NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • March 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • March • April
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 at www.gmfreeireland.org/news/feed1.php

31 March 2008

Seeds of worry

The McGill Daily, March 31 2008, Volume 97, Issue 45. By Charles Mostoller.

Charles Mostoller, a former Daily editor, reports from Mexico's movement against genetically modified corn.

After 14 years of the North American Free Trade Agreement's devastating effects on the majority of Mexican farmers, Mexico's food system now faces another serious threat. Illegally planted and unknowingly imported since the late nineties, genetically modified (GM) corn has contaminated farms all over Mexico, threatening the livelihoods of small farmers, endangering consumer health, and putting at risk the incredible genetic diversity of native Mexican corn.

But for over a year now, farmers, scientists, and activists all over Mexico have been mobilizing under the banner Sin maíz, no hay país ‚ without corn, there is no country. The campaign has been organizing protests against the import of GM corn and in support of maiz criollo, known in English as "Indian corn" or maize.

At a recent Sin maíz, no hay país event in Huajauapan, Oaxaca, longtime indigenous-rights activist and honorary Zapatista Commander Don Felix Serdán called for the prohibition of GM corn, saying that it represented a threat to food security and to Mexico's sovereignty.

"If we lose our corn, we lose our sovereignty, our very dignity," he says. "We will depend on the U.S., we will have to buy their GM seeds. That will be slavery. Now, we're no longer self-sufficient and there is no food security.... We have the responsibility to avoid the contamination by GM corn, to protect our communities."

The sad story of Mexico

Mexico's 109 million people consume about 300 million tortillas every day. Nobody knows how much of the maize in these tortillas is genetically modified, and serious concerns persist about GM corn's effects on human health.

The planting of GM corn has never been legal in Mexico, although some biotech companies have permission to plant small "pilot fields" to test out their GM varieties. But according to a recent Reuters article, there are an estimated 9,000 hectares of GM corn in northern Mexico's Chihuahua state. The government is aware of this, but has done nothing to stop it.

Mexico does allow the importation of GM corn, and since the late nineties, enormous quantities of it have entered ‚ unlabelled ‚ into Mexico's food system. Farmers also unwittingly plant GM corn, and native varieties have been contaminated by GM corn all over the country ‚ thanks to the fact that pollen can travel long distances by wind.

The Mexican government hasn't taken any steps to slow or stop the influx of GM corn, nor has it tried to study the consequences of GM contamination or the effects on human health. And despite the importance of Mexico's native corn diversity, and the fact that GM contamination has been discovered all over the country, the corn keeps flooding into Mexico.

"Today, approximately 60 per cent of the corn that enters Mexico is genetically modified," says Cati Marielle, Director of the Sustainable Agricultural Systems division of the Environmental Study Group (known by its Spanish acronym, GEA), a non-governmental organization dedicated to helping indigenous farmers.

"It's the sad story of Mexico, to be subordinate to the interests of the United States government, which in turn represents the interests of transnational corporations," she continues.

Financial interests v. health risks

In the U.S., a GM corn variety approved only for livestock feed made its way into Taco Bell food and triggered a massive recall scandal in 2000. The corn, known as Starlink and made by biotech company Aventis, had been marketed as feed corn because of the possibility of adverse health effects in humans.

Introducing radically different elements into food is not something to be taken lightly. But that's just what biotech companies have done; they have charged ahead with the unlabelled distribution of GM food, despite little real knowledge of long-term health issues. When that GM food is corn, the lifeblood of Mexