreds of these patents. And this is worrying on many levels. I think it's worrying, because, once again, we're seeing a disincentive to actually get us out of a future of climate chaos, because we see ways to profit. But then, when we look at how aggressively we know a company like Monsanto protects its patents, when it comes to their Roundup Ready seeds, the suing of small farmers, the surveillance of farmers -- there was an incredible story recently in Vanity Fair about the heavy-handed legal tactics and use of private security, just harassing farmers who dare to save their seeds from one growing season to the next, breaking Monsanto's patent. So if they really are developing seeds that are climate ready and they're also patenting them and buying them up, then really what we're seeing is not a future of feeding the world, but once again a future of a kind of climate apartheid, where it becomes less accessible and more expensive to have the crops that will grow in this future. And so, I think people need to identify this right away, and the discussion needs to be about the right to food, about food being a human right. This is far too important to allow players like Monsanto to privatize the future of the crops that can grow within a context of climate change. _______________________ Heinz Angers Mothers by Raising Price for Baby Milk 70 Pct Packexpo, 16 July 2008. Food company Heinz has angered many parents by bringing in a 70 percent rise in the price of a baby milk product. Mothers have lodged complaints with the firm and threatened to boycott Heinz products after its rebranded Farley's dry baby milk, which was popular for being one of the cheapest on the market, became among the most expensive. The company justified the rise by saying the new milk has added ingredients and nutrients It told mothers who complained that it believes the new formula is the "closest to breast milk". One of the additives is alpha-lactalbumin, the human protein normally only found in breast milk and produced as part of the "mutant" humanised milk from Rosie, the genetically modified dairy Friesan created by PPL Therapeutics, a Midlothianbased genetic technology company involved in the creation of Dolly the sheep. Eight years ago, when the breakthrough was made, researchers said adding the artificially produced protein to commercial infant formula would make it more nutritious and closer to the real thing. The new formula also contains Betapol, a fat derived from vegetable oils, which Heinz says helps prevent constipation. The rebranding has meant that Farley's First Milk has become Heinz Nurture Newborn and Farley's Second Milk is now Heinz Nurture Hungry Babies. The typical in-store price has gone from GBP4.70 for a 900g tin of Farley's First Milk to GBP7.98 for the rebranded Heinz Nurture Newborn. One mother said: "The feeling towards Heinz over this issue was pretty hostile and there are calls for a boycott of Heinz products. Heinz should be aware just how aggrieved people are over this issue " A Heinz spokesman said: "Heinz Nurture is a new range of infant formulae with different formulations and new packaging. The recommended retail price reflects changes we have made, with the inclusion of different ingredients." _______________________ US corporations increasingly take regulatory lead from Brussels, not Washington EU Observer, 16 July 2008. By Leigh Phillips. [Photo caption: Both US companies and the Bush Administration lead an 'unprecedented' lobbying campaign to hold back the tide of EU regulation (Photo: wikipedia)] EUOBSERVER / INTERVIEW - Power is notoriously difficult to locate, quantify and date. It cannot so easily be measured as GDP or milk production or barrels of oil that remain under the ground or the effect on an economy due to sick-days taken the fortnight after an new edition of Grand Theft Auto is released. Historians brawl over the precise causes and date of the collapse of civilisations' empires. Did Suez deliver the definitive coup de grace to the British Empire, or should we avoid such exactness and rather talk more generally of the empire's near-bankruptcy at the end of the Second World War? Do we date the fall of the Roman Empire as 476, when Romulus Augustulus was deposed by Odoacer? Or as 395 - upon the death of Theodosius I - the last point at which the empire was politically unified? Or do we yet wait a decided few centuries later for the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to hold funeral rites? Mark Schapiro - an American investigative journalist of some twenty years' standing and the editorial director of the Center for Investigative Journalism - believes however that we can date the eclipse of the United States by the European Union quite precisely indeed - 25 June, 2004. On that day, some 200 million Europeans went to the polls to elect their representatives to the European Parliament, consolidating the union's ascendancy. Europe's parliament leap-frogged the US Congress in size of population represented, with an additional two member states, Romania and Bulgaria, boosting the numbers still further to almost half a billion people in 2007. Even more critically, in 2005, the GDP of the EU overtook that of the States. "The EU is now the single largest trading partner with every continent except Australia," he writes in his recent book, Exposed, which considers the massive global economic power shift that has occurred as a result of these changes. He looks at how companies and state governments in the US, China and the rest of the world increasingly take their legislative lead - whether willingly or dragged kicking and screaming - on issues such as environmental standards, health and safety regulation and consumer protection not from Washington, but Brussels. The book looks particularly at the effect on American firms of EU legislation such as REACH, Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances - the world's strictest chemicals regulatory framework, and RoHS - the Removal of Hazardous Substances directive, as well as moves in the realms of genetically modified organisms, endocrine disruptors in plastics and Europe's embrace of the precautionary principle. "With wealth comes trade, and from trade comes the power to write the rules of commerce," he announces. Mr Schapiro was recently in Brussels to meet with European officials and speak to company representatives about this profound but little reported power shift. The EUobserver sat down with the author to discuss his ideas. EUobserver: What has happened here? Only a few years ago, American commentators, particularly on the right, from such quarters as the Project for a New American Century, were talking of American global dominance - which emboldened them to go into Iraq believing themselves essentially to be invincible. The French no longer called the US a superpower, but an hyperpuissance - a hyperpower. Mark Schapiro The world is changing, and it's changing in dramatic ways in a number of different arenas. What's interesting is that the role of the United States is shifting very sharply, independent of Iraq. Let's not even talk about Iraq - which has also delivered a body-blow to American power in the world - let's just look purely at the level of economics. In 2005, the US was supplanted as the world's largest single market by the EU, and that was reported to us by our own CIA in their World Factbook. With 490 million people, the EU is first of all far larger than the US population, but these people are also pretty much equal in terms of affluence and education. So what happens to American transnational companies that have been operating for decades according to American rules, because the US was the world's largest market? US companies and companies around the world historically accommodated to American rules when it came to health and environment standards, because if they could sell there, they could sell anywhere in the world, including Europe. I wanted to investigate what happens when in the first time in our history, it's not our government that is writing the rules for corporate behaviour. EUobserver: What was the reaction from corporate America? MS: After 2005 kicks in, we're no longer the largest economy. The EU now is, and what does this new biggest economy do? They start imposing all sorts of restrictions in terms of environmental protection. They demand that chemicals be taken out of a whole array of consumer products. They demand more sustainable production practices and energy efficiency. Globalisation is taking hold very deeply, so US corporations along with other companies are increasingly reliant on foreign markets to sustain their profitability. For many American firms, that means Europe. In order to hold on to access, how do they react at the same time when Europe starts saying: "Take the chemicals out of cosmetics! Take the chemicals out of your electronics! Take the phthalates out of toys!" Nothing close to this had ever happened before to American companies. Reaction number one has been to launch a massive transatlantic lobbying campaign to try to prevent these measures from happening. There was a wholesale shift from K Street in Washington, the heart of lobbying and think-tanks in the US capital, to Brussels. K Street expanded dramatically, essentially dropping another K Street in Brussels. Hill and Knowlton, Burson-Marsteller, Ernst and Young - all these firms, which had become quite expert at influencing the rule-making apparatus in the United States through lobbying in congress and campaign contributions - suddenly had this new beast to deal with - the EU. "How do you do lobbying in the EU?" they had to find out. "How do you lobby the European Commission, members of the European Parliament? How does it work?" These lobbyists flooded over here and their first reaction was to try to do whatever they could to stop the Europeans. EUobserver: And what was the response here to this invasion of lobbyists? MS: The reaction of the Europeans was very interesting. I spent a lot of time while researching the book talking to parliamentarians and people in the commission - DG Trade, DG Environment, DG Industry - and the reaction was not always the warmest. It used to be that the US could go to any foreign capital and basically say: "Look, we don't really like what you're doing, so change it here and there." The US had huge influence in terms of foreign governments, but now for the first time, there were people saying: "Wait a minute, what are you doing here? We're talking about what we're doing to protect Europeans. We're not here to worry about your problems as an American company." So they encountered a great deal of resistance. Not totally - obviously they did have some impact. EUobserver: And this also had a knock-on effect within the US. MS: Yes. The second interesting reaction was that as US companies were now facing a whole array of rules to obtain access to their most important foreign market, they suddenly began to be saying to themselves: "Well, if we have to take these chemicals out of our products for Europeans, what are we going to do with the products we sell to Americans?" And one of the implications was that some industries actually began adapting to the European regulations. For example, in the electronics area with RoHS, when the big international electronics firms were beginning to learn what was happening in the EU, I sat in on some of these meetings where advisors were telling them: "Hey, this is what you have to do to hold on to Europe." And it was like an electric shock going through the crowd. They had no idea this was coming down the pike. The Bush Administration has been moving aggressively away from ideas about environmental protection, cutting the enforcement budgets of the EPA and the FDA and the consumer product safety commission. They've introduced rules that make it much more difficult to act on chemical and other hazards, and taken a position more in alignment with US industry. That works fine for them in the US. But on a global level, we've got another player setting the rules. This aggressive retreat from environmental protection in the US is essentially being challenged by the EU. But some of the companies have started to adapt to the new rules, producing products that meet European standards for the US market as well as for the European market. Not all companies, but increasingly they are taking their lead from Brussels, which is really at the vanguard of environmental and health and safety standards, rather than Washington. EUobserver: What was the reaction of American politicians? MS: I'm not sure the Bush Administration entirely grasped the magnitude of what has been happening. The first people in the Bush Administration to really notice this was the Commerce Department, because the Commerce Department understands how money moves. But the reaction was vociferous to the actions being taken by the European Union in order to tighten standards. The level of opposition was high in every department that engaged with the EU. The State Department, trade representatives, the Commerce Department, various emissaries from the executive branch, all came here and launched a massive lobbying campaign to try to stop this from happening. They did this in a number of different ways. They started orchestrating meetings with US allies to try to pressure the commission to slow down proposals. There was a real effort to divide the new countries from the older countries. They went into Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, to try to get them on board to support the American position. Some of the arguments were that the moves by Europe would make European companies less competitive with American companies - a pretty unusual position to be taking for an American trade representative. But they were desperate to try to stop these initiatives. They would send out emails to members of the environment committee, telling them which way to vote on amendments on REACH, for example. They also very closely aligned themselves with corporate interests in the United States. There were joint meetings between some of the major chemical companies in the US and State Department representatives who met with officials here in Brussels as well as some of the national capitals. The lobbying effort was unprecedented by the Bush Administration, attempting to intervene in the legislative process here in Europe. One commission representative told me: "Can you imagine what would happen if we Europeans sent a delegation to Congress to argue what our position was on a particular bill that affects Americans? We'd be thrown out the window." EUobserver: This is clearly a very American perspective on what's going on here in Brussels. From a European perspective, one could say this is looking at Europe with rose-tinted glasses. We have our own problems here with corporate influence, with lobbying. If anything, lobbying is less transparent here than in the US. The lobbying registry in the US is very strict, while here, there has been a lot of resistance from the commission to the idea of a mandatory register, for example. The influence of European corporations in the European institutions is substantial. MS: In 2004, watching the European Parliamentary election results, I saw how the EPP-ED strengthened its hand. Not hugely, but they boosted their numbers. This rightward shift in Europe is also interesting. The danger that I face in talking about my book in the US, is having Americans thinking that the EU is some sort of benevolent Shangri-La where everyone is in sync with nature and that there's this great harmonious relationship between a huge economy and sustainable principles that beat in the people's heart. This is the conclusion that people tend to jump to whenever I talk about my book. So I have to add a cautionary note that this is as self-focussed and competitive an economic organism as the US is. It is also filled with its own corruptions, big and small. And without proper lobbying transparency, you're going to have even more potential for improper influence-wielding here too. This is indeed a self-interested political beast, but that makes it even more interesting. Because what this entity has agreed is that some basic principles of environmental protection are both important and economically feasible. They may not reach the level that some of the environmental NGOs would like it to reach. There's a constant battle in all these issues over how far you go. But they've made a decision that their economy has room for these kind of ideas. There's a really interesting distinction about how the EU and the US approach the basic idea of economics and profitability. One of the principles at the core of many European ideas is the question of externalised costs that make something appear economically possible. When it comes to externalities, taking chemicals for example, part of the EU calculation when it comes to REACH, is that by creating a body of knowledge of the toxicology of many thousands of substances that have never been tested for their toxicity, it is going to ultimately lead, ten to twenty years down the line, to the phase out of these products from the marketplace, on the principle that you don't want people exposed to things that are toxic to their health. On the one hand this an admirable goal because you want to protect people from these dangers, but there's an economic calculation in that too, which is that if you don't do that, somebody's going to end up paying the cost in the future when people get sick from the exposure to these chemicals over the course of their life. And who is that? Here in most cases that's the state. The key difference here is that you have a public healthcare system in Europe, so the costs of illness that come from chemicals or environmental degradation are borne by governments. Thus the state is looking at this and thinking: "Wait a minute - we're paying the cost for this so-called low-cost production. Let's shunt that cost back onto the producers and deliver an accurate rendering of the costs." The basic approach to costs in the US is skewed very deeply in the short-term interests of the manufacturers, and does not have to take into account healthcare costs in its assessments. This is an inaccurate rendering of the benefits and costs of these decisions because the costs of environmental contamination borne by the US are actually borne by ourselves, the citizens, and that cost is not reflected in the corporate balance sheet. Our regulatory structures are operating under old-fashioned economic principles in terms of who actually bears the cost. We are subsidising their profits. Mark Schapiro is the author of 'Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power'. _______________________ Russia announces regulations for GM feed World-Grain.com, 15 July 2008. MOSCOW, RUSSIA � Russia's Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (VPSS) released new definitions for biotech-free feed recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) announced. VPSS noted that since most feeds on the world market have, or may have biotech components, it hopes the new definitions will encourage feed importers to register more feed as biotech. By clarifying the levels at which feed can be declared "GMO-free", VPSS will prevent differing interpretations at customs. The VPSS now defines feed as biotech-free if 0.5% or less of each component contains non-registered biotech products, and if 0.9% or less of each component contains registered biotech products. While the VPSS acknowledged that slight presence of biotech components is unavoidable, it noted that there are no legal regulations for the adventitious presence of biotech ingredients in feed. The appropriate Russian Technical Regulation has been drafted, but has not yet been adopted. In such cases, Russian authorities may use international standards and norms, if they do not conflict with existing Russian law. VPSS consequently adopted the E.U.'s 0.5% level for non-registered biotech products in feeds, and Russia's 0.9% level, derived from Russian legislation on food products, for registered biotech products. _______________________ Chinese rice products containing an unauthorised rice UK Food Standards Agency, 17 July 2008. The Agency has provided a list of Chinese rice products tested since 12 April and found to contain Bt63 rice. In April, the European Commission adopted an emergency measure requiring imports of specified products originating or consigned from China to be certified free of the unauthorised genetically modified organism (GMO) known as 'Bt63'. Bt63 is an unauthorised GMO and so should not be on the market. More information about the emergency measure adopted by the Commission can be found at the link below. Chinese rice products containing Bt63 rice Following enforcement activities carried out at ports and sampling activities carried out by local authorities and food businesses since 12 April, the products detailed in the two lists below have been found to contain Bt63 rice. For details of products to be destroyed or recalled see: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2008/jul/bt63update _______________________ 15 July 2008 India's suicide-prone farmers go back to basics Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 15 July 2008. New Delhi - India is in the grip of its worst agrarian crisis, witnessing unprecedented farmer suicides, at the rate of one death on the farm every 30 minutes. The rising costs of seeds, pesticides and fertilizers have pushed peasants into mounting debts, and led untold thousands of them to commit suicide by drinking the same pesticides that created their liabilities. India which has 600 million people engaged in agriculture and allied activities, ushered its green revolution in the late 1960s. It was apparent two decades later that chemical-intensive farming had resulted in increased costs of cultivation and far-reaching environmental damages. The loss of topsoil, a drastic decline in soil fertility and water tables owing to the use of fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified crops, should have made a compelling case for scientists and policy makers to restructure Indian agriculture. Instead, impoverished farmers plunged deeper into debt through trade distortions brought on by the country's economic reforms and the plummeting price of produce seen in the past 15 years. By the government's own admission, over 100,000 farmers committed suicide in the last decade in the four states of western Maharashtra, central Madhya Pradesh and southern Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. But some farmers are now escaping the debt trap by returning to traditional low-cost farming, enriching the soil with farmyard manure or compost, using indigenous seeds and returning to biological pesticides such as nee tree oil and cow urine. In Andhra Pradesh 300,000 farmers are reaping increased yields and earning better incomes without genetically modified GM seeds and chemical pesticides, and using local pest management techniques. 'Farmers who mortgaged their Ramachandrapuram village recovered the entire land by repaying the debts, merely by stopping use of pesticides,' food and trade analyst Devinder Sharma said. 'Over the last three years, over 700,000 acres in the state have turned pesticide-free or organic. The programme is going strong, aiming to cover 1.2 million acres this year and 2.5 million acres in two years.' There is evidence of such success in Maharashtra's Vidarbha region, notorious for an estimated 30,000 suicides over the last decade. About 11,000 farmers, including the worst-hit cotton growers from five villages, have pledged to practice chemical-free ecological farming under an initiative by Navdanya, an organization that pioneered the organic food movement in India. An organic cotton project by textile manufacturer Arvind in 33 villages in Vidarbha's Akola district claims there have been no suicides in the area since farmers started avoiding chemicals and using indigenous seeds last year. Not counting farmers in several parts of India who never shifted from traditional agriculture, an estimated 1 million farmers are estimated to have reverted to traditional techniques over the past years, some 200,000 in the last five years. But agriculture experts contend that the solution is not as simple as going back to the basics. One expert, KSRK Murthy, argued that organic agriculture cannot guarantee the high productivity assured by synthetic fertilizers that is necessary to feed the growing population. Murthy said crop yields in organic farms ere up to 50 per cent less, and required big quantities of organic manure and more land under cultivation, to produce the same amount of food. But Navdanya founder Vandana Shiva said that argument ignores the true hidden costs of industrial agriculture. 'Traditional farming seems expensive because there is a 1-trillion-rupee government subsidy for chemical fertilizers. Our experience has shown that organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming,' Shiva said. The UN International Fund for Agricultural Development, which carried out a recent study in Vidarbha, suggested to the Indian government explore organic farming for debt-ridden farmers. Shiva, who also chairs the independent International Committee for the Future of Food and Agriculture, said organic farming raises consumer awareness of both food quality and the link between climate change and agriculture. 'Industrial farming and unnecessary global trade in food is responsible for up to 40 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Organic farming contributes to mitigation and adaptation to climate change,' she said. 'Such farming can help small farmers survive, increase farm productivity, repair decades of environmental damage and lead to better food security. When chemical farming has led to a total collapse, traditional and organic farming is the solution, the way of the future.' _______________________ Food concerns prompt China to prioritize GM rice Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 15 July 2008. By Bill Smith. Beijing - China's leaders decided in early July to go all-out to develop genetically modified organisms (GMOs), prompted by rising prices and concerns that the nation of 1.3 billion people may become more reliant on expensive exports. Premier Wen Jiabao led a meeting of the cabinet which said the development of GMOs was of 'great strategic significance to strengthening innovation in agricultural technology, lifting the level of plant cultivation, promoting higher efficiency and yield, and raising the nation's international competitiveness in agriculture.' 'All relevant departments should fully realize the significance and urgency of this important project, further perfect the programme and actively implement it,' the government said in a report on the meeting. Agricultural scientists at China's Zhejiang University announced in March that they had developed a way to create 'selectively terminable' GM rice, a breakthrough which they hope will lead to the industrialization of GM rice seeds. The scientists said the pest- and disease-resistant GM rice plants can easily be killed through genetically conditioned high sensitivity to a specific herbicide, eliminating concerns about them becoming wild or cross-pollinating with normal rice plants. The Zhejiang project's lead scientist, Shen Zhicheng, said genetic modification was the best way to increase food production and played down fears that experimental plants could be secretly used for mass production or mixed with unmodified varieties. 'It is certain to increase the yield of grain crops and is an effective way of solving price issues,' Shen said of his team's GMO work. 'I hope the country will increase its determination to use the new technology,' he told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa. 'If there is not enough rice to eat, it is right to try every method to solve the problem by pushing technology,' Shen said. The third-largest country by land area possesses only 7 per cent of the world's cultivated land from which to feed one-fifth of the global population. It already allows farmers to grow GM peppers, tomatoes and papaya, and it imports large quantities of GM soybeans, mainly from the United States. In the non-food sector, most of China's cotton seed is genetically modified. Concerns mounted over the possibility of GM rice creeping into food markets after environmental group Greenpeace blew the whistle on illegal sales of GM rice developed by scientists in the central province of Hubei in 2005. Greenpeace later said it found GM rice being sold by wholesalers in the southern city of Guangzhou, close to Hong Kong. On a visit to China last year, Markos Kyprianou, the European Commissioner for Health, highlighted unauthorized use of the GMO known as Bt63 in Chinese exports. The EU introduced an emergency measure in April requiring Chinese food exports containing rice to be laboratory-certified as free of Bt63, citing a 'failure on the part of Chinese authorities to provide... control samples and a protocol of detection method.' But Xue Dayuan, a senior researcher at the Nanjing Institution of Environmental Science, said the government had improved its controls. 'GM crops are seldom planted in China, so we have no conditions for an 'escape," Xue said. 'Now they are in an experimental period in limited areas, and not industrialized,' he said. Shen said agriculture ministry officials inspected his project regularly. 'Our research farm is properly isolated and we dare not let this experimental rice escape, otherwise we will have to take huge responsibility,' he said. Hybrid rice, which the government has actively developed since the 1950s, has already brought China's rice yields close to those of Japan and is likely to continue as an important element of agricultural technology. 'My view is that we should develop GM rice and hybrid rice simultaneously,' Shen said. The government aims to keep annual grain production over 500 million tons to 2010 and raise it to about 540 million tons by 2020. Agricultural official Chen Yao recently said this year's target for rice production was 185.7 million tons, up by 0.1 per cent from 2007. Food prices have risen by around 20 per cent this year, helping to fuel inflation of about 8 per cent in the consumer price index. Rising international grain and oil prices were a major factor behind the inflation, government economist Yin Jianfeng told state media in June. Biofuel also made brief inroads into grain production for food, bringing more inflationary pressure, before the government stepped in. 'In the past some corn was used to make biofuel, (but) it did not reach the scale where it affected food prices, like in Brazil and America,' Xue said. _______________________ Opposition to GM crops in the Isle of Man Isle of Man Today, 15 July 2008. Letters page. From Janet Pilbeam, 29 Malew Street, Castletown. I HAVE been very disturbed by the recent talk of introducing genetically modified crops to the Isle of Man. While the biotech industry says that GM crops will feed the world's poor and save us all from rising food prices, leading Third World charities dismiss these claims. The causes of the food crisis are complex and include the rush to produce biofuels in place of food crops, the underlying unfair trade system, and ever-increasing oil and gas prices (pesticides are oil-based, fertilizers gas-based). Experts who argue against GM crops say that they don't increase average yields. Most GM crops currently grown around the world are grown in intensive monocultures that rely on the heavy use of pesticides and result in soil degradation and are used for animal feed rather than food. Extensive government sponsored trials in the UK have shown that GM crops are more damaging for farmland wildlife than non-GM crops, while a UK-wide debate found that 85 per cent of people didn't want GM crops grown. Many would argue that the GM industry is using the food crisis for financial gain, and that instead of giving control of our food production to agribusiness giants, we should be moving towards sustainable farming systems that benefit local farmers, communities and the environment. _______________________ Strong language Developments magazine (published by the UK Government's Department for International Development) 15 July 2008. [Extract only. Full article at http://www.developments.org.uk/articles/strong-language/] When Boomtown Rats frontman Bob Geldof organised Live Aid in 1985 it catapulted him into a second, high profile career in global activism � marked by straight talking and a fierce anger at global poverty. He talks to Developments about Africa, China and the journey from charity to justice. This interview is an edited version of Bob Geldof's address to DFID staff and a conversation with Developments' editors. ... What I find is that the media agenda is rooted in an argument from 12 years ago. They are not up to speed on the conditions on the continent of Africa and they really need to be. (This is) simply because, conceivably, in this asymmetric century, where a guy with a bomb strapped to himself can destroy armies, economies in an unexpected part of the world now hold the power over the supposedly developed part. I guarantee you in 20 years, the news will be full of stories from Africa and they'll all be to do with economic giants, politicking and positioning � and the ones most affected by all of that are in Europe. Eight miles from Africa. Whatever the Chinese and Americans and Africans are playing at, we'll feel the impact first. If we are not to be dependent on Putin's Russia � and it's still Putin's Russia � for our energy sources, we're going to have to go to Libya, Algeria, Angola, Nigeria and the rest to ensure our supplies. This is serious resource politics and big power stuff, and I think that's a really interesting story, and I just wish that the media would engage in that. ... I just find hunger the worst, most anomalous, unnecessary death. AIDS is a misery but not being able to give your children something to eat on a daily basis... and most children will go to bed tonight � like they did last night, like they will tomorrow night � hungry in Africa. It's extraordinary, and yet we sit on vast surpluses still. So I'm a big GM guy and part of that is the notion that we can't allow Africans to have genetically modified foods, despite the fact that the science has come on a lot, that there are safeguards. Is it the answer to everything? No, of course not, but it's partially an answer when crops can grow in arid conditions. I also believe that we've got to develop industries where people can buy their food from other sources outside of their immediate area. But, if Africa is to grow at all, it will be through agriculture, so I believe it to be the primary aspect that we should look at. Crops that grow in arid or semi-arid conditions that are fairly resistant to pests, to insects and disease. Africa is peculiar. Man developed in Africa. Therefore, all the diseases that prey on man developed in Africa and are particularly persistent there due to geography, climate and lack of resistance, because of lousy economies, etc. So if you develop something that's a net boon to vulnerable people, give it to them. Give it to them. Comment by GM-free Ireland: What a pity that Bob Geldof has swallowed the GM biotech industry hype! The introduction of GM agricultural seeds patented by Monsanto and other giant transnational corporations reduces the natural biodiversity that is so essential for crops to adapt to local soil and changing climate and ecosystem conditions. Farmers are then forced to use a small variety of expensive patented seeds, pay patent royalties, and are not allowed to save and plant their own seeds. Contaminated farmers lose ownership of their seeds and crops - becoming serfs of the corporate patent owners. Numerous reports confirm that GM crops are genetically unstable, generally have lower yields than natural varieties, lead to GM superweeds, and produce novel proteins and enzymes that our immune systems can not recognise, leading to serious risks of new diseases. Biotech industry claims of higher-yielding and drought resistant crops are aspirational: despite billions of euro and 20 years of R&D, no such crops are currently in release. The U.N.'s recent International Assessment of Agriculture, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report found that GM crops have no benefits for the world's farming future. _______________________ 14 July 2008 Latvia to be cleaned from Mutant Food Novo News Agency, 14 July 2008. Environment Minister Raimonds Vejonis announced on July 14 that Latvia must remain clean from the genetically modified food, the Environment Ministry press service reported to Regnum. The Minister called for Latvia's representatives in EU's all structures to speak up against permitting the use of genetically modified food in the county. Vejonis believes that Latvia has to encourage biologically clean rural industry instead. July 11, the parliamentary commission for European affairs rejected the plans of the Latvian Agriculture Ministry, which suggested spreading of genetically modified soya and flax in Latvia. MPs are certain that the issues like that must be decided by the society first, as the effect made by these products on human health have not been fully studied yet. So, the commission decided to rebuff the initiative of the Agriculture Ministry and hold a wide discussion over the question. Defending his opinion, Agriculture Minister Martins Roze referred to the European experts who see no harm for human health in use of genetically modified food. Besides, the mentioned products were offered to Latvia as a pet food only. _______________________ The Next Battleground: The World's Food Supply OpEdNews.com, 14 July 2008. By Deb Della Plana. Picture the scene: A stranger walks into a small-town country store and accuses the owner of planting seeds in violation of his company's patent. When the store owner protests that he has done no such thing, the shady visitor leaves, all the while yelling that his company is big and will make the store owner pay. The company continues on with its harassment, utilizing private investigators who film farmers sowing their seeds, infiltrating community meetings and working informants. Some of the company's employees pretend to be surveyors. Others are more brazen and attempt to bully farmers into signing papers that will give them access to their private records. Sounds like the basis for a great screenplay, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it's really happening all across rural America. And the company we're talking about is none other than Monsanto. Filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin has exposed Monsanto's evil empire in a new documentary will probably never be aired on American television. For years, farmers have been planting seeds in the spring for harvest in the fall. After the harvest, it is common practice for farmers to reclaim the seeds and clean them for replanting in the spring. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office traditionally refused to award patents to seeds because they were considered a life form with far too many variables to patent. That all changed in 1980 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, extended the patent law to cover "a live human-made microorganism." Although the ruling applied to a bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills, the precedent was set and the door was opened. Monsanto walked through that door and never looked back. Monsanto developed and patented a genetically-engineered seed that resisted it's own weed killer, Roundup, giving farmers a convenient way to control weeds without harming their crops. However, what Monsanto gave itself is the gift that keeps on giving. Because the seeds are patented, farmers who buy these genetically-modified seeds must sign an agreement not to reuse the seed or sell it to other farmers, changing the face of farming forever. That means that farmers must now buy new seed every year. The increase in seed sales, combined with the increased sales of Roundup, has been a boon for Monsanto. Most of the farmers comply with the terms of the Monsanto contract. However, some farmers truly do not realize what they've gotten into and do not understand that they cannot reuse the seeds. Others will ignore the terms of the contract, preferring not to throw away perfectly good seeds. Even farmers who do not use Monsanto genetically-altered seeds and do not want to use them can fall victim to Monsanto's strong-arm tactics when water, wind or birds deposit the unwanted seeds in their fields. There is no way to visually tell one seed or plant from another; laboratory analysis is required. Monsanto will gladly send out its army of shady operatives to pull samples from farm fields for testing in order to protect its profits. If it is confirmed by laboratory analysis that the crop in your field came from Monsanto seeds, it won' t matter that you did not put them there. It won't matter if you do not want them there. All that matters is that they are there, and Monsanto will do what it must do to protect its patent. The ruthless pursuit of the world's food supply During the 1990s, Monsanto declared itself a 'life sciences' company, spinning off its chemical and fibers operations. After yet another reorganization in 2002, it presented itself as an 'agricultural' company. While its PR machine positions Monsanto as a leader in the fight against world hunger, the simple fact is that it's all about profits. It's not like Monsanto is donating genetically modified seeds to combat world hunger. In fact, just the opposite is true. Monsanto knows that if it it owns the seed market, it essentially controls the food supply. To that end, it has spent the last decade buying up over 50 GM and traditional seed companies around the globe. It squeezes its farmers for everything it can get, and it protects its patents with a ruthless pattern of litigation. Since the mid-90s, Monsanto has sued 150 U.S. farmers for patent infringement. The most prevalent 'crime' involves the violation of a technology agreement that prevents farmers from saving seed from one season to plant the next season. Overseas, Monsanto's behavior has not been much better. In 2005 a criminal investigation concluded that a Monsanto consultant visited the home of an Indonesian official and handed him an envelope containing a wad of hundred dollar bills. This bribe was in exchange for the official bypassing environmental impact studies on Monsanto's genetically-modified and highly toxic cotton plant. Under any other administration this criminal act would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, Monsanto was allowed to cut a 'deferred prosecution agreement' with the Justice Department to avoid a criminal trial. Instead, Monsanto paid a million dollar fine and agreed to government oversight of its operations. Given the present administration, this amounts to no oversight at all, of course. In India, an indigenous seed company, Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. of Gujarat brought a bollworm-resistant seed, Navbharat-151, to market in 1999. Navbharat-151 is preferred by Indian farmers because it is a conventional seed and was not produced by genetic engineering. In 2001, Monsanto claimed to have found its Bt. cotton gene in some of the fields of Navbharat-151 cotton and accused the Indian farmers of Gujarat of producing pirated seed via cross-fertilization of their Bollgard plant with Navbharat-151. However, the Monsanto seeds did not become commercially available in India until 2002. The only way this cross-fertilization could have occurred was through genetic pollution, or unless Monsanto was providing its seed illegally to Navbharat Seeds prior to 1999. This is just another example of the way Monsanto uses propaganda and public relations to attempt to extract royalties from unwitting farmers. It should be noted that Monsanto's field trials began illegally in India in 1998, and the company was taken to court by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) for violating the Indian Environmental Protection Act. Legal action notwithstanding, many Indian cotton farmers have fallen hopelessly into debt because of Monsanto's illegal and ruthless practices. Many have committed suicide. On March 7, 2008, International Women's Day, dozens of Brazilian women occupied the research site at the Monsanto facility in Sao Paulo, destroying the greenhouse and Monsanto's experimental plots of genetically-modified corn. The protesters were members of the international farmers' organization, La Via Campesina, who took exception to the Brazilian government's decision to legalize Monsanto's genetically-modified Guardian® corn, just weeks after France banned it due to environmental concerns and potential human health risks. The farmers object to seed patenting because it keeps poor farmers in debt to the corporations owning the seed patents and takes away the farmers' freedom to keep and share seeds. Brazilian farmers also believe that Monsanto's GM crop threatens biodiversity and Brazil's native seed varieties, and violates the rights of small farmers and consumers by contaminating organic and conventional crops. This is Monsanto's master plan. Introduce its genetically-modified seed and sit back while it contaminates fields grown with traditional seeds. Once that has happened, Monsanto claims their seeds have been pirated. It is not only happening in India and Brazil. It is happening in Mexico, where the origin for maize has been deeply contaminated by Monsanto's GM seeds, Africa and Paraguay. Monsanto's reach has even extended to Iraq, a country we have already devastated through war. One of L. Paul Bremer's final acts was to establish an order preventing farmers from reusing 'protected' (or patented) seeds. The world is easy to contaminate, but hard to police, so the next logical step for Monsanto, of course, was development of the so-called 'terminator' or 'suicide' seed. In 2006, Monsanto purchased a company called Delta & Pine Land. Conveniently, this is the company that has been working with our own U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on genetically engineered seeds since 1983, and one of the main projects has been the 'terminator' or 'suicide' seed. These seeds have been genetically modified to 'commit suicide' after one harvest season, preventing farmers from saving or reusing the seed. This would mean that Monsanto can save money because it will no longer need to employ its cadre of thugs to strong-arm farmers into submission. How did Monsanto get where it is? How did a company that manufactured Agent Orange (used as a defoliant during the Vietnam war), PCBs and dioxin, and left in its wake 50 known Superfund sites, come to control 90% of the world's GM seed market? The short answer is that it has always had more than enough help from the U.S. Government. In 2006, Monsanto donated $106,500 to federal candidates with 32% going to the Democrats and 68% to Republicans. While this number may seem insignificant, it's the approximately $4 million it spent on lobbying that helps them curry favor with the government. Monsanto, more than any other U.S. Company, is a master at using the government's unethical 'revolving door' policy. In 1991, Michael Taylor, was appointed deputy commissioner of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). He had previously been an attorney at Monsanto. While in his government position, Taylor made key decisions that allowed the government to approve GE crops without proper testing and consumer labeling, in spite of the fact that there were (and still are) serious concerns about their safety. Taylor then returned to Monsanto to work in 'long range planning.' He is just one of the many Monsanto employees who have conveniently found their way into government positions, and then returned to the private sector after accomplishing their tasks. Because Monsanto successfully prevented labeling of food packages, consumers do not know that 60-70% of the food on store shelves, including cereals, snack foods, and even baby foods, contain some type of genetically-modified ingredients. These ingredients also frequently turn up in animal feed. How safe are they? Because they were never appropriately tested, nobody really knows. Some of the potential problems include introduction of allergens and toxins into foods, antibiotic resistance, accidentally changing the nutrient content of crops and the creation of 'superweeds' and other environmental risks. Of these potential risks, allergens and toxins are the most dangerous. While responsibility for regulation falls to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the FDA. However, industry experts say that the green light is given mostly by the companies developing the technology. It is no surprise, then, that Monsanto owns 90% of the domestic genetically-modified seed market. (The rest is split among other companies, including Dow Chemical and Syngenta AG.) The FDA has a unique policy for determining the safety of GM foods: Genetically-modified foods simply need to be 'substantially equivalent' to non-modified foods. This is hardly a scientific approach. In the meantime, Monsanto's unregulated march to control the world food supply continues with its recent announcement of the purchase of Marmot SA, which operates Central America's largest corn seed company. This purchase will solidify Monsanto's position as the leading corn seed supplier to the Latin American and Central American regions. Monsanto's assault on the public food supply now moves to milk. Its synthetic Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, known as rBGH, has been banned for health reasons in every industrialized country except the United States, of course. Oakhurst Dairy of Maine, like many other milk suppliers, has been responding to the desire of American consumers and providing milk free of rBGH, and they have been labeling their containers as such. Monsanto sued Oakhurst to prevent them from telling their customers that the milk is free of the Monsanto chemical. Faced with intense pressure from a multinational corporation and rising legal costs, Oakhurst was forced to settle out of court. In spite of this, Monsanto's ruthless march to control the world's food supply continues unabated, financially devastating America's small family-owned farms, putting untested food on our shelves for unwitting Americans to consume, and generally wreaking worldwide havoc. _______________________ Dismantling Democracy, Science And The Public Interest Countercurrents, 14 July 2008. Dismantling Democracy, Science and the Public Interest to put GMO's on Fast Track: The Proposed National Biotechlogy Regulatory Authority (NBRA) and National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill, 2008 [India] Zamg, 12 July 2008 -- Genetically Engineered Organisms (GMOs) are transgenic organisms made by introducing genes across species boundaries. Thus Bt. Cotton, or Bt. Rice or Bt. Brinjal has genes for a toxin taken from a soil bacteria and put into the food crop. In addition, GMO's use anti-biotic resistance markets, viral promoters and cancer genes as vectors. These new genes can have risks for public health and the environment. Ensuring safety in the context of genetically engineered organisms is referred to as Biosafety. India has one of the most sophisticated Laws of Biosafety in the world. The "Rules for the Manufacture, Use / Import / Export and storage of Hazardous micro-organisms / genetically engineered organisms or cells", 1989, notified under the Enviornmental Portection Act, 1986 is science based public interest oriented legislation created long before the commercialization of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) and crops and long before the International Biosafety Protocol of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity came into force. The genetic engineering industry, in particular Monsanto, which controls 95% of all GM seeds sold worldwide, first tried to by pass India's Biosafety Law when it started field trials without approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the statutory body for Biosafety regulation. The rules clearly state
•	9(i) Deliberate or unintentional release of genetically engineered organisms / hazardous microorganisms or including, deliberate release for the purpose of experiment shall not be allowed. Note : Deliberate release shall mean any intentional transfer of genetically engineered organisms / hazardous micro-organisms or cells to the environment or nature, irrespective of the way in which it is done.
Field trials of GMO's are clearly a deliberate release. That is why when Monsanto - Mahyco started field trials of Bt. Cotton in 1997-98, without approval of the GEAC we initiated a case in the Supreme Court of India to challenge the illegal trials. As a result commercialization of Bt. Cotton was delayed upto 2002. The sequence of events, which took place in implementing the illegal trials in India, can be briefly outlined as:
•	24th April 1998 Mahyco files to Department of Biotechnology for field trials
•	May 1998 Joint venture between Mahyco and Monsanto formed
•	13th July 1998 Letter of Intent issued by DBT without involving Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).
•	15th July 1998 Mahyco agrees to conditions in letter of intent.
•	27th July 1998 Impugned permission by DBT for trials at 25 locations granted.
•	5th August 1998 Permission for second set of trials at 15 locations granted
•	6th January 1999 PIL filed by Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology in the Supreme Court of India
•	8th February 1999 RCGM expresses satisfaction over the trial results at 40 locations.
•	12th April 1999 RCGM directs Mahyco to submit application for trials at 10 locations before Monitoring and Evaluation Committee
•	25th May 1999 Revised proposal to RCGM submitted by Mahyco.
•	June-Nov 1999 Permission granted for different trial fields
•	Oct-Nov 1999 Field visits
•	May 2000 Mahyco's letter to GEAC seeking approval for "release for large scale commercial field trials and hybrid seed production of indigenously developed Bt cotton hybrids".'
•	July 2000 GEAC clears for large-scale field trials on 85 hectares and seed production on 150 hectares and notifies through press release.
•	October 2000 RFSTE filed an application for amendment in the petition challenging the fresh GEAC clearance. GEAC orders uprooting of "Navbharat-15", which was found to contain transgenic Bt.
•	26.03.2002 32nd Meeting of the GEAC was held to examine the issue of commercial release of Bt Cotton. Members of GEAC from ICHR, Health Ministry, Commerce Ministry, CSIR, ICAR did not attend the meeting. Inspite of the absence of important members of the GEAC, approval was granted to three out of four of Monsanto - Mahyco's transgenic hybrids.
•	05.04.2002 Formal approval granted to mach-12, Mach - 162 and Mach 184 by A.M. Gokhale, Chair of GEAC. Order of 05.04.2002 is a conditional clearance valid for three years. The stipulated conditions/restrictions are a clear implied admission on the part of the government that the tests are far from complete. In effect, the commercialisation was an experiment. Monsanto-Mahyco had been asked to gather further data and submit annual reports on the resistance that the insects develop over a period of time to GM seeds and to conduct studies on resistance to bollworm, susceptibility tests, and tests for cross pollination.
•	02.03.2005 In March, RFSTE releases results of continued failure of Bt Cotton, especially in Andhra Pradesh.
•	GEAC rejects renewal of the 3 Bt Cotton varieties planted in the Southern States. However, other Bt varieties are cleared in Northern States.
In any case the Review Committee of Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) does not have the authority to approve field trials. According to the "Rules". The RCGM "shall function in the Department of Biotechnology to monitor the safety related aspects in respect of on-going research projects and activities involving genetically engineered organisms / hazardous microorganisms". Clearly RCGM is not an approving authority. The industry has repeatedly used the RCGM and the Biotechnology Department to subvert India's Biosafety Laws. Now that citizens have used this law effectively, industry is trying to have it dismantled. The latest attempt at Biosafety Deregulation by the Biotechnology Department is to float the proposal for a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority and a National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill, 2008. As the proposal states "DBT is considering to promulgate new legislation National Biotechnology Regulatory Act (NBR Act). The false argument being used is that biotechnology regulation is currently spread over multiple acts. This is not true. There is only one Act, the Rules for GMO's under the EPA, regulating GMO's in all fields. It is also being argued that the NBRA will promote public confidence. The public will not and cannot have confidence in an industry driven, centralized, undemocratic, unaccountable law and institution floated by the agency which is a biotechnology promoting agency, and has done everything in the last decade to undermine citizens rights and the public interest. This is a direct attempt to replace India's excellent Biosafety Law with industry friendly legislation, and to replace the GEAC as a Biosafety Regulation Authority with the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority to promote biotechnology, not biosafety. The National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill refers to "consolidation of regulatory policies, rules and services under a single biotechnology authority". There is already a single biosafety authority for all biotechnology approvals - the GEAC. It needs strengthening, not substitution and dismantling. Further, the proposal authority, like the GEAC is restricted to modern biotechnology or genetic engineering, defined as "the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant direct injection of nucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. The proposed authority undermines the regulatory role of diverse ministries and the rights of states and districts. The GEAC consists of members from different ministries, agencies and departments, as well as expert members who are heads of Agricultural Research, Medical Research, Scientific and Industrial Research, D.G Health Services, Directorate of Plant Protection, Chairman Pollution Control Board. The existing law allows creates State Biotechnology Coordination Committee (SBCC), District Level Committee (DLC). In the proposed authority, the statutory bodies role of diverse ministries has been replaced by an Inter-Ministerial Advisory Board, with no authority, but only to promote Central Government Cooperation. The checks and balances, and the decentralized institutions reflecting our federal, democratic structure that are part of the existing law are being destroyed to make it easy for industry to get approvals. As the proposed law states 6(3). "The Inter-ministrial Advisory Board and the National Biotechnology Advisory Council will have no authority to intervene on product specific decisions made by the NBRA." Both the different Ministries, diverse agencies and the States have thus been robbed of decision making powers which is vital to the functioning of democratic structures in the public interest. The functions of the proposed Authority totally overlap with the functions of CEAC. Thus this is a proposal to displace GEAC. The Authority also proposes to displace the Ministry of Environment as the nodal agency for international negotiations for regulating the risks of genetic engineering. Instead of a multi-ministerial committee, all powers for decision making are proposed to be concentrated in one individual, the chairperson, who will be a biotechnologist, with skills in genetic engineering but no skills or expertise in Biosafety. The proposed authority is thus centralized, individualistic biased in favour of genetic engineering and hence will lend itself to easy influence of the genetic engineering industry. The Bill clearly states that the following laws will stand repealed when the Bill becomes an Act. Among the Acts mentioned are -
•	Rules for the manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous micro-organisms, genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989 issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. To be amended to exclude genetically engineered organisms or cells from the mandate / scope of the Rules. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Section 13(3)(c) : The Scientific Panel may be established for genetically modified foods. Genetically modified organisms to be taken out of the mandate of FSSA. Section 22(2) : The definition of genetically engineered or modified food to be amended to exclude foods and food ingredients composed of or containing genetically modified or genetically engineered organisms. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 8th Amendment : The definition of recombinant drug to include all therapeutic proteins derived from recombinant organisms, but exclude recombinant biologics (eg. DNA vaccines, gene therapy products etc) The Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill, 2007 To exclude clinical trials, pre commercial safety assessment, product approval and post release monitoring of recombinant biologics. The Seed Bill, 2004 : Section 15 on Special provision for registration of transgenic varieties: In clause 1 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to be replaced with National Biotechnology Regulatory Act. Proposed Plant Quarantine Bill (a) Section 6(2)(o): Regulating the import of transgenic materials, to be modified as "regulating the import of transgenic material subject to the approval of the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority".
In other words, all safety regulation for health and environment will be demolished in one fell swoop if the National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill is passed and the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority is established. The existing Biosafety Law needs to be upheld. It is an excellent Law. Weakness in implementation needs strengthening of institutions and processes. Not the dismantling of a good Law and its replacement by a centralized, biased Law which is good for industry but a disaster for citizens right to heath and environmental safely. _______________________ GM route reinforces industrial, energy-reliant agriculture Financial Times (UK), Letter to the Editor, 14 July 2008. From Mr Richard Sanders. Sir, The take-home message from your article "A time to sow? GM food could curb cost of staples" (July 11) would appear to be that tomorrow (one day soon) a new generation of genetically modified crops will deliver the magical yield increases and crop ability to thrive in adverse conditions that we were promised by life science companies 20 years ago. The world will be awash with cheap food, hunger will be banished. The truth is that these companies - Monsanto, Syngenta and so on - have so far failed to deliver crops capable of thriving in drought, salt or nutrient deprived conditions. Doubts about future delivery are fuelled by the over-hyped promise of their first generation Roundup-Ready and pest-resistant crops, which has not been met. Truly independent observers such as the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) this year published a 2,500-page report based on peer-reviewed publications which concluded that the yield gains in GM crops "were highly variable" and that in some places "yields declined". Asked at a press conference if GM crops were the answer to world hunger, IAASTD director Prof Bob Watson (now chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) said: "The simple answer is no." The IAASTD concluded that for food and crop production "business as usual is no longer an option". It called for a shift to "agroecological" food production. Their assessment questioned GM's claims to be the solution to global poverty, hunger or climate change. In fact, large sections of the IAASTD favoured organic production, much to the irritation of the GM lobby. The argument against GM crops has moved on from the frightening spectre of "Frankenfoods" and health scares. Quite simply, the GM route reinforces an outdated model of industrial, energy-reliant agriculture, wholly unsuitable for adapting to and dealing with the conditions that climate change and expensive, scarce oil bring for global food security. The time has come to ask if undue research and commercial focus on GM foods and crops is diverting our attention from the development of truly reliable alternatives of sustainable (organic) agriculture that are capable of feeding a hungry world today and tomorrow. Richard Sanders, The Organic Research Centre, Newbury, Berks RG20 0HR, UK _______________________ 13 July 2008 GM honey banned, but no protection from the bee-keeper BioFach Newsletter (Germany), 13 July 2008. The Augsburg administrative court [in Southern Germany] ruled on 30.5.2008 that honey containing pollen from MON 810 genetically modified corn is not tradable. Although the judge recognizes that the plaintiff, bee-keeper Karl-Heinz Bablok, is very adversely affected by this ruling because he is not allowed to sell such honey, it is the court's opinion that he has no claim to protection against the growing of GM corn. Bablok and the "Alliance for the Protection of Bees against Agro-Genetic Engineering" are now counting on a new verdict in the principal proceedings. The alliance of the food industry, bee-keeping associations and many individuals are supporting the bee-keeper in his legal action. _______________________ GE honey banned, but beekeepers without protection Court decision: cultivation of GE maize makes honey unmarketable! Source: Beekeepers against Genetic Engineering (German website) Translated by Karsten Wolff. http://mellifera.weitblick.de/gen/gen.news/para.gen.news.16/index.html The administration court in Augsburg ruled on May 30 that honey containing pollen of the genetically modified maize MON 810 is not marketable. According to the judges, the cultivation constitutes a fundamental curtailing of the beekeeper Bablok, because he is not allowed to market this kind of honey. Even the smallest traces of pollen cause the honey to be unmarketable, since GE maize has no approval as a food. But the court also ruled that the beekeeper cannot claim any protection against the cultivation of MON 810. The beekeeper Bablok had tried to assert that the maize farmer needs to prevent his bees from carrying the pollen of the maize by implementing appropriate actions such as the cutting of the pollen or harvesting before flowering. Although the amateur beekeeper attends to his bees stationary in an apiary since many years und does not have the technical means to transport his bees, the court expects from him to move his bee colony to another location during the flowering of the maize. After balancing the proportionality, this could be demanded from the beekeeper. However, the court also pointed out that the beekeeper can seek compensation from the maize farmer subject to private law. The judge admitted that the expansion of GE maize cultivation would lead to a situation where the beekeeper faces an irresolvable problem. But the court ruling covers this particular case for the year 2008, only. "This decision reveals that beekeeping is affected in its core by agricultural genetic engineering. It cannot be right that beekeepers and farmers have to carry the can for the deficits in the approval, for which Monsanto is responsible." says Thomas Radetzki, representative of the network supporting the beekeeper filing the lawsuit. But for beekeeper Bablok this is not only about economic problems: "If the legislator will not implement actions to protect beekeeping in the future, the expansion of GE maize will lead to a countryside without any bees left at all. This will cause an emergency with regards to the pollination of fruits and other crops, eventually causing a depletion of diversity within uncultivated varieties. It is beyond comprehension that the government supports unblushingly the multinational seed company, but abandons native beekeepers, farmers and consumers, and sacrifices essential environmental interests. However, our struggle continues, also at the courts, in order to fight for the enforcement of our rights." _______________________ 11 July 2008 Pioneer: New soybeans produce 10% yield advantage Des Moines Register, 11 July 2008. By Jerry Perkins, Pioneer Hi-Bred, a Johnston-based unit of DuPont, launched Thursday what it is calling "a new generation" of soybean varieties designed to increase soybean yields by 40 percent during the next 10 years. Pioneer president and DuPont vice president and general manager Paul Schickler said the new Y series soybeans, as Pioneer has named the 32 new seed varieties, will "deliver unprecedented productivity gains to North American soybean growers." Pioneer intends to sell enough of the new seed from the Y series to cover about 9 million acres for the 2009 growing season. The introduction of the 32 new Y series soybeans represents the largest volume of commercial products launched at one time in the 82-year history of Pioneer, Schickler said. In more than 1,800 on-farm comparisons, the Y series demonstrated a 5 percent yield advantage over competitive soybean varieties, with some varieties yielding 6 percent to 10 percent more than their competitors, Schickler said. "With the Y series yield advantage, this new line has the potential to add about 19 million bushels of soybeans to U.S. production," he said. "In a time of tight supplies and soaring demand, that is a strong boost for producers and the industry." Soybean breeders have been frustrated for years by the slow pace of soybean yield increases, especially when compared with corn. Palle Pedersen, Iowa State University agronomist, said soybean yields in Iowa have increased annually an average of less than half a bushel an acre since 1924. Average corn yields in Iowa, meanwhile, have increased almost two bushels an acre a year since 1938, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other soybean companies also are trying to break the lid on soybean yield increases. Monsanto Co. has said that four years of data show its newer Roundup "RReady2Yield" soybeans have a 7 percent to 11 percent increase over earlier versions of its herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready soybeans. Schickler said Pioneer brand soybeans have led North American soybean sales since 1989. Pioneer soybeans have gained an additional 6 percent of the soybean seed market in the past eight years, he said. Soybean seed sales represent 16 percent of Pioneer's annual revenues. John Soper, senior research director for Pioneer, said the company used molecular marker technologies to find the genes that control yield in the soybean plant. Yield in soybeans is controlled by many different genes working in combination, which made finding the right genes to target more difficult, Soper said. A genetic comparison of older soybean varieties with newer ones ended up focusing on 100 genes as potential yield enhancers, he said. By narrowing the genetic search to those 100 genes, Pioneer was able to match parent seed lines that resulted in more productive gene combinations, Soper said. Don Schafer, senior marketing manager for Pioneer, said Pioneer's Y series of soybeans can be grown across the entire U.S. soybean-growing area and in some areas of Canada. Small quantities of the seed have been planted in test plots this year, and seed production for 2009 is proceeding at 28 locations in North America, he said. Pioneer expects to have a large demand for the Y series soybeans next year, Schafer said, but the price it will charge farmers for the Y series soybean seeds hasn't been determined. Comment from GM Watch: Although these new soybeans come from a biotech company, it's clear from the article that it's not GM that delivered the yield advantage that's being trumpeted. Instead it was down to molecular marker technologies - a biotechnology approach involving no genetic engineering. You can also see from the article why genetic engineering is so poor at improving productivity. As it notes, "Yield in soybeans is controlled by many different genes working in combination". And while Monsanto is preparing to launch its new Roundup "RReady2Yield" soybeans, there's nothing to indicate that the yield claims being made for RR2 owe anything to genetic engineering. The likelihood is that the parent lines were developed conventionally with the help of molecular marker technologies - so called Marker Assisted Selection (MAS)- and then the RR gene added to make them GM. That, of course, will not stop the claims that GM has created productivity claims! _______________________ GM crop reapers detect illegal GM maize on the farm of a small farmer Le Monde, 11 July 2008 (summary). Small farmer Jean-Louis Cuquel has been summoned to appear in court at Montauban on July 10 following a writ served by Confédération Paysanne, Greenpeace and organic body Nature et Progrès. The reason: these groups found Monsanto's GM maize MON810, banned since February, growing in one of his fields. The Voluntary Reapers, farmers from Confédération Paysanne and members of other associations opposed to GMOs are conducting an ongoing investigation in different regions to attempt to identify GM crops. The methods are well developed, as evidenced by the guide, "How to detect transgenic plants in fields" released by the GM Info group. Investigators take samples of the suspect maize, crush it into a juice and mix it with an inexpensive reactive substance. If the cardboard reacts, the test is positive. The mixture is then sent to labs to do further analysis according to standardized methods. But Mr Cuquel, aged 40, is not a big farmer who stands to make a fortune from hundreds of hectares of maize. He built his own house over 12 years and lives there with his wife and child. He has only 20 hectares and finds it difficult to compete with cheap imports from Spain, Italy and Morocco. For the past 5 years he has had to work as a hospital porter, tending his land during the evenings, weekends and holidays The GM maize? He says that he used to spray [insecticide] products by helicopter. With the GM maize he doesn't have to do that any longer. He says it's healthier and gives a better yield. But MON810, approved in 2007, was banned in 2008. "They sold the seed in quantity, on pallets, so I had some left over last year," he says. "At 180 euros per load, I could not afford to throw them away." Indeed, the laboratory Ad. Gene at Thury-Harcourt (Calvados) contracted by the groups, found that samples collected in the field have "DNA derived from GMOs" in excess of 5%. For opponents of transgenic crops, the offence is not in doubt. "We are not targeting the farmer, said Michel Dupont, of Confédération Paysanne, but the economic system which led to this illegal cultivation. "The discovery of this cultivation of MON 810 means nothing is being done to enforce the moratorium," said José Bové, spokesman of the Voluntary Reapers. "If nothing is done, this is the politics of 'fait accompli': contamination will become widespread, and all standards will be gradually relaxed." _______________________ 'We need a moratorium on Bt cotton and new GM testing' Q&A with Pushpa Mitter Bhargava Business Standard (India), 11 July 2008. Latha Jishnu / New Delhi -- Since April 2 this year, there has been a palpable air of tension at the meetings of the Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee (GEAC) at Paryavaran Bhavan in Delhi. That's when Pushpa Mitter Bhargava, regarded by many as the architect of biotechnology in India, began attending the meetings of the apex regulatory body on genetic engineering as a special nominee of the Supreme Court. Known for his role in setting up the country's premier research institution, the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, Bhargava is taken aback by the lax ways of the GEAC and "going purely on the documentation provided by it" is surprised that no one has pointed out the serious lapses in the testing of genetically modified (GM) crops. In a detailed interview to Latha Jishnu, he explains why there should be a five-year moratorium on Bt cotton and field trials of other crops till we clean up the system. (Dr Bhargava's views were made available to eight GEAC members for their comments a week ago, but none chose to respond.) Why should there be a moratorium on Bt cotton? A great deal of work has been done in the last few years which calls for a total recall of Bt cotton. For instance, gene flow studies have shown that we need to be cautious about the risks posed by GM crops to other plants. That's why on May 16, the UN Conference on Biodiversity concluded that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were responsible for damage to other crops. In India, the reported cases of Bt allergy in the north have not been investigated. In AP, there have been reported cases of a large number of sheep dying after feeding on the Bt cotton plants. GEAC claims that the AP government had blamed these sheep deaths on the residue of pesticides used. The letter from the Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Hyderabad clearly says none of the pesticide residues mentioned by the GEAC were found in the samples. The letter also gives the lie to another claim about studies having been done on the impact of Bt toxin on the environment and animals. In fact, the department says biosafety trials must be conducted on the effect of continuous grazing on harvested or intact Bt cotton plants and has warned shepherds to not allow their animals to graze on Bt cotton fields in the interim. What do you make of this? At every stage there is a bias if not deceit all the way. I am only looking at the data provided by the GEAC itself. Now that we are going in for GM food such as Bt brinjal and 24 other crops, how safe are these for human consumption given that vegetables and fruits will carry Bt toxin? The GEAC website had the same result on the presence of Bt protein in the uncooked varieties, for both the non-GM and GM brinjals! Whatever data is available for Bt brinjal is partial and even suspicious. The GEAC says its data is available on the website for anyone to check. The website carries conclusions and not the data, and there is an extremely important distinction between these. With Bt cotton accounting for 60 per cent of the crop (both legal and illegal seeds) is a ban feasible? Yes, of course. After all, drugs are withdrawn from the market when new information comes to light. Switzerland has just announced a moratorium on GMOs till 2012 and has found tremendous support from the people. What will a moratorium achieve? We can clean the regulatory process. Most important, we should set up a national facility for doing all the necessary tests on GMOs and training skilled and objective inspectors. This institution should be run jointly by government and civil society. So far there has been no supervision at all of field trials and only now is the GEAC preparing a draft document on this. We also need a comprehensive protocol on risk assessment. Right now there are too many unethical practices. Can you elaborate on this? The trials being conducted in West Bengal on Bt okra, for instance, were started on the basis of approval granted by the local panchayat, surely the least knowledgeable about the risks of GMOs. The state and district committees on biotechnology gave conditional approval only six months later in February 2008. Worse, the agricultural university monitoring the field trials has given a damning report on the way it is being conducted. What is your primary concern? No comprehensive risk assessment has been done. Some of the significant tests that have not been done are chronic toxicity, DNA fingerprinting, proteomics analysis, studies on reproductive interference. The most worrying issue is that whatever test data has been given to GEAC is provided by the applicant company itself, such as on the toxicity and allergenicity of the GMO. There is no proof that the company actually did these tests, and as far as I am concerned no valid data exists. Is it because there was no independent validation? Some tests were done by an outside party (not validation) such as Intox, Rallis and Sriram Institute. But this makes no difference because the samples were provided by the applicant companies and were not double blinded. How do we know that the samples were of the GM variety? What is a sane policy on GM? We should first determine if there is an alternative. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has done a lot of work, on around 85 crops, to prove the efficacy of the integrated pest management and bio-pesticide protocol. This is a far cheaper and better way to increase farm production but has been ignored. Remember, only 11 countries in the world have gone in for GM crops and of these, just four, the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina account for the bulk. Are worries on GM food being exaggerated by the anti-GM lobby? Just look at the recent study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the US, one of the most cited journals in the world. It says that dietary DNA can find its way into blood, opening up the possibility of GMO DNA transforming somatic cells. Such transformations can have a major deleterious effect on the host. _______________________ 10 July 2008 Gene Warfare in Oaxaca Genetic Mutation of Mexican Maize Counterpunch (USA), 10 July 2008. By Camelo Ruiz Marrero. Scientists from Mexico, Canada and the United States met on March 11th this year in the Hotel Victoria in Oaxaca for a symposium on the effects and possible risks of the presence of genetically modified maize in Mexico. The furtive and growing presence of this maize has been documented in small plots of land belonging to rural workers first in the southern State of Oaxaca and more recently throughout the whole country. This discovery could have serious implications for agricultural biodiversity since maize is the third most important crop in the world after wheat and rice and Mexico is the center of its origin and diversity. Alejandro de Avila, director of the Oaxaca Ethnobotanic Garden reported that the most recent archaeological studies indicate that maize was discovered and domesticated in Oaxaca ten thousand years ago, not six thousand or eight thousand as had been believed until recently. Maize is considered to be humanity's greatest agricultural achievement and the greatest treasure Christopher Columbus took back to Europe from the American continent. Today, it is grown all around the Mediterranean, in Africa and in China. But its center of diversity continues to be Mexico, where the greatest part of the thousands of varieties and stocks are sown which are the result of millenia of patient work and experiment by campesinos. These varieties were developed so as to bring out favorable characteristics such as, among others, nutritional value, tolerance to acidic or salty soils, immunity to disease. There is even a variety which fixes its own nitrogen. It is far from strange to see in an indigenous community like Sierra Juarez of Oxaca more varieties of maize than in the whole of the United States. This astonishing diversity leads agronomists from all over the world to travel to Mexico to get specimens so as to improve their own varieties of maize which is the reason Mexico is the seat of the International Center for Investigations for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT). The maize fields of the Mexican campesinos are thus an irreplaceable resource of agricultural biodiversity. Social or ecological disruption in that area might compromise the viability of maize as a food and endanger world food supply. The CIMMYT, with all its laboratories and seed banks, could not replace the dense and complex rural social and ecological skein from which innumerable varieties of maize srping. That morning of March 11th, while the participants arrived at the hotel to register for the symposium of the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, which resulted from the parallel agreement of the North American Free Trade Area, the organizers and private security guards seemed tense and expectant. They knew a protest demonstration was imminent and that the demonstrators would arrive any moment. The day before, groups representing indigenous people, environmentalists and progressive intellectuals had held an alternative forum called 'Defending Our Maize, Protecting Life'. They feared that the experts, generally favourable to the biotechnology industry and its genetically modified products would declare that the genetic contamination of maize is an irreversible fact of life and that in future Mexicans would have to get used to it. The forum participants agreed to go to the symposium the following day so as to present their arguments and concerns to the bureaucrats and the scientists. Their admission to the symposium was not confirmed, but they were going to go anyway. Enter genetically modified foods In 1996 the US began to grow genetically modified maize and in five years it came to make up 30% of that crop's national harvest. Mexican scientists and environmentalists expressed concern that this maize might enter Mexico through imports with uncertain consequences for agricultural biodiversoty. The government responded the following year by imposing a moratorium on the sowing of genetically modified crops. But the measure was never complied with and maize imports carried on without any regulation at all. No one ever explained to people in Mexico that those grains could not be used as seed. Already in 1999 the Mexican branch of Greenpeace had analyzed samples of United States maize that were entering the country and had shown positive traces of genetic modification. The government then formed the Interdepartmental Commission on Bio-security and Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM) to examine the issue. To this day it has done nothing according to civil society groups. The web page of CIBIOGEM has not been updated since August 2003. In 2001 it was proven that genetically modified maize had been used as seed and sown by rural families who had no idea what it was. Silvia Ribeiro of the Action group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) remarks, 'And that's not all. You're talking about contamination in the very centre of origin of a crop with huge importance for world food supply, which means significant effects in other zones since the contamination can spread not just to the native varieties of maize but also to their wild parents.' This genetic flow 'contaminates and degrades one of Mexico's main treasures. In contrast to dispersion and genetic flow between native maize and conventional hybrid varieties, it doesn't just transfer maize genes but also pieces of genes of bacterias and viruses (that have nothing to do with maize) whose environmental and health effects have not been seriously evaluated.' 'The contamination of our traditional maize attacks the fundamental autonomy of our indigenous and agricultural communities because we are not just talking of our food source; maize is a vital part of our cultural heritage," declares indigenous leader Aldo Gonzalez, 'For us native seeds are an important element of our culture. The pyramids may have disappeared and been destroyed but a handful of maize is a legacy we can leave behind for our children and grandchildren and today they are denying us that possibility.' The following year environmental, indigenous and rural workers organizations took their case to the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CCA), an inter-governmental body created to remedy environmental problems caused by the Free Trade Treaty. The CCA took up the case and named a multinational panel of 17 experts to investigate the problem and to report with recommendations. The panel took submissions from the public but only via Internet, which outraged the rural workers and indigenous peoples. After all, how many Mixteca or Zapateca communities in the Sierra Juarez have internet cafes? To respond to demand for authentic participation, the CCA set up the panel to carry out the symposium of March 11th. In the meantime, the Fox government did what wanted. At the end of last year Victor Villalobos the executive secretary of CIBIOGEM and coordinator of international affairs for the Department of Agriculture signed an international agreement as part of the Free Trade Treaty behind the backs of the Senate and the citizenry permitting legal entry to genetically modified products into the country without labelling requirements Countdown to Oaxaca One month before the March 11th symposium, the Seventh Biodiversity Convention was held in Malaysia, followed immediately by the first conference on the Cartagena Protocol, also in Malaysia. The Protocol which entered into effect last Septemberis an international agreement to deal with the possible risks posed by genetic engineering. During the conference a dispute broke out when Professor Terje Traavik of the Norwegian Institute for Genetic Ecology presented a pilot study which pointed to the dangers for human health inherent in genetically modified crops and in the very process of genetic engineering. On the other side of the world, the day before, in Washington DC, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) presented a study indicating that varieties of traditional United States maize seeds, soya and canola used as a reference and source of re-supply by agronomists and farmers are contaminated with genetically modified material. Taken together the studies of Traavik and the UCS make up a damning critique of the biotechnology industry. In the Conference on the Cartagena Protocol, after many difficulties and intense negotiations the delegations of the signatory countries imposed themselves against the pressures of the multinational genetic engineering companies and reached an agreement. The agreement required that all genetically engineered products traded internationally should be labelled. But this agreement came to nothing because at the last minute, right before it was to be signed, the head of the Mexican delegation, the same Victor Villalobos of CIBIOGEM said that he found the text unacceptable. Even the members of the Mexican delegation looked at him openmouthed and dumbfounded. As the Protocol works by consent, Villalobos managed to scupper all the hard won progress and so the delegates had to return home with a diluted, emasculated agreement that left the matter of labelling in the hands of individual governments. Various observers asked, if each country is to do as it pleases what point is there to an international agreement? The reaction of civil society in Mexico was furious. In the forum of March 10th, the participants signed a declaration against Villalobos demanding his resignation. 'We are ashamed that Mexico is accused in international fora of doing the dirty work of multinational corporations to the detriment of other countries,' says the declaration. 'Villalobos represents neither the feelings nor the interests of Mexicans.' They rejected too the 'intolerable corruption' of officials who promote genetically modified organisms like-it-or-not style. 'We are not interested in confirming whether or not they receive money from the corporations, whether they behave out of mercenary self-interest, ignorance or recklessness. We are not the police. But nor do need more investigation to be able to affirm unreservedly that they do not represent us and that they are incapable of understanding our reality and aspirations, much less defend them.' And to sharpen the tense atmosphere that growing up around the Oaxaca symposium, news arrived of the vote in Mendocino County, California in the US approving a measure against genetically modified foods. Different languages The demonstrators finally arrived at the Hotel Victoria: rural workers, Greenpeace militants, indigenous peoples representatives, academics and committed intellectuals, all entering to register for the symposium. the organizers wisely gave them all admission and the conference hall promptly changed into a Tower of Babel. The scientists, bureaucrats and journalists who spoke English, Spanish or French were now accompanied by indigenous peoples speaking Mixteco, Zapateco, Chinanteco or any other of dozens of pre-Colombian languages that are spoken in the region. The differences between the two parties went far beyond language barriers. It was a clash between ways of thinking and world views totally distinct and incompatible. The members of the CEC panel spoke in a highly technical language limiting themselves to their particular speciality. They tried to discuss ethical, technical environmental and economic issues in isolation from each other. But the indigenous peoples and their allies with an integral, holistic vision did not accept this. For them it was unethical to look at the various issues separately. They spoke of their age old indigenous cosmology, spirituality, culture, inalienable principles and duties, colonialism, neo-liberalism, sovereignty and struggle. They raised the risks of genetically modified products and questioned industrialized agriculture and the power of the agribusiness multinationals. The demonstrators demanded the end of all maize imports, genetically engineered or not, and that the government comply with its inescapable duty to act to hold back and stop genetic contamination. 'We seek the solidarity and support of all in Mexico and the world, who have taken up a struggle similar to our own so as to extend ever further the territories free from genetically modified food.' Carmelo RUIZ MARRERO is a journalist based in Puerto Rico published in Ecoportal and other media. He is the author of, "Agricultura y globalizacion: Alimentos transgenicos y control corporativo" published by the Americas Program of the Interhemispheric Resource Center. This article was assisted by Tania Fernandez for EcoPortal [http://www.ecoportal.net]. Translation by toni solo _______________________ World Bank Secret Report confirms Biofuel Cause of World Food Crisis GlobalResearch.ch, 10 July 2008. By F. William Engdahl A secret study by the World Bank, which reportedly has not been made public on pressure from the Bush Administration, concludes that bio-fuel cultivation in especially the USA and EU are directly responsible for the current explosion in grain and food prices worldwide. The US Government at the recent Rome UN Food Summit claimed that "only 3% of food prices" were due to bio-fuels. The World Bank secret report says that at least 75% of the recent price rises are due to land being removed from agriculture�mainly maize in North America and rapeseed and corn in the EU�in order to grow crops to be burned for vehicle fuel. The World Bank study confirms what we wrote more than a year ago about the madness of bio-fuels. It fits the agenda described in the 1970's by Henry Kissinger, namely, 'If you control the food you control the people.' According to the London Guardian newspaper which has been given a copy of the suppressed report, the World Bank study was completed in April, well before the June Rome Food Summit, but was deliberately suppressed as "embarrassing to the position of the Bush Administration." The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, is a former top Bush Administration official. Washington is trying to use a crisis which its bio-fuel subsidies created, since a new Farm bill passed in 2005, to advance the spread of Genetically Manipulated Organisms such as GMO maize, soybeans, rice and other crops patented by Monsanto and other "gene giants." Their strategy is to use the explosive rise in grain prices worldwide, a rise fuelled by hedge funds and troubled US and European banks and investment funds pouring billions of dollars into speculation that grain prices will continue to soar. In other words, the food "crisis" is a crisis of speculation in food futures. The planned EU and USA bio-fuel acreage quotas and the periodic droughts and floods in key growing regions such as the USA Midwest then provide backdrop for speculative price run-ups. But the main driver is that tens of millions of hectares of prime agriculture land in the world's two largest food export regions�the USA and the EU-- are being permanently removed from food production in order to grow raw material to be burned for vehicle fuel. The suppressed study The World Bank study, the most detailed analysis of the global food crisis so far, concludes that bio-fuels have forced "food prices up by 75%." That is far more than previous estimates. That is a damning refutation of the politically-motivated US Department of Agriculture estimate that plant-derived fuels add only 3% to food prices. The report is expected to increase pressure on the European Union governments as well as Washington to change their present bio-fuel subsidy and support policies. The report has been leaked just days before the important annual Group of 8 industrial nation leaders' summit held in Hokkaido Japan. The food crisis will be a major topic there as pressure on governments grows to do something. The World Bank report estimates that doubling and tripling of world food prices in the past three years have forced an added 100 million people below the poverty line. That has triggered food riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. The report as well calculates that even the successive droughts in Australia and other major food regions have had only a "marginal" impact on food prices. Within the EU, for example, as of April all vehicles in the UK must contain fuel with at least 2.5% bio-fuel. The EU has in place a target of mandatory 20% by 2020, a staggering amount. George W. Bush has cynically claimed higher food prices are merely due to higher demand from India and China. The leaked World Bank study refutes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases." "Without the increase in bio-fuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," the World Bank report states. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and February 2008. Higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%. Bio-fuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period. The study demonstrates that production of bio-fuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going to production of bio-diesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for bio-fuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher. The real agenda behind the food crisis The World Bank study is the first to include all three factors. What is missing from the World Bank study however is the longer-term geopolitical agenda behind the present global food and energy crises. As I document in great detail in my book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, the long term agenda of powerful leading circles in the West, particularly represented in tax exempt private foundations such as the Rockefeller, Ford and Gates foundations and the private wealth behind them, is a long term agenda of population reduction, in the interests of the global economic and financial elites. Food scarcity, higher prices for basic foods in developing countries as well as control of food seeds through patent and Terminator suicide seed sales by Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow, BASF, Bayer and a few select agriculture chemical seed giants�the "horsemen of the GMO Apokalypse," have been developed to advance the agenda of massive depopulation of the developing world. The policy goes back, as the book documents in detail, to the early years of the 20th Century when Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Gamble, H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, and other wealthy circles backed the development of eugenics research. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the eugenics and forced sterilization research at the Berlin Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (today's Max Planck Institute) until it became too politically hot in 1939. After the end of the war, Rockefeller and others in the eugenics movement decided for political reasons to change the name of eugenics. The new name they chose was "genetics." GMO is a project, based on wrong science, financed with over $100 million of private money from the Rockefeller Foundation. The ultimate aim is for the first time in history to control life on the planet. As Henry Kissinger put in during the 1970's food crisis, "control the food and you control the people." In this light it is worth noting that as a solution to a crisis which it deliberately created by its massive government subsidies to farmers to grow bio-fuels instead of food, the Bush Administration made and continues to make a major pressure at the Rome Food Summit in early June and after, to open the doors to GMO as the alleged "solution" to world hunger. On June 13, just after the Rome UN Food Summit, John Negroponte, US Deputy Secretary of State, stated, ""We therefore are strongly encouraging countries to remove barriers to the use of innovative plant and animal production technologies, including biotechnology," adding, "Biotechnology tools can help speed the development of crops with higher yields, higher nutrition value, better resistance to pests and diseases, and stronger food system resilience in the face of climate change." Washington and the GMO companies now use the more deceptive term, "biotechnology" instead of the controversial GMO term, in a linguistic ploy to overcome opposition. Independent scientific studies and countless farmer reports have shown that long-term planting of GMO or bio-tech crops as the gene giants prefer to call it, far from giving higher crop yields, lowers the yields and development of resistant "super-weeds" usually mean more, not less Roundup or other GMO-paired chemical herbicides and pesticides are needed. In short the glorious claims for GMO are marketing fraud. According to highly informed reports, Washington had been told that Pope Benedict XVI would endorse the spread of GMO, something the Vatican until now has been strongly opposed to on moral and other grounds, as a solution to world hunger. At the last minute that endorsement did not happen for reasons only the Pope perhaps knows. Groups like Greenpeace and the London Independent newspaper in the days before the Rome UN summit reported interviews with senior Church figures stating that the policy reverse was expected. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the entire Rome UN Summit was orchestrated by Washington, London's Gordon Brown and other Malthusian governments in part to try to convince the Pope to reverse its policy on GMO. The Roman Catholic Church today stands as one of the most important moral barriers to widespread acceptance of GMO in many developing countries such as the Philippines and Latin America. The leak of the World Bank report adds a dramatic new element into what is becoming one of the major political issues along with oil price manipulation. F. William Engdahl is a leading analyst of the New World Order, author of Seeds of Destruction, Global Research,2007 [see below], and the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, "A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New World Order",' His writings have been translated into more than a dozen languages. _______________________ Monsanto patent fight ensnares Missouri farm town Associated Press, 10 July 2008. By Alan Scher Zagier. PILOT GROVE, Mo. \| Soybean farmer David Brumback calls himself a loyal customer of Monsanto Co. His product of choice: genetically engineered seeds resistant to pesticides and weed killers. So when the biotech giant named Brumback and more than 100 other local farmers in a subpoena seeking five years of sales records, his first reaction was befuddlement. Then anger. "With Monsanto, you're guilty until you're proven innocent," he said. Across rural America, Monsanto is known for aggressive legal efforts to protect its patent. Farmers who save and replant the patented seeds in subsequent growing seasons quickly hear from the company's lawyers -- and almost always lose, or settle out of court before trial. Now Monsanto is raising the stakes against this so-called seed piracy with an unprecedented lawsuit against a farm co-op it accuses of aiding the illegal practice by cleaning seeds for use in future crops. That practice violates the contract between Monsanto and farmers which prohibits farmers from stockpiling seeds or selling second-generation seeds. The St. Louis-based company says it's merely protecting an investment that exceeds $2 million a day in overall research and development costs. Lawyers for the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator Inc. in the central Missouri town, population 750, offer a more nefarious explanation: Monsanto wants to make an example of the co-op through tactics that reek of bullying and intimidation. "Monsanto is doing its best to make this case so expensive to defend that the co-op will have no choice but to relent," attorney Steven Schwartz wrote in a court motion filed earlier this year. The company sought purchase records and depositions from 114 Pilot Grove customers. "Its true motive is to gather information for future lawsuits against the co-op, its customers and other farm businesses around Pilot Grove." Schwartz declined to discuss the ongoing case. So did several of the more than 20 co-op customers who have settled patent infringement complaints out of court. Those settlements include gag orders. "It's a bad deal," said Pilot Grove farmer James Wessing. "According to Monsanto, nobody is supposed to know anything about it." The company's enforcement strategy includes private investigators, video surveillance and a toll-free hot line provided for farmers and business owners to anonymously report violations to what farmers call the "seed police." A Monsanto spokeswoman noted that farmers who use patented seeds such as its Roundup Ready soybean -- so named because it resists the Monsanto herbicide Roundup -- sign written agreements pledging not to save and replant seeds. Of the roughly 250,000 farmers who buy such products annually, the company has sued about 120 customers over the past decade, spokeswoman Janice Person said. She compared the seed contracts to DVD rental agreements that require customers to not copy movies for commercial use. "It's an equitable playing field for all farmers to follow the same rules," she said. Sometimes though, the company's zealous enforcement efforts ensnare innocent bystanders. Gary Rinehart, a northern Missouri convenience store owner, said he was accosted in 2002 by a Monsanto private investigator who warned him not to fight the company. Only Rinehart doesn't own a farmer or sell seeds. "It was a case of mistaken identity," he said. Monsanto sued Rinehart in federal court before dropping its case. According to a statement on the company's Web site, a Monsanto investigator "saw unmarked, brown bagged seed delivered to a couple of fields" nearby. The actual offender was Rinehart's nephew, whom the company says planted saved seeds on Rinehart's land. "There's nobody else in the world that can get away with what they've done," Rinehart said. "When you buy a loaf of bread, it's yours. You're done. It should be the same way with seeds." Rinehart's sentiment underscores years of simmering resentment among farmers who say Monsanto's grip on the seed market has produced unreasonable demands regarding the use of its seeds. Saving seeds for reuse in later planting seasons is how it was done since the earliest days of agriculture. But the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980 deemed seeds as products that could be patented, opening the door for Monsanto and other companies. A 2007 study by the Center for Food Safety showed that Monsanto had collected between $107 million and $186 million in patent infringement settlements before and after trial. The largest judgment, against a North Carolina farmer, topped $3.05 million. A Tennessee farmer was sentenced to eight months in prison after he was caught lying about a truckload of cotton seed he hid for a friend. And a Canadian canola grower was sued even after the company acknowledged that the patented seeds merely drifted onto his land or fell off trucks headed to grain elevators. "It's unacceptable that Monsanto is going after farmers," said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Washington-based watchdog. "And it's even worse when they broaden it to an entire cooperative." Schwartz, the co-op's attorney, said in a court filing that the Pilot Grove business is being targeted for "inducing farmers to infringe (the patent) by cleaning their soybeans." Monsanto's pursuit of patent claims against individual farmers has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which in January let stand without comment two lower court rulings that found a Mississippi farmer responsible for $375,000 in damages for reusing Roundup Ready soybean seeds. _______________________ China to promote more genetically modified crops Reuters, 10 July 2008. By Niu Shuping BEIJING - Faced with shrinking farmland and rising demand for grains, China's cabinet has decided to give broad support for genetically modified crops, a move that follows a decade of research and which scientists say will likely speed commercial production of GMO rice or corn. In approving a master plan for transgenic crops late on Wednesday, the State Council said it aimed to shore up the country's sustainable agricultural development, Xinhua news agency reported. The cabinet also urged relevant authorities to "waste no time to implement the programme and understand the importance and urgency of the programme". China is already the world's largest grower of genetically modified cotton. The Xinhua report gave few details of the plan, including which GMO crops the government will promote. "It is a policy signal in supporting GMO crops" after many years of research and testing, Huang Dafang, a researcher with Biotechnology Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told Reuters on Thursday. "I think the sensitive issue such as (commercial use of) GMO rice will come back to the agenda again." The programme aims to develop high-quality, high-yield and pest-resistant genetically modified new species, Xinhua said, citing the cabinet meeting, which was presided over by Premier Wen Jiabao. The cabinet last week approved a long-term grain output blueprint, which aims to increase grain production to more than 540 million tonnes annually by 2020 so it can be 95 percent self-sufficient in feeding the country's growing population of more than 1.3 billion people. But analysts say that because China's arable land is shrinking every year due to industralization, the country has no option but to turn to genetic modification technology to increase yields. "GMO technology is the only solution right now for the country to raise yield and reduce use of pesticide, which is harmful for the environment," said Huang. China aims to produce 500 million tonnes of grain a year by 2010, but demand -- estimated at 518 million tonnes this year -- is projected to outstrip the pace of grain output. Still, China will likely not have to import grain in the next year or two because it has ample grain reserves. (Reporting by Niu Shuping; Editing by Ken Wills) _______________________ 9 July 2008 New International Guidelines on Food Safety TheFishSite.com, 9 July 2008. US - The Biotechnology Industry Organization has congratulated the Codex Alimentarius Commission for approving key guidelines to further promote the safety of products from agricultural plant and animal biotechnology. The Codex Commission took final action Friday at its 31st session in Geneva, Switzerland. The Codex Alimentarius Commission and its member countries approved:
•	the Annex on Food Safety Assessment in Situations of Low-Level Presence of Recombinant-DNA Plant Material in Food (LLP Annex),
•	the Annex on Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant DNA-Plants Modified for Nutritional or Health Benefits, and
•	the Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Animals.
Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, executive vice president, food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, issued the following statement in response to action taken this week by the Commission: "On behalf of its members, BIO commends the actions taken by Codex this week. These standards represent Codex's commitment to promoting food safety for consumers, while embracing scientific advances and fostering trade of biotech-derived agriculture products. "BIO and its members applaud the U.S. government and other governments around the world for moving these science-based guidelines to adoption by Codex. "Adoption of guidance related to food safety assessments of low-level presence is essential to facilitate international trade while regulating incidental or trace amounts of biotechnology events in food and feed products. The new guidance recognizes that low-level presence is a natural part of plant biology, seed production and the distribution of commodity crops, and it can be managed in ways that ensure food safety and minimize trade disruptions. "Adoption of the guidelines for risk assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically engineered (GE) animals represents a policy breakthrough in the area of animal biotechnology. Codex standards are recognized as international benchmarks and act as models for governments in the establishment of their own food safety policies. "Approval of the guidelines can now pave the way for the United States and other countries to develop science-based regulatory processes to govern the use of GE animals. GE animals are being developed to advance human and animal health, enhance food production, mitigate environmental impact and provide for high-tech industrial products. "The Codex-approved texts on plant and animal biotechnology serve as science-based guidance, which will further enhance consumer safety and health while promoting the trade of biotech-derived products. This represents a tremendous step forward for farmers, traders and biotechnology industries in the United States and around the world." In 2006, the Codex Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology agreed to draft an international guidance for food safety assessment of low-level presence of biotech products authorized as safe for use in food, feed, grain and derived products in one or more countries, including country of cultivation, but not yet in the country of import. In September, 2007 the members of the Codex Task Force unanimously agreed on the draft Annex that was considered and adopted by the Commission this week. The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Codex, which comprises about 165 countries worldwide, is a scientific body that develops the international standards for food safety aimed at protecting public health and promoting fair trade practices. BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the world's largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world. _______________________ G89 - Environment Nil! Greenpeace International, 9 July 2008. Tokyo, Japan � When you're in the business of saving the future - and you give yourself a specific deadline, such as 2050 - you need to make sure that every single day between then and now counts. Unfortunately, the G8 Summit was a waste of three whole days. Gathering in Toyako, Japan, G8 leaders offered nothing new on the food crisis, gave the wrong answer to rising oil prices and deferred climate action. Our political advisor, Daniel Mittler, who was in Toyako throughout, has been providing regular updates: from the wet and dismal start to the proceedings, through the G8's working lunches, working dinners and working lunches while discussing the global food crisis, and to the bitter end - a final statement that showed they hadn't made much progress whatsoever. So what have we learned from the G8's three wasted days? 1. Never do today what you can keep putting off until tomorrow... Global emissions have to start falling by 2015 and must be cut by more than 50 percent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. With the G8 countries accounting for 62 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, it's clear that industrialised countries need to take the lead, cutting emissions by at least 30 percent by 2020, and by between 80 and 90 percent by 2050. The G8 in fact called on the world to aim for a 50 percent goal - and not more - in 2050, and failed to give any clear commitments on mid-term measures; this is simply not good enough. We need action today. The World Bank Climate Investment Funds that the G8 has announced do not even exclude coal, the world's most polluting energy source. Unless we end our addiction to fossil fuels and start an energy revolution based on renewable energy and energy efficiency now, the world of 2050 will be a nightmarish one indeed. All the G8 leaders have effectively done is postpone the responsibility for tackling global climate change to future generations; to the politicians who succeed them, and to the children who will have to live in the nightmare world of 2050 as envisioned by the G8. 2. Never miss the opportunity - whatever the crisis - to make a quick sale... Bush, Berlusconi and others have used the G8 meeting to act as lobbyists for their own energy giants, trying to sell dangerous, expensive and uninsurable nuclear power plants. It's a fact that nuclear energy today is based on risky reactors, leads to proliferation and security hazards and produces long lived deadly nuclear waste with no solution for its safe disposal. To say that nuclear power will save the climate is absurd and downright dangerous. We need solutions based on renewables and energy efficiency to defeat climate change and ensure true energy security. It's not even as though it's difficult for the G8 to find these solutions - we set it all out, loud and clear, for them in our Energy [R]evolution scenario last year. Maybe it's time for the G8 leaders to get their heads down into reading this report, instead of having their heads in the (hopefully, not mushroom-shaped) clouds. 3. You can have your cake and eat it - so long as it's genetically modified... It's said, "You are what you eat." Yet, the G8 continues to support treating our soil like dirt, contaminating our water with toxic chemicals and the planting of more GE crops that yield less and fail under bad weather conditions. Industrial agriculture has undermined global food security and led us to a food crisis. Rather than shift public investment to proven ecological methods that provide higher yields, better food and more resilience to climate change, the G8 leaders repeat their usual mantra that countries should rely on the global market for their food security. On top of this, Bush, Berlusconi and others have been pushing for genetically engineered food as the solution to the food crisis. They pretend that liberalising trade will lower food prices. It has not and will not - all it will do is drive poor farmers, especially those in the developing world, off their land. We need farming that is ecological and biodiverse, rather than continuing with chemical-intensive farming or pursuing the false promise of genetic engineering. We need public investment in research and development on ecological and climate change resilient farming; the end of funding for GE crops and the prohibition of patents on seeds; and the phasing out of the most toxic chemicals and the elimination of environmentally-destructive agricultural subsidies. It was time for G8 leaders to admit that their old policies have failed and that they need to start building a trade system based on equity and sustainability; that 'business as usual' is not an option. Instead, they fell back on their usual ritual of calling for a swift end to the Doha Round of trade talks, failing to recognise that further trade liberalisation will spell disaster for poor people and the environment. As Daniel Mittler's reports show, the G8 leaders had plenty of food...but little thought. 4. Acknowledge the problem, and hopefully it'll go away... The G8 acknowledged there are unsustainable biofuels - but didn't do anything about them. Due to this inaction even more land will be diverted away from food production - mandatory biofuel targets in developed countries need to be suspended and legislation introduced to ensure biofuel production does not threaten food security, particularly in developing countries. And due to this inaction, even more forests will be felled - increasing global climate change. Protecting intact forests is crucial for preserving biodiversity and combating climate change. Oil is running out, but the answer to the world's transport needs does not lie with unsustainable biofuels. In order to satisfy the rich world's addiction to cars, instead we are simply driving deforestation, driving the food crisis and driving climate change. It seems the G8 may have driven through all the climate red lights and stop signs in Tokyko. 5. Always look on the bright side of life... While the Arctic ice is melting, the G8 froze into inaction. Instead of protecting the climate, the G8 effectively protected the interests of industry, most notably the nuclear and GE industries. We're no further forward than where we were a year ago, at the last G8 meeting in Heiligendamm. But, the one good thing about this G8 meeting is that it was US President George W. Bush's last. _______________________ GM crops U-turn by FF deputies Irish Examiner, letter to the editor, 9 July 2008. Your report headlined 'FF TDs support GM crops despite Government line' (July 3) highlights how the disease of amnesia often strikes our politicians. In the run-up to the general election in 1997, Fianna Fáil published a policy paper which said "it would be premature to release genetically modified organisms into the environment or to market food which contained any genetically modified ingredients". The reason they gave was: "Current scientific knowledge is inadequate to protect the consumer and the environment from the unpredictable and potentially disastrous side-effects which may appear immediately or at any time in the future... This will be too late for the victims. Fianna Fáil will not support what amounts to the largest nutritional experiment in human history with the consumer as guinea pig." Could the TDs explain why they have abandoned this position? As business manager for Monsanto, a corporation which benefits hugely from the introduction of GMOs, it is understandable that Patrick O'Reilly would present genetically modified crops in glowing terms. Before farmers or anyone else falls for this, I would advise them to read a well-researched article entitled Monsanto's Harvest of Fear in the May issue of Vanity Fair by journalists Donald L Barlett and James B. Steele. Vanity Fair cannot be dismissed as a journal either of the loony left or sandal-wearing environmentalists. The fact that the joint Oireachtas committee on agriculture, fisheries and food invited six pro-GMO speakers and only one from the other side shows how much our legislators value democracy. Fr Seán McDonagh SSC St Columban's Dalgan Park Navan Co Meath Ireland _______________________ Banning GM research is like banning books Irish Examiner, letter to the editor, 9 July 2008. Your report on Environment Minister John Gormley's anti-GM comments in Paris (July 5) says France has "banned all GM" crops. This is incorrect. France has allowed 587 GM crop trials since 1992. This is most of the EU's 2,253 GM field trials (as of May '08). France's research trials have included GM varieties of corn, potatoes, beet, sunflowers and trees. Its new GM law will specifically allow continued research and development of GM crops and officials (including Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier) have stressed France will examine the safe use of each crop variety on a case by case basis. France's Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has stated their aim is not to decide whether GM crops could be used, a decision which ultimately lies with the EU, but how related issues should be governed. Minister Gormley, who has U-turned on the Green Party's GM policy by allowing the use of GM feed in Ireland, should heed Minister Borloo's statement that "we must be lucid and conscious to escape 10 years of side-stepping and confusion" on GM crops. A "lucid and conscious" Minister Gormley would realise that the six GM crop research trials in Ireland between 1997-2000 had no doomsday impact on our environment or food image in the same way that France's 587 GM trials over the past 26 years has not impacted on their legendary quality food image. Banning EU-sanctioned GM research trials is a step away from banning books. Shane Morris Department of Biochemistry Lee Maltings Prospect Row UCC Dublin Ireland Comment from GM-free Ireland: Shane Morris is wrong. The article (see below under 5 July) did not state that France has "banned all GM" crops. France has, however, banned the only GM crop currently authorised for cultivation in the EU (Monsanto's MON810 maize) along with Austria, Greece, Poland and Hungary. Germany has also banned it de facto, although not explicitly. According to Le Monde (9 January 2008), the President of the French provisional High Authority on GMOs, Jean-François Le Grand said new scientific evidence of the risks of MON810 maize includes "long-distance dissemination of the said GMO over many tens or even hundreds of kilometres", "insect resistance" and "observed impacts on flora and fauna" including earthworms and micro-organisms. Morris is also wrong in claiming that cultivation and trials of GM crops have not impacted on France's food image. Not only was Monsanto found guilty of selling unlabelled GM seed to farmers, but conventional and organic farmers have been contaminated. Following concerns about the impact of this contamination by the Confédération Paysanne and other farming organisations, the Government banned MON810 and is now considering official recognition for the numerous french Regions and Départements which want no GM crops in their jurisdictions. Shane Morris is a Canadian Government operative who co-authored a paper on GM food which was widely criticised as a "flagrant fraud". He tried to shut down the GM-free Ireland and GM Watch web sites for reporting the scandal earlier this year. For details see www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/ _______________________ 8 July 2008 France to propose concrete solutions to EU's GMO muddle EurActiv, 8 July 2008. Paris has announced the creation of a "group of friends of the presidency" to consider the EU's GMO authorisation process, which it wants to take better account of "local specificities". "We have asked this group to work in two directions," explained French Secretary of State for Ecology Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet in an interview with EurActiv.fr, commenting on a French announcement made at an informal meeting of the EU-27 environment ministers on 4 July 2008. Firstly, the group will address the evaluation process for the authorisation of GMOs, which, according to Kosciusko-Morizet, is not transparent enough and does not take sufficient account of either the long-term effects of GMOs or national expertise. So far, the approval procedures nearly always end in deadlock in the Council due to strong disagreement between member states on the issue, with the Commission finally forcing GMO approvals on them. The current EU system "does not allow us to take into account our local specificities" with regard to nature reserves or territorial agriculture, for example, said the French state secretary. Secondly, the group will discuss "how the potential new effects - unknown at the time of the authorisation - will be taken into account," she said. We also need to find out how to deal with a "country who might wish to, for example, declare itself GMO-free," added Kosciusko-Morizet. The French Presidency's group on GMOs is said to "complement" that set up by Commission President José Manuel Barroso last month. Indeed, Barroso has asked the EU-27 heads of state to nominate a senior official to a high-level informal discussion group on the EU's current GMO authorisation process and the way the related European legislation is being implemented by member states. According to a member-state representative, the French 'friends' group will be an ad-hoc working group seeking to evaluate detailed problems in an in-depth manner and find concrete answers on issues such as the risk assessment procedure. Barroso's high-level group, on the other hand, will rather focus on the "big picture" and the horizontal and global ramifications of the bloc's GMO policy. The French 'friends' group is expected to start its work in September and submit its conclusions to the Environment Council on 4-5 December 2008. Before that, ministers will discuss the issue in the next Environment Council in early October. Links French Presidency press release: Au Conseil informel Environnement, la Présidence française lance un groupe de travail pour renforcer l'évaluation des OGM à l'échelle européenne: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/CP_OGM_cle154a58.pdf _______________________ Food Fights: Saskatchewan Farmer Tells of the Dangers of Bio-Tech Manipulation The Epoch Times (Canada), 8 July 2008. By Hugh Kruzel. Perhaps any other 77-year-old would simply retire and step back from a battle with a multi-million dollar agricultural company. Not Percy Schmeiser. A keynote speaker at Canada's largest outdoor organics festival on July 5 and 6, Schmeiser cautioned listeners about the lure and hazards of genetically engineered (GE) crops. The Saskatchewan farmer spoke at the Organic Islands Festival in Victoria before an audience well aware of his efforts and tribulations. Schmeiser's regionally adapted canola, which he had researched for 50 years, became contaminated with airborne pollen from fields containing Roundup Ready, one of Monsanto's product lines. He took Monsanto all the way to Canada's Supreme Court after the agro-chemical company sued him for using its product without purchasing it. Schmeiser claimed he had never used the product. The Supreme Court found in Monsanto's favor because their Roundup Ready canola was protected by a patent. However, in an out-of-court settlement finalized in March, Monsanto agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields, and the court ruled that Monsanto can be sued again if contamination on his fields recurs. Throughout the several court cases, Schmeiser stood firm in his belief that once GE organisms are released into the environment, there will be "no calling back" the genie. Schmeiser says that selection and husbandry have been a cornerstone of agriculture since the first organized harvests. In the last 100 years, the use of science to modify the characteristics of a plant or animal has been instrumental in increased tonnage per hectare. While the Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s resulted in improved harvest levels, these results often came at the cost of substantial inputs of pesticides, herbicides, and oil-based technology. In many countries, this proved a disastrous combination, impoverishing the soils, farmers, and whole countries, says Schmeiser. Genetically modified crops need a significant increase in proprietary chemicals. Super-chemical Roundup, for example, is reported to be four times stronger today because of new active ingredients, he claims. He adds that Agent Orange, known from the Vietnam War, is emerging as a component in new GE foods offered by some agro-chemical companies. Crossing a New Line The insertion of genetic material from one organism into another crosses a new line in ethics and bio-history, says Schmeiser. Slipping fish genes into yeasts or creating a new add-mix of material from unrelated species has many worried about the long-term health effects. Rice with human genes to produce low cost pharmaceuticals or corn to create non-petrochemical adhesives seems at first glance like a logical and ecological next-step in the agricultural science. But Schmeiser questions the wisdom of this sort of thinking. A plant does not distinguish between GE pollen and its non-GE counterpart, incorporating the former into the next generation. Genetically modified organisms have the potential to become so pervasive so quickly that even the call to clearly label foodstuff is a debate that needed to happen yesterday, he says. Because of the many unknowns, such biotech manipulation was kept out of Europeans' diet by European Union from 1999 to 2003. Schmeiser questions whether rising obesity and diabetes rates are a result of modern farming methods and profit seeking. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace are but two of the many calling for a halt to the release of the seeds of modified sugar beets, corn, soy, rice, potatoes and wheat. All are used in the production of food and food products, but now have the added attraction of being the base for agro-fuels. Biofuels are seen as a potential savior in rising energy costs, but the creation of bio-diesel and ethanol are pushing the early adoption of the new crops without extensive testing or research, Schmeiser explained. Traditionally, farmers held back a small percentage of their crop for next year's planting, but this age-old practice is now threatened by "terminator seeds." Terminator seeds only produce a crop once after which all seeds are sterile. There are no subsequent generations. Could taking away seeds' ability to reproduce result in a global catastrophe? "We must support the rights of farmers to use their own seed," says Schmeiser. Schmeiser told his listeners how Powell River, British Columbia, became a GE Free Zone in 2004. Being a GE free crop zone means a region is free of propagating, cultivating, or raising genetically engineered organisms by people, firms, or corporations. Schmeiser credits his wife Louise with supplying the energy to stay the course through his campaign, tackling along the way such tough questions as "Who owns life?" and "Can we patent life-forms?" The Schmeisers won the Right Livelihood Award in 2007. Comment by GM-free Ireland: See our interview with Percy Schmeiser at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php See also his address to our Green Ireland Conference at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/pschmeiser.php _______________________ 7 July 2008 FACTBOX - EU's legal labyrinth of GMO legislation Reuters, 7 July 2008. European Union rules on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a legal labyrinth. Several different procedures apply for authorising a biotech product, depending on the uses that the manufacturer specifies in its request for EU approval. The most common requests are for cultivation, use in food that is destined for human consumption, use as an ingredient in food following industrial processing, and in animal feed. Some of the most important laws on authorisation have been updated and replaced since the bloc started its effective moratorium on authorising new gene crops and products in 1998. There are other laws for instance covering contained use (such as in research laboratories) and transboundary movement; and to assign unique identifiers to GMO products. Here is a simplified guide to the GMO legislation and authorisation process: Application procedure A company that intends to market a GMO must: 1. apply to the competent national authority of the EU member state where the product will first be placed on the market, and include a full risk assessment. 2. if the authority gives a favourable opinion, the member state informs other member states via the European Commission. 3. if there are no objections by other member states, the notifying state or its national food safety authority may authorise the product for marketing throughout the EU. 4. if there are objections which are sustained, a decision is needed at EU level and the following procedure is initiated: - depending on the law used, the Commission asks a committee of member state scientists or the independent European Food Safety Authority for an opinion. - if the opinion is favourable, the Commission submits a draft decision to a regulatory committee of either food safety or environment experts from the member states. If they agree, the Commission adopts the decision, and authorises the new GMO. - if the committee does not agree, the Commission sends its draft approval to the Council of Ministers, likely to be either agriculture or environment ministers, who have three months to reject or adopt it. If they do not act within this time, the Commission may adopt its own decision and authorise the new GMO. Europe's GMO laws 1. Deliberate Release Law (Directive 2001/18): This is the EU's main GMO law, dating from October 2002. First approvals under this law are limited to 10 years maximum. The law covers any environmental release of products that contain or consist of GMOs. This includes GMO products for planting, as well as those for use in feed and processing. The law also has a "safeguard clause" whereby a member state may provisionally restrict or prohibit the use of a GMO on its territory if it has cause to consider that an approved GMO product poses a risk to human health or the environment. This clause has been invoked at least 10 times; usually, the Commission rules that the restrictions must be withdrawn. 2. Novel Foods Law (Regulation 258/97): This law dates from January 1997 and covers food products and food ingredients derived from GMOs -- such as flour, starch or oil from a GM maize, paste or ketchup from a GM tomato. Only products deemed safe for human consumption may be marketed. The law has a special procedure for foods derived from GMOs but no longer containing them. If a food is "substantially equivalent" to existing foods or ingredients, the company may notify the Commission itself (with a scientific justification). This law has now been replaced by the GM Food and Feed Regulation. Only those products with a risk assessment issued before the new regulation came into force in 2004 -- currently four -- may still be processed under the Novel Foods law. 3. GM Food and Feed Law (Regulation 1829/2003) and GMO Traceability and Labelling Law (Regulation 1830/2003): These are the EU's most recent laws on GMO authorisations and came into full effect across the bloc on April 18, 2004. They set down criteria and standardised procedures for evaluating potential risks, as well as rules on labelling feed that consists of GMOs, contains GMOs or is produced from GMOs. All GM feed and foods produced from GMOs -- including those that do not contain GM material in the final product -- must be labelled. This applies, for example, to biscuits made from GM maize, refined soyoil made from GM soybeans, and corn gluten feed made from GM maize. The threshold for labelling products where there is presence of an EU-authorised GMO product is 0.9 percent. If there is presence of GMOs that have not yet been EU-approved but do have a positive EFSA safety assessment, then the threshold is 0.5 percent. Above that level, the product may not be put on the market. However, there is no requirement to label products such as meat, milk or eggs that are obtained from animals fed with modified feed or treated with modified medicinal products. Seeds (Directive 98/95) EU rules on biotech seeds date from December 1998 and are long overdue for an update. However, EU states disagree over the Commission's proposed thresholds for GMO presence in organic and conventional seeds -- and the thresholds are being redrafted. Currently, they are a 0.3 percent GMO limit for organic and conventional rapeseed, 0.5 percent for maize and 0.7 percent for soybeans. Conventional seeds that contain genetically modified seeds below these thresholds would not have to be labelled. Two separate committees have been discussing the thresholds: the EU's environment committee under the Deliberate Release law, and the seeds committee under separate seeds legislation. But there has been little progress for several years. At present, national authorities that have agreed to the use of a seed on their territory must notify the Commission, which examines the information supplied. If the Commission approves, it includes the variety in the "Common Catalogue of varieties of Agricultural Plant Species" which means the seed can be marketed throughout the EU. However, the seeds law also requires that biotech seeds must also be authorised under the Deliberate Release law before they are included in the Catalogue and marketed in the EU. Coexistence: the last piece of the jigsaw In July 2003, the Commission issued guidelines on how farmers should separate organic, conventional and biotech crops, to ensure that these crop types can be safely grown alongside each other with a minimal risk of cross-pollination. But rather than pushing for EU-wide legislation, demanded by some countries, it wants EU states to use national laws. As of early 2008, 15 countries had notified coexistence laws, and these must be endorsed by the Commission before they can proceed further. Of these, seven states have adopted actual legislation. The Commission guidelines refer, for example, to isolation distances between crops, buffer zones and pollen barriers such as hedgerows. They also advise on cooperation between farmers on sowing plans and crop varieties with different flowering times. The issue is highly controversial as the main problem for countries will be how to determine economic liability. When does a farmer growing GM crops have to pay if a neighbour complains of organic crops being contaminated? _______________________ High Prices Nudge Europe Nearer to GM Food Reuters, 7 July 2008. By Sam Cage. ZURICH - Like many in Europe, Switzerland's Coop supermarkets do not specify whether goods are genetically modified -- none are. But a wave of food inflation may help wash away resistance to "Frankenstein foods." "I think there's a lot of resistance in Switzerland," said shopper Beatrice Hochuli, picking out a salad for dinner at a bustling supermarket outside Zurich's main station. "Most people in Switzerland are quite against it." Consumers are rarely first in line to adopt new technologies: even with food prices up more than 50 percent since May 2006, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Food Price Index, relatively wealthy Europeans remain wary of foods derived from tinkering with the genetic make-up of plants. But policy-makers and food companies are pressing the GM topic in a bid to temper aversion to biotech crops like pesticide-resistant oilseed rape and "Roundup Ready" soybeans, which tolerate dousing of herbicide. These are already common in the United States and other major food exporters like Argentina and Brazil. The European Commission has said it believes biotech crops can alleviate the current crisis in food supply, although it added in June that expediency should not overrule strict scientific scrutiny of the use of GMO technology. The chairman of Nestle, the world's biggest food group, has said it is impossible to feed the world without genetically modified organisms and the British government's former chief adviser Sir David King said this week GM crops hold the key to solving the world's food crisis. "If you take the pressure of burgeoning population ... we need a third green revolution," he told the Financial Times, referring to two waves of innovation that helped increase crop yields sharply in Asia in the past 50 years. Climate change and increasing concern about fresh water supplies are helping to fuel interest with new GM seed varieties likely to be more resistant to drought and able to produce reasonable yields with significantly less water. GM technology still has many opponents, who fear biotech crops can create health problems for animals and humans, wreak havoc on the environment, and will give far-reaching control over the world's food to a few corporate masters. Yet a European Commission-sponsored opinion poll last month showed a creep in knowledge and acceptance of the technology. "For me it is just a matter of time before we get our head around GM," said Jonathan Banks at market information company AC Nielsen. "The way people will learn to live with GM is to say 'we do it product by product and make sure everything is OK.' At the moment we have a knee-jerk reaction which thinks of Frankenstein foods," Banks said. Big opportunity The European Union has not approved any GM crops for a decade and the 27 member countries often clash on the issue. Outside the EU, Switzerland has a moratorium on growing GM crops, though authorities have granted permission for three GM crop trials between 2008 and 2010 for research. The market represents a substantial opportunity for GM companies: the European seeds market is worth $7.9 billion from a global total of $32.7 billion, according to data from consultancy Cropnosis. The global GM seeds market was worth $6.9 billion in 2007 and is set to grow further. Agrochemicals companies are riding a wave of high food prices and roaring demand for farm goods -- and Monsanto, DuPont Co and Switzerland's Syngenta AG have all raised 2008 earnings forecasts already this year. Although high prices are a boon for farm suppliers, much of the cost has been passed on to consumers, sparking protests in many countries including Argentina, Indonesia and Mexico. Others also see opportunity: in June, chocolate maker Mars Inc, computer giant IBM and the U.S. Department of Agriculture said they would map the DNA of the cocoa tree to try to sweeten the crop's $5 billion market. In a Eurobarometer opinion poll in March, the number of EU respondents saying they lacked information on GMs fell to 26 percent, compared with 40 percent in the previous, 2005 survey. But 58 percent were apprehensive about GM use and just 21 percent in favor -- down from 26 percent in favor in a 2006 Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology. "People do change attitudes, just gradually, because they become used to technologies," said Jonathan Ramsay, spokesman for Monsanto, the world's biggest seeds company. "Consumers are looking at prices, consumers hear the stories about food production, growing population in the world, and I think people do understand that agriculture needs to be efficient." Friedrich Berschauer, chief executive of the world's fourth-biggest seeds producer Bayer CropScience, believes acceptance of GM will be gradual. "Long-term, I am certain that GMOs will be accepted. But I dare not give a forecast whether that will be in five years or in ten," Berschauer told Reuters. Scaring consumers But critics charge that the technology does not bring its promised benefits. A recent report by organic group the Soil Association concluded that yields of all major GM varieties are equivalent to or less than those from conventional crops. "GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failure," said Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director. Geert Ritsema, a genetic engineering campaigner at Greenpeace International, said proponents of biotech crop technology are using high prices to scare consumers that their food will become too expensive. More awareness of the technology could also reinforce wariness, argues Jean Halloran, head of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union. "I think that if consumers become really educated, that's the point they'll end up at and say 'why should I mess around with this technology when it has no benefits to me?'," she said. (Additional reporting by Mantik Kusjanto in Monheim, Germany and Nigel Hunt in London; Editing by Sara Ledwith) _______________________ Rules on marketing GM produce face review Financial Times press digest, 7 July 2008. The [UK] Food Standards Agency is to collaborate with Defra to re-examine the regulatory system of genetically modified products after an official paper on food policy said on Monday the UK was in danger of importing feed "wrongly labelled as non-GM" if prices continued rising. With prices remaining at near record highs, farmers are struggling to meet supermarket requirements to feed some animals, including chickens, non-GM grains. Currently, the GM organisms that are used in food products must be labelled, but such a condition is not required for meat, milk and eggs from animals given GM feed. _______________________ Rules on GM produce to be reviewed Financial Times, 7 July 2008. By Jim Pickard and Jenny Wiggins The [UK] Food Standards Agency The Food Standards Agency is to review how it regulates the marketing and labelling of genetically modified produce, after a government paper on food policy on Monday highlighted the difficulties of sourcing non-GM animal feed. The paper said the UK risked importing feed wrongly labelled as non-GM if prices kept rising. Farmers are battling to meet supermarket requirements to feed some animals, including chickens, non-GM grains, as prices remain near record highs. The FSA said it would work with the environment department (Defra) to examine how market changes were straining the regulatory system for GM products. Food sold in the UK containing products of genetically modified organisms must be labelled, but meat, milk and eggs from animals given GM feed are not subject to such a requirement. The government has long lobbied the EU to improve the regulatory regime for GM products and wants decisions on the import of GM foodstocks to be quicker. The EU has approved only one GM crop for commercial production in 10 years, amid concerns about the environmental consequences. EU members have struggled to agree a coherent policy, given that some countries, including France, Greece and Poland, have total bans on GM cultivation. Sir David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, argued in the Financial Times on Monday that GM crops were needed around the world, given changing diets, global warming and the pressure on fresh water supplies. However, Kath Dalmeny, policy director of the food and farming charity Sustain, said that while GM crops could help increase food production, they were not a "magic bullet". Monday's food paper, from Defra and the Cabinet Office, addressed everything from the impact of biofuels on food pricing to household food waste and farm subsidies � but failed to lay out a new policy framework. It said there should be a new scheme for the public sector to provide more healthy, environmentally sustainable food. But it pointed out the many dilemmas facing ministers, for example the fact that intensive farming � which is often condemned on welfare grounds � consumes less energy. Gordon Brown urged families, who each throw away an estimated £420 of food every year, or a third of purchases, to think before buying unnecessary goods. Defra said it would shortly publish a separate report into UK food security. It has also commissioned John Beddington, chief scientific adviser, to commission a new project looking at future global food production and farming. Comment from the Soil Association Rather than giving a measured picture of the state of the non-GM feed market, yesterday's [UK] government food policy paper cites 'anecdotal reports' on which to base its claims. A recent investigation by the Soil Association has shown these anecdotes to be misrepresentative of the true situation. Supplies of non-GM feed are abundant and can expand to fit market demand - for example there is enough non-GM soya available in Brazil to supply the UK six times over. Given the growing number of scientific studies that are finding serious health impacts from GMO consumption in animals, it is important that EU regulation on GM feed is not diluted even further at the risk of the consumer. Comment from GM Watch: It would be interesting to know if Kath Dalmeny of the charity Sustain really did say that GM crops could help increase food production, as we have yet to see any credible evidence to support such a claim - something the IAASTD report, whose findings were recently accepted by the UK Government, confirmed. www.agassessment.org _______________________ EU ministers to debate Bayer's GM cotton, soybeans Reuters, 7 July 2008. BRUSSELS - European Union farm ministers will debate next week whether to allow imports of genetically modified strains of cotton and soybeans to be used as food ingredients and in animal feed, a document showed on Monday. If approved, which diplomats say is unlikely, the two GM crops would be grown outside the European Union and then imported as finished products for further processing. Both have been developed by Germany's Bayer CropScience. EU countries rarely agree on GMO issues and discussions on authorizing imports of new modified products usually end in deadlock. When ministers fail to reach a majority under a complex weighted voting system either to reject or approve the application, EU law provides for the European Commission, the bloc's executive, to issue a default approval. The ministers' meeting is scheduled for July 15. Neither GM product would be approved for cultivation inside the EU. The cotton, known as LLCotton25, has been engineered to resist certain herbicides. If approved, which would be for a standard 10 years, LLCotton25 seeds and derived products could be imported for use as food -- crushed into oil, for example -- as well as animal feed, like cottonseed meal and seed hulls. Bayer's soybean, developed to resist glufosinate herbicides, is known by its codename A2704-12 and would be imported into EU markets either as whole soybeans, oil or meal. It would then be processed by European companies for use in food and animal feed. (Reporting by Jeremy Smith) _______________________ Cabinet Office Food Report Lacks Balanced Analysis on GM GM Freeze (UK) press release, 7 July 2008. GM Freeze criticised the Cabinet Office's report [1] on food in the 21st century as "seriously lacking in- depth analysis on the need for GM crops and their impacts on people and the planet", saying it "fails to show any understanding of the full implications for food and farming research and development of the recently published IAASTD report". The Strategy Unit report published today makes only one reference to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report [2], which was published in April and approved by the UK Government at the beginning of June. Today GM Freeze, Friends of the Earth and Practical Action published a briefing [3] on areas of UK policy on research, trade and development challenged by the IAASTD findings that therefore require urgent review. The IAASTD report was written by 400 scientists, including social scientists, agriculturalists and economists from all continents under the direction of Defra Chief Scientist, Professor Bob Watson. The report listed 22 key findings [4] including:
•	The failure of previous agricultural revolutions to reach the poorest people.
•	The detrimental impacts of intensive farming systems around the world.
•	The need to strengthen agro-ecological science to enable farming to become truly multifunctional.
•	The need to focus on smaller farmers.
•	The need to utilize the traditional knowledge of farmers, especially women, in shaping and guiding research and development.
•	The need to reform international trade rules to protect small farmers from unfair competition.
GM Freeze is concerned that the Strategy Unit's comments on GM crops focus mainly on the narrow interests of the animal feed production industry and imports of GM crops from the Americas. The report's sections on GM focus almost exclusively on the role of the EU's GMO regulations in creating delays for GM feed crop approvals instead of, for instance, on the EU's over reliance on imported soya and maize to feed its livestock and poultry. In his forward to the Strategy Unit Report, Gordon Brown dismisses the idea becoming more self-sufficient in food as an option, saying: "We cannot deal with higher food prices in the UK in isolation from higher prices around the world - attempting to pursue national food security in isolation from the global context is unlikely to be practicable, sustainable or financially rational." GM Freeze point out that feed price inflation [5] is higher for imported GM soya meal used in animal feed than other feed crops. For instance the price of GM soya meal from Argentina rose 122.5% in the 12 months to May 2008, while non-GM feed wheat only rose 54%. GM soya meal has been approved for import into the EU since 1996. Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "We are very disappointed by the report's approach to GM crops, food and feed. Its focus on animal feed imports and regulations belies the need for a more systemic review of growing more feed protein nationally. It is seriously lacking in-depth analysis on the impacts of GM crops on people and the planet. We were expecting more. The report also fails to cite or show any understanding of the full implications of the recently published IAASTD report. It misses a real opportunity to reassess the UK's priorities for agricultural research and development both here and abroad. "In the future, farmers in the UK and their colleagues overseas will have to play a key role in tackling climate change, protecting natural resources from degradation and conserving wildlife and habitats, as well as earning a sustainable living from producing good quality food that people will be able to trust. The Government should focus on supporting farmers that produce good local food and care for the environment instead of trying to prop up unsustainable, costly and unnecessary GM crops and the industries that will gain from their commercialization." Contact: Calls to Pete Riley + 44 845 217 8992 or + 44 7903 341065. Please note GM Freeze's new land line number + 44 845 217 8992. Notes 1. Food matters Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century is available at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/food/food_matters%20pdf.ashx 2. See www.agassessment.org/docs/Global_SDM_050508_FINAL.pdf 3. See www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/special_IAASTD_brieifing.pdf 4. The 22 findings can be summarised thus:
	1. PRODUCTION INCREASES: Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (AKST) has contributed to substantial increases in agricultural production over time, contributing to food security. 2. UNEVEN BENEFITS: People have benefited unevenly from these yield increases 3. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES: Emphasis on increasing yields and productivity has in some cases had negative consequences on environmental sustainability. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION: The environmental shortcomings of agricultural practice [is] increasing deforestation and overall degradation. 5. INCREASED DEMAND EXPECTED: Global cereal demand is projected to increase by 75% between 2000 and 2050 and global meat demand is expected to double. 6. MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF AGRICULTURE: Agriculture operates within complex systems and is multifunctional in its nature. 7. STRENGTHEN AGROECOLOGICAL SCIENCES: An increase and strengthening of AKST towards agroecological sciences will contribute to addressing environmental issues while maintaining and increasing productivity. 8. REDIRECT AKST: Strengthening and redirecting the generation and delivery of AKST will contribute to addressing a range of persistent socioeconomic inequities 9. INVOLVE WOMEN: Greater and more effective involvement of women and use of their knowledge, skills and experience will advance progress towards sustainability and development goals and a strengthening and redirection of AKST to address gender issues will help achieve this. 10. BUILD ON EXISITING KNOWLEDGE: [using] more innovative and integrated applications of existing knowledge, science and technology (formal, traditional and community-based). 11. USE NEW AKST APPROPRIATELY: Some challenges will be resolved primarily by development and appropriate application of new and emerging AKST. 12. RESEARCH FOCUS ON SMALL-SCALE: Targeting small-scale agricultural systems helps realize existing opportunities. 13. CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR POOR FARMERS: Significant pro-poor progress requires creating opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship, which explicitly target resource poor farmers and rural labourers. 14. DIFFICULT POLICY CHOICES: Decisions around small-scale farm sustainability pose difficult policy choices. 15. PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATION CRITICAL: Public policy, regulatory frameworks and international agreements are critical to implementing more sustainable agricultural practices. 16. NEW INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS REQUIRED: Innovative institutional arrangements are essential to the successful design and adoption of ecologically and socially sustainable agricultural systems. 17. NEGATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE: Opening national agricultural markets to international competition can lead to long term negative effects on poverty alleviation, food security and the environment. 18. EXPORT AGRICULTURE UNSUSTAINABLE: Intensive export oriented agriculture has adverse consequences such as exportation of soil nutrients and water, unsustainable soil or water management, or exploitative labour conditions, in some cases. 19. CRUCIAL CHOICES: The choice of relevant approaches to adoption and implementation of agricultural innovation is crucial for achieving development and sustainability goals. 20. MORE INVESTMENT IN MULTIFUNCTIONALITY: More and better-targeted AKST investments, explicitly taking into account the multifunctionality of agriculture. 21. CODES OF CONDUCT NEEDED: Codes of conduct by universities and research institutes can help avoid conflicts of interest and maintain focus when private funding complements public sector funds. 22. MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES REQUIRED: Diverse voices and perspectives and a multiplicity of scientifically well-founded options, through, for example, the inclusion of social scientists in policy and practice of AKST.
5. Figures from www.mdcdatum.org.uk/FarmDataPrices/feedprices.html Average feed price inflations May 2007 to May 2008: Argentine Soya meal (over 99% GM) 112.5% Non GM feed barley 43% Non GM Feed wheat 54% Maize gluten (24% pf global crops are GM) 72% _______________________ MEPs support reduced EU biofuel target Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 7 2008. Brussels/Strasbourg - Members of the European Parliament this evening voted for significantly reduced targets for promoting biofuels in the light of mounting evidence of their impacts on food prices, people and biodiversity, and their failure to combat climate change. The Environment Committee of the European Parliament voting in Strasbourg agreed to reduce the proposed 10 per cent target for the use of biofuels in transport by 2020 to 4 per cent by 2015 followed by a major review. The MEPs also supported the incorporation of electric or hydrogen cars into the target to potentially reduce the use of biofuels even further. Friends of the Earth Europe welcomes the acknowledgement by MEPs that biofuels are doing more harm than good but has renewed its call for all targets to be dropped and for tougher emission standards for new cars to be adopted, which MEPs will vote on after the summer. Adrian Bebb, agrofuels coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The political tide in Europe is now turning against biofuels. This vote gives a clear political signal that an expansion of biofuels is unacceptable. Politicians are waking up to the fact that using crops to feed cars is a disaster in the making for both people and nature. Biofuels are not a panacea to our energy and climate problems and we urgently need real solutions that cut greenhouse gases whilst not threatening food supplies or wildlife. "Whilst this vote is a welcome move in the right direction the EU needs to go much further to avert the negative impacts of biofuels. All biofuel targets should dropped and real solutions such as forcing car manufactures to produce cleaner cars introduced." Contacts: Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe (in Strasbourg): +49 1609 490 1163 Francesca Gater, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 2542 6105 and +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile) _______________________ Gene modified crops the key to food crisis, says scientist Financial Times, July 7 2008. By Fiona Harvey and George Parker in London. Genetically modified crops hold the key to solving the food price crisis, the UK government's former chief scientific adviser has said. The intervention by Sir David King, one of Britain's most influential scientists and the government's senior science official until the end of last year, has come amid growing signs that GM, long viewed with suspicion by consumers and some governments, is being rehabilitated as affordability takes precedence over any ethical or safety scruples. Speaking after Nestl�'s call for the European Union to review its opposition to GM and as the Group of Eight prepares to discuss the food crisis at its Japan summit, Sir David said: "There is only one technology likely to deliver [the yield increases needed] and that is GM." Sir David said the need to produce more food was pressing. "If you take the pressure of burgeoning population . . . we need a third green revolution," he said, referring to two waves of innovation in agriculture that helped to increase crop yields dramatically in Asia in the past 50 years. A combination of factors including changing diets, global warming and pressure on fresh water supplies, meant that even if the food price crisis eased, the long-term prospects for food output without new biotechnology were poor, Sir David said. Ordinary plant-breeding programmes could not produce new varieties fast enough. "We need more crop per drop [of water] because of the fresh water problem. Unless you move into plant technologies to develop these crops, food provision is not going to increase," he said. "The future lies there. And this is urgent." European economies were falling behind in the lucrative market for plant biotechnology because of the bloc's opposition to GM. "It's very difficult to imagine European scientists being able to compete in this area against the US, Argentinian, Brazilian and other scientists who can use these technologies." Only GM crops could be bred with enough tolerance to drought and salt to survive climate change and increasing pressure on the world's fresh water supply, he said. "We're certainly going to need new green things that grow with less water." He said any system for using GM crops should be "properly regulated" by governments. Sir David was one of the officials responsible for crafting climate change policy as chief scientific adviser from 2000. His warning in early 2004 that climate change was "the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism" marked a turning point in the UK's environmental policy. Later that year, the prime minister at the time, Tony Blair, made climate change the priority for the European Union presidency and G8 summit. Comment from GM Watch: Sir David King began his controversial promotionals for GM, nuclear energy and killing badgers as a means of controlling bovine TB (in the face of clear scientific evidence it would be counter productive) shortly before stepping down as the British Government's Chief Scientist at the end of last year. In the case of GM, Sir David put in an appearance on BBC Radio 4's flagship current affairs programme 'Today' in which he told the listening millions pretty much what he says in the article below - that given the world's burgeoning population and the impact of climate change, "We're going to need to get even cleverer. More crop per drop. And we need the technology that can deliver that, and in my view we have the technology, it's GM." And he had the killer application to prove it. Unfortunately, the high yielding GM product for Africa, which King described in detail to listeners as an example of how GM was transforming agriculture around Lake Victoria, turned out on subsequent examination to be non-GM! Developed by conventional plant breeding and involving companion planting, King's killer application had absolutely nothing to do with genetic engineering. http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1157 And that wasn't Sir David's only dodgy claim:
	Fast and loose The Guardian (Eco-soundings), January 9 2008, by John Vidal. Late last year, the government's nuclear-pushing, badger-biffing, demob-happy chief scientist, Sir David King, stated that a GMO breakthrough in Africa had increased crop yields by 40%-50%. But the project he described had nothing to do with GM crops. He also said Britain was losing "billions of pounds" a year by not adopting GMO in farming. Brian John, of GM Free Cymru, wondered what this "fact" was based on. No more than speculation, it seems. Joanne Lawson, of the Government Office for Science, says King's statement "was intended to reflect the potentially much larger European and global markets that he considers would have existed had public concerns about the new technology been understood and addressed". John, flabbergasted, wrote back: "I have never heard such vacuous nonsense. The figures have just been plucked from the air."
_______________________ GM alarm over top snacks The Standard (Hong Kong), 7 July 2008. By Nickkita Lau. Three in every eight popular snacks contain genetically modified ingredients, a Greenpeace laboratory test has found, prompting a doctor to warn of the possible health threats these foods pose. These local favorites are Calbee Grill- A-Corn, Doritos Nacho Cheese and Lady Liberty Cheez Balls, which are manufactured in Hong Kong and the United States. None has included the GM ingredients in its labeling. The ingredients 35S Promoter and NOS Terminator and the insect-resistant Bt gene were found in Doritos Nacho Cheese and Lady Liberty Cheez Balls. The 35S promoter and Bt gene were found In Calbee Grill-A-Corn. In a petition to Secretary for Food and Health York Chow Yat-ngok, Greenpeace and 34 other groups, lawmakers, doctors and political parties urged the government to implement a mandatory labeling scheme for foods in which more than 1 percent of the ingredients are genetically modified. Greenpeace food safety campaigner Chow Yuen-ping condemned the voluntary labeling system. She said 54 countries, including China, have already adopted mandatory labeling systems for GM foods. She said it was close to impossible to currently find a soy or corn product in the market which did not contain any GM ingredient. A public consultation in Hong Kong was conducted in 2001 but the government's reluctance to implement a mandatory system is delaying the consumers' right to know, Chow said. Doctor Lo Wing-lok said the harm which GM foods have on human beings is likely to become clearer in the years to come and would likely be found in the digestive system, skin, respiratory system and kidneys. "Genetic modification is the insertion of genes into crops where new proteins are produced. These proteins are foreign to the crops. If digested they may cause an allergic reaction and affect the cells of the mucous membrane," Lo said. He added although there was no test yet to show the harmful effects of GM foods on human beings, there have been some on animals. Civic Party lawmaker Alan Leong Kah- kit and his family have been fans of one of the snacks with GM ingredients. He said he was shocked to know it was modified and will not eat it again, adding the government's delay in implementation of a mandatory system is due to pressure by exporting countries' consuls and manufacturers. The voluntary scheme will be reviewed by the Legislative Council's food safety and environmental hygiene panel tomorrow. _______________________ Disaster capitalism: State of extortion Rabble.co, 7 July 2008. By Naomi Klein. Once oil passed $140 a barrel, even the most rabidly right-wing media hosts had to prove their populist cred by devoting a portion of every show to bashing Big Oil. Some have gone so far as to invite me on for a friendly chat about an insidious new phenomenon: "disaster capitalism." It usually goes well - until it doesn't. For instance, "independent conservative" radio host Jerry Doyle and I were having a perfectly amiable conversation about sleazy insurance companies and inept politicians when this happened: "I think I have a quick way to bring the prices down," Doyle announced. "We've invested $650 billion to liberate a nation of 25 million people. Shouldn't we just demand that they give us oil? There should be tankers after tankers backed up like a traffic jam getting into the Lincoln Tunnel, the Stinkin' Lincoln, at rush hour with thank-you notes from the Iraqi government.... Why don't we just take the oil? We've invested it liberating a country. I can have the problem solved of gas prices coming down in ten days, not ten years." There were a couple of problems with Doyle's plan, of course. The first was that he was describing the biggest stickup in world history. The second, that he was too late: "We" are already heisting Iraq's oil, or at least are on the cusp of doing so. It's been ten months since the publication of my book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, in which I argue that today's preferred method of reshaping the world in the interest of multinational corporations is to systematically exploit the state of fear and disorientation that accompanies moments of great shock and crisis. With the globe being rocked by multiple shocks, this seems like a good time to see how and where the strategy is being applied. And the disaster capitalists have been busy - from private firefighters already on the scene in Northern California's wildfires, to land grabs in cyclone-hit Burma, to the housing bill making its way through Congress. The bill contains little in the way of affordable housing, shifts the burden of mortgage default to taxpayers and makes sure that the banks that made bad loans get some payouts. No wonder it is known in the hallways of Congress as "The Credit Suisse Plan," after one of the banks that generously proposed it. Iraq Disaster: We broke it, we (just) bought it But these cases of disaster capitalism are amateurish compared with what is unfolding at Iraq's oil ministry. It started with no-bid service contracts announced for ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and Total (they have yet to be signed but are still on course). Paying multinationals for their technical expertise is not unusual. What is odd is that such contracts almost invariably go to oil service companies - not to the oil majors, whose work is exploring, producing and owning carbon wealth. As London-based oil expert Greg Muttitt points out, the contracts make sense only in the context of reports that the oil majors have insisted on the right of first refusal on subsequent contracts handed out to manage and produce Iraq's oil fields. In other words, other companies will be free to bid on those future contracts, but these companies will win. One week after the no-bid service deals were announced, the world caught its first glimpse of the real prize. After years of back-room arm-twisting, Iraq is officially flinging open six of its major oil fields, accounting for around half of its known reserves, to foreign investors. According to Iraq's oil minister, the long-term contracts will be signed within a year. While ostensibly under control of the Iraq National Oil Company, foreign firms will keep 75 per cent of the value of the contracts, leaving just 25 per cent for their Iraqi partners. That kind of ratio is unheard of in oil-rich Arab and Persian states, where achieving majority national control over oil was the defining victory of anticolonial struggles. According to Muttitt, the assumption until now was that foreign multinationals would be brought in to develop brand-new fields in Iraq - not to take over ones that are already in production and therefore require minimal technical support. "The policy was always to allocate these fields to the Iraq National Oil Company," he told me. This is a total reversal of that policy, giving INOC a mere 25 per cent instead of the planned 100 per cent. So what makes such lousy deals possible in Iraq, which has already suffered so much? Ironically, it is Iraq's suffering - its never-ending crisis - that is the rationale for an arrangement that threatens to drain its treasury of its main source of revenue. The logic goes like this: Iraq's oil industry needs foreign expertise because years of punishing sanctions starved it of new technology and the invasion and continuing violence degraded it further. And Iraq urgently needs to start producing more oil. Why? Again because of the war. The country is shattered, and the billions handed out in no-bid contracts to Western firms have failed to rebuild the country. And that's where the new no-bid contracts come in: they will raise more money, but Iraq has become such a treacherous place that the oil majors must be induced to take the risk of investing. Thus the invasion of Iraq neatly creates the argument for its subsequent pillage. Several of the architects of the Iraq War no longer even bother to deny that oil was a major motivator. On National Public Radio's To the Point, Fadhil Chalabi, one of the primary Iraqi advisers to the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the invasion, recently described the war as "a strategic move on the part of the United States of America and the U.K. to have a military presence in the Gulf in order to secure [oil] supplies in the future." Chalabi, who served as Iraq's oil under secretary and met with the oil majors before the invasion, described this as "a primary objective." Invading countries to seize their natural resources is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. That means that the huge task of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure - including its oil infrastructure - is the financial responsibility of Iraq's invaders. They should be forced to pay reparations. (Recall that Saddam Hussein's regime paid $9 billion to Kuwait in reparations for its 1990 invasion.) Instead, Iraq is being forced to sell 75 per cent of its national patrimony to pay the bills for its own illegal invasion and occupation. Oil price shock: Give us the arctic or never drive again Iraq isn't the only country in the midst of an oil-related stickup. The Bush Administration is busily using a related crisis - the soaring price of fuel - to revive its dream of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). And of drilling offshore. And in the rock-solid shale of the Green River Basin. "Congress must face a hard reality," said George W. Bush on June 18. "Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels - or even higher - our nation must produce more oil." This is the President as Extortionist in Chief, with gas nozzle pointed to the head of his hostage - which happens to be the entire country. Give me ANWR, or everyone has to spend their summer vacations in the backyard. A final stickup from the cowboy President. Despite the Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less bumper stickers, drilling in ANWR would have little discernible impact on actual global oil supplies, as its advocates well know. The argument that it could nonetheless bring down oil prices is based not on hard economics but on market psychoanalysis: drilling would "send a message" to the oil traders that more oil is on the way, which would cause them to start betting down the price. Two points follow from this approach. First, trying to psych out hyperactive commodity traders is what passes for governing in the Bush era, even in the midst of a national emergency. Second, it will never work. If there is one thing we can predict from the oil market's recent behavior, it is that the price is going to keep going up regardless of what new supplies are announced. Take the massive oil boom under way in Alberta's notorious tar sands. The tar sands (sometimes called the oil sands) have the same things going for them as Bush's proposed drill sites: they are nearby and perfectly secure, since the North American Free Trade Agreement contains a provision barring Canada from cutting off supply to the United States. And with little fanfare, oil from this largely untapped source has been pouring into the market, so much so that Canada is now the largest supplier of oil to the United States, surpassing Saudi Arabia. Between 2005 and 2007, Canada increased its exports to the States by almost 100 million barrels. Yet despite this significant increase in secure supplies, oil prices have been going up the entire time. What is driving the ANWR push is not facts but pure shock doctrine strategy - the oil crisis has created the conditions in which it is possible to sell a previously unsellable (but highly profitable) policy. Food price shock: Genetic modification or starvation Intimately connected to the price of oil is the global food crisis. Not only do high gas prices drive up food costs but the boom in agrofuels has blurred the line between food and fuel, pushing food growers off their land and encouraging rampant speculation. Several Latin American countries have been pushing to re-examine the push for agrofuels and to have food recognized as a human right, not a mere commodity. United States Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has other ideas. In the same speech touting the US commitment to emergency food aid, he called on countries to lower their "export restrictions and high tariffs" and eliminate "barriers to use of innovative plant and animal production technologies, including biotechnology." This was an admittedly more subtle stickup, but the message was clear: impoverished countries had better crack open their agricultural markets to American products and genetically modified seeds, or they could risk having their aid cut off. Genetically modified crops have emerged as the cureall for the food crisis, at least according to the World Bank, the European Commission president (time to "bite the bullet") and Prime Minister of Britain Gordon Brown. And, of course, the agribusiness companies. "You cannot today feed the world without genetically modified organisms," Peter Brabeck, chairman of Nestl�, told the Financial Times recently. The problem with this argument, at least for now, is that there is no evidence that GMOs increase crop yields, and they often decrease them. But even if there was a simple key to solving the global food crisis, would we really want it in the hands of the Nestl�s and Monsantos? What would it cost us to use it? In recent months Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF have been frenetically buying up patents on so-called "climate ready" seeds - plants that can grow in earth parched from drought and salinated from flooding. In other words, plants built to survive a future of climate chaos. We already know the lengths Monsanto will go to protect its intellectual property, spying on and suing farmers who dare to save their seeds from one year to the next. We have seen patented AIDS medications fail to treat millions in sub-Saharan Africa. Why would patented "climate ready" crops be any different? Meanwhile, amid all the talk of exciting new genetic and drilling technologies, the Bush Administration announced a moratorium of up to two years on new solar energy projects on federal lands - due, apparently, to environmental concerns. This is the final frontier for disaster capitalism. Our leaders are failing to invest in technology that will actually prevent a future of climate chaos, choosing instead to work hand in hand with those plotting innovative schemes to profit from the mayhem. Privatizing Iraq's oil, ensuring global dominance for genetically modified crops, lowering the last of the trade barriers and opening the last of the wildlife refuges... Not so long ago, those goals were pursued through polite trade agreements, under the benign pseudonym "globalization." Now this discredited agenda is forced to ride on the backs of serial crises, selling itself as lifesaving medicine for a world in pain. Naomi Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. This column has appeared in The Nation. _______________________ Britain Seeks to Speed up GM Import Approvals Reuters, 7 July 2008. STONELEIGH, England - British farm minister Hilary Benn called on Friday for the European Union to speed up the approval process for imports of genetically modified (GM) crops. Benn told reporters at the Royal Agricultural Show it was important for British livestock farmers to be able to access as many feed sources as possible at a time of rising costs. "I do want the EU to speed up the process. It is a very important part of helping farmers with some of the challenges they have clearly got," he said. Genetically modified crops now account for about two-thirds of the world's soy crops, just under 50 percent of cotton, about 25 percent of maize and 20 percent of rapeseed. There is significant opposition to GM crops in Europe with opponents citing both food safety and environmental concerns. EU countries rarely agree on anything to do with GM products and their discussions on authorising imports on new modified products often descend into ill-tempered deadlock. When this happens and the ministers fail to achieve a majority under a complex weighted voting system either to reject or approve the application, EU law provides for the European Commission, the bloc's executive, to issue a default approval. The prolonged process has ensured approvals have been slow. Benn said there was no evidence that GM crops were not safe to eat, the key issue for imports. (Reporting by Nigel Hunt; editing by Christopher Johnson) _______________________ EU signals retreat on biofuels target EU Observer, 7 July 2008. By Leigh Phillips. European energy ministers have backed away from the EU's biofuels for transport target, admitting a gross confusion on their part in which they said they had been misreading policy documents since the target was initially proposed a year and a half ago. The ministers, meeting in Paris for informal discussions, said that upon closer inspection, EU proposals that aim for a target of 10 percent of fuels for cars and lorries coming from biofuels by 2020 in fact only demand that 10 percent of fuels come from renewable sources, which may or may not be the controversial energy source. "The member states realised that the commission's plan specifies that 10 percent of transport needs must come from renewable energy, not 10 percent from biofuels," French energy and environment minister Jean-Louis Borloo told reporters at the conclusion of the meeting. Until now, it was believed that EU leaders last spring agreed that the EU should increase the use of biofuels in transport fuel to 10 percent by 2020, up from a planned 5.75 percent target to be achieved by 2010. Jochen Homann, a state secretary in the German Ministry of Economics and Technology said he and his colleagues had "discovered" that the documents "do not speak of biofuels, but renewables," according to AFP. "We have to decide if the quota can be kept," Mr Homann said. "It might be changed." The retreat comes after months of pressure on the EU and US from environmental groups, development NGOs and international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations to adjust or abandon their biofuels policies. Until a year ago, the alternative fuel source had widely been seen as a green alternative to petrol that also allowed European and developing world farmers to benefit from new markets for their crops. At the international level however, there is now broad consensus that production of many biofuels releases as many greenhouse gases as the use of fossil fuels and that they have contributed to the global food crisis as farmers switch to growing crops for fuel instead of food. The coup de grace for EU biofuels policy seems to have come on Friday, when a confidential internal World Bank report leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper concluded that biofuels were responsible for 75 percent of the skyrocketing rise in food prices. Mr Borloo said at the meeting that the policy could instead be interpreted to mean the deployment of hydrogen fuel cells or electric cars using electricity from alternative sources. Nonetheless, despite the re-reading, there has been no official policy change proposed. Meanwhile, the ministers are mulling over a proposal for a biofuels accord with Brazil. Green MEP Claude Turmes, the deputy responsible for shepherding renewable energy legislation through the European Parliament, has suggested that the EU reach a bilateral agreement with the South American country, the biggest producer of bioethanol in the world. "My analysis shows the only country where we can sustainably import substantial quantities of agri-fuels to the EU at the moment is Brazil," Mr Turmes said following the meeting, according to Reuters. _______________________ 6 July 2008 Scientists reopen debate over GM food The Times (UK), 6 July 2008. By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor. Scientists have genetically engineered fruit and vegetables capable of providing most of a day's nutrients in a single meal. Heading towards the market are potatoes with 33% more protein content, modified tomatoes that could be capable of protecting against cancer and peanuts without the chemicals that cause deadly nut allergies. Cassava has been packed with new genes that help the plant accumulate extra iron and zinc from the soil, and synthesise vitamins E and A. Such foods, the first genetic modifications offering nutritional benefits to consumers, would be in marked contrast to the GM crops marketed to date. These were simply designed to boost the profits made by farmers and seed firms by raising yields or cutting costs. Their attempted introduction to Europe in the late 1990s provoked a backlash from consumers suspicious at being asked to consume plants whose DNA had been "contaminated" but which offered them no benefit. Plant scientists hope the new plants will reverse such fears. "It is time to reopen the debate over GM crops," said Chris Leaver, professor of plant science at Oxford University and a long-term supporter of GM. "Earth's population will reach 9 billion by 2040. We need crops that offer better nutritional quality, can withstand drought, use fertiliser more efficiently and resist diseases and pests. GM can contribute to achieving that." Such claims will infuriate Britain's green lobby, which sees the promotion of the new "nutritionally enhanced" crops as a cynical marketing exercise. Among scientists, however, there is growing impatience with such views. They say the BioCassava Plus project is funded with £6m from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation rather than a profit-hungry corporation and that it could help ease food shortages in Africa. At Rothamsted Research, in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, Professor Johnathan Napier has modified rapeseed plants to produce fish oils, said to be good for the heart and nervous system. "The global market for fish oil has grown very fast and is adding to the pressure on depleted fish stocks," he said. "Fish oil is also at risk of contamination from marine pollutants." Professor Ian Crute, director of Rothamsted, is overseeing other research using plant breeding and genetics to create grains that would allow bakers to make white bread with as much fibre as wholemeal. "Europe is going to become ever more important for global food production so GM will get increasingly appealing," he said. Such a change would need a political rethink. Europe has held out firmly against GM crops since their introduction in 1996 even though they have been widely adopted in North and South America, Asia and Australia. About 280m acres were planted globally last year. The main crops are soy beans, maize, cotton and rapeseed, all of which are available with modifications making them tolerant of specific herbicides, usually glyphosate. Such crops can be sprayed repeatedly to stop weeds. Cotton and maize are also available with genes taken from bacteria that enable them to produce their own insecticide, so reducing the need for pesticides. However, such plants already seem primitive compared with those in the pipeline, many of which have been given several new traits. One idea is to remove allergens such as those found in peanuts and many other foods. Peanut allergy affects about 440,000 Britons and can kill the most sensitive. At Georgia University in America Peggy Ozias-Akins, professor of plant biology, is researching how to erase such genes as well as adding separate genes for disease resistance. Graham Brookes of PG Economics, an agricultural consultancy, will next week publish a research paper, suggesting that rejecting GM crops has cost Europe's farmers dearly. "GM cuts costs and improves yields while consumers are missing the environmental benefits of reduced insecticide use. Since 1996 British farmers have missed out on an estimated £500m-£600m of additional income," he said. Others disagree. Claire Hope Cummings, a former lawyer with the US Department of Agriculture and author of Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds, published in March, said: "People do not need miracle crops offering enhanced nutrients. What they need is a good varied diet. Who wants to eat a giant bowl of cassava or golden rice each day? These ideas are just a new way of marketing GM." Cutting-edge veg
•	Cassava Genetic modifications could add vital nutrients to this starchy root vegetable as well as remove toxins. A single GM portion could provide many of the nutrients needed in a day
•	Tomato Could be made far richer in folate and lycopene, nutrients thought to increase protection against diseases like cancer. Folate is especially important to pregnant women and babies
•	Potato Researchers in India have added genes that increase protein content by a third, naming the new vegetable the "protato". It could offer a cheap source of protein
Related Links GM resistance is 'threatening cheap food' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3019037.ece Europe lowers GM-free food purity standard http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article1923770.ece Comment from GM-free Ireland Ingenious scientists could also produce GM pigs with wings to alleviate poverty and combat climate change, by saving farmers in developing countries from having to buy fossil fuel to transport their pigs to the slaughterhouse. Monsanto could then apply for patents on the flying pigs, like it has already done with the earthbound variety. Monsanto's patent applications for the pig WO 2005/015989 and WO 2005/015989 were published by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Geneva in February 2005. For details see www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2005/index3.php#pig. Comment from GM Watch: Note ... how we are told that, "Graham Brookes of PG Economics, an agricultural consultancy, will next week publish a research paper, suggesting that rejecting GM crops has cost Europe's farmers dearly. 'GM cuts costs and improves yields while consumers are missing the environmental benefits of reduced insecticide use. Since 1996 British farmers have missed out on an estimated GBP500m-600m of additional income,' he said." Brookes and Barfoot who run PG Economics are ardent biotech supporters and their reports are invariably industry commissioned and invariably say exactly what you'd expect reports commissioned by the biotech industry to say! We noted of a previous report, "The science in the new report is somewhat less than impressive. It's not even clear where half of their figures come from. Most of the references are presentations at biotech conferences and unpublished articles and very few appear to have been peer reviewed. Some of the cited papers are from PG Economics Ltd itself (whose biotech reports are mostly funded by the biotech industry), the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy (described by an article in Science as 'a pro-GM industry group'), ISAAA (industry funded), etc." http://www.gene.ch/genet/2005/Oct/msg00047.html It's now clear that the industry is busy ordering up a series of such reports to try and push to an uncritical media in hope of sustaining the current wave of hype. _______________________ 5 July 2008 Gormley: Here is best place in Europe to be GM-free Irish Examiner, 5 July 2008. By Ann Cahill, Europe Correspondent. THE island of Ireland is in the best position in Europe to be a GM-crop-free region, Environment Minister John Gormley told his EU counterparts in Paris. He supports a French drive to create GMO-free regions throughout the EU, and to introduce rules to make legalising genetically engineered crops more difficult. The proposals are likely to bring the EU into conflict with the US whose biotech companies dominate the GM world market. Only one GM crop, Bt Maize, can be legally grown in the EU. The ministers agreed to set up a committee made up of civil servants representing the member states to study the whole issue of GM and report back before the end of the year. France, which has taken over the EU presidency, wants more scientific evidence on the safety of GM for human health and the environment. They also want to extend the studies carried out by the European Food Safety Agency to look at how growing GM crops affects peoples lives and livelihoods and to take into account the fact that 70% of EU citizens do not want GM food. Mr Gormley, speaking after the Paris meeting, said it would be sensible to have completely GM-free regions in Europe but this would be more difficult for some areas as bees and the wind spread GM seeds and contaminate non-GM crops. It would be practically impossible to isolate GM crops in Ireland, where there are small farms, without them contaminating neighbouring areas. For this reason he believed the whole island should be a GMO-free zone and this was part of the programme for Government. It also made sense economically as Ireland exported its agricultural produce and marketed it as being from a clean, green island. Most consumers and Europe's supermarket chains were not buying GM. "Ireland has a quality food image. This unique selling point would be threatened should GM crops be sown in Ireland," he said. Head of GM-free Ireland, Michael O'Callaghan, welcomed the move and said so far a big number of regions in Ireland have declared themselves GM-free. He said it was important for the whole country to be GM-free as it's virtually impossible to prevent contamination. GM companies have sued farmers in countries such as Canada when their crops were found to include GM from seed that had blown onto their land. Mr O'Callaghan said all GM seed should be banned here. It is imported as animal feed stuff. All GM must be verified by EFSA as safe before it can be grown in the EU but several EU countries including France and Austria have banned all GM. _______________________ Gormley supports plan for GMO free zones The Irish Times, 5 July 2008. By Jamie Smyth in Paris. MINISTER FOR the Environment John Gormley has supported a French plan that could enable member states such as Ireland to establish themselves as GMO free zones in the EU. At an informal meeting of environment ministers in Paris yesterday, Mr Gormley told his fellow EU ministers that the union needed to respond to citizens concerns in the area of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). He said the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland had demonstrated there was a real need for the union to take action to address a disconnect between the EU and citizens, and signalled that GMOs were a prime example. "I heard some of my colleagues talk about the disconnect between the people of Europe and the European project in the context of the Irish No vote," he said. Mr Gormley told The Irish Times after the meeting. "When you have a situation and the perception exists that the majority of people in Europe and the majority of member states oppose GMOs, and are then overruled by the commission, this is undoubtedly contributing to that problem." Mr Gormley acknowledged that Irish farmers currently use GMO animal feed for their cattle and he said there were no immediate plans to change that policy. But he said he felt it was essential that the Government kept its options open in relation to the issue. "We are conscious of the strength of consumer demand for GM-free products. We are also conscious of labelling initiatives being introduced, including those in other member states, which will facilitate consumer identification of food products derived from animals fed a GM-free diet," he said. The issue of GMO crops is hugely controversial in Europe with several states, including Austria and France, strongly opposed to allowing them to be grown as part of their national agricultural production. But some states favour the promotion of GMO products, arguing that they could hold the key to combating food shortages. Under the current EU policy if member states are divided on whether to allow a certain GM crop to be grown the European Commission has the final say on whether it can be cleared for production. France, which holds the six month presidency of the union, is aiming to reform the process and has proposed allowing some member states to become GM free zones. "We want to make rapid progress, because citizens expect it, and our demands are high," French junior minister for the environment Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet said in a statement after the meeting. EU environment ministers agreed to establish a committee to study the issue yesterday. A final decision on a new EU policy on GMOs is to be taken at the summit meeting of EU environment ministers in December, she said. _______________________ EU ministers 'discover' biofuels not an obligation after all AFP, 5 July 2008. By Marlowe Hood. PARIS (AFP) - European Union energy ministers said at an informal meeting Saturday they had been labouring for 18 months under the false impression that an EU plan to fight global warming included an obligation to develop controversial biofuels. What seems to be a stunning misreading on the part of policymakers in Brussels comes at a time when the image of biofuels has shifted over a matter of a months from climate saviour to climate pariah. Documents issued by the EU describing its ambitious energy and climate plan, unveiled in January 2007, have consistently said that 10 percent of all the fuel powering vehicles would come from plants by 2020. A closer reading of the texts by the ministers apparently revealed otherwise. "The member states realised that the Commission's plan specifies that 10 percent of transport needs must come from renewable energy, not 10 percent from biofuels," Jean-Louis Borloo, the French environment and energy minister, said at the close of the three-day gathering. Jurgen Homann, the junior economy and energy minister from Germany, also confirmed the misconception. The ministers "discovered" that requirements for transport "do not speak of biofuels, but renewables," he told AFP. The majority of biofuels produced in the world today are extracted from corn in the United States, sugar in Brazil, and both grain and oil-seed crops in Europe. Heralded as recently as last year as a silver bullet in the fight against global warming, biofuels were seen as a relatively carbon-free way to fuel cars and trucks. "A year ago you were considered an ogre if you were not in favor of biofuels," Borloo told journalists on the margin of the meeting. In recent months, however, they have been fiercely criticised for driving up world food prices, diverting precious crop land, and aggravating deforestation. An unpublished World Bank report blamed biofuels for a 75 percent rise in the price a basket of staple food items, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported Friday. The new reading of the EU "action plan" for energy and climate policy immediately raises the question of what -- if anything -- will replace biofuels in fulfilling the 10 percent transport requirement by 2020 for renewable energy. "Things are changing very, very quickly," said Borloo, cited a number of new technologies under development ranging from hydrogen fuel to fuel cells. At the same he acknowledged that "99.9 percent of the renewable fuel now available for vehicles is biofuel." The EU plan calls for 20 percent of all energy needs in the 27-nation bloc to be met from renewable sources by 2020, and for an 20 percent reduction of greenhouse gases -- compared to 1990 levels -- by the same date. Borloo also noted a shift already underway towards so-called "second generation" biofuels made from non-food sources such as switchgrass and wood byproducts. The three-day gathering of the EU's top energy and environment officials was hosted by France, which assumed the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union on July 1. The talks focused on how to improve energy efficiency in order both to improve energy security and to help curb greenhouse gases. On biofuels, the ministers also discussed the creation of standards for "carbon dioxide savings" that will measure how much less CO2 a given biofuel would emit when compared to carbon-based fuels. While hard targets have yet to be adopted, one proposal on the table calls for a 35 percent "CO2 savings" by 2015, and a 50 percent savings at a date yet to be specified. Green groups have criticised some grain-based fuels -- especially ethanol, made from corn -- as being nearly as CO2-intensive as gasoline once the cost of production and transport are taken into account. Biofuels may still be in their infancy but they are growing rapidly, with annual production leaping by double-digit percentages. In 2007, 20 percent of grain -- 81 million tonnes -- produced in the United States was used to make ethanol, according to US think tank the Earth Policy Institute, which predicts that the percentage will jump to nearly a quarter this year. _______________________ GMO wheat could solve food crisis Irish Examiner, 5 July 2008. WHEAT genetically modified to tolerate drought would boost crop yields and may help the world resolve a food crisis, an Australian state researcher said. Australia, forecast to be the third-biggest exporter of the grain, is developing a modified wheat that could be released on the global market in five to 10 years, said German Spangenberg, executive director at Victorian AgriBiosciences Centre. Adoption of GMO wheat, not grown commercially by global producers, is inevitable for food security, he said. The World Bank has warned record prices of wheat, rice and corn could push 100 million people deeper into poverty and provoke civil unrest in more than 30 countries. _______________________ 4 July 2008 EU to focus on genetic modification research Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 4 July 2008. Paris - EU environment ministers meeting in Paris have agreed to establish an ad hoc committee to evaluate the research on genetically modified organisms (GMO), French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said Friday in Paris. The objective of the committee would be to evaluate the effectiveness of research on the long-term effects of GMOs, the transparency of the research and on whether non-governmental groups have been sufficiently involved in that research, Borloo said at an informal meeting of EU environment ministers in Paris. Czech Environment Minister Martin Bursik told j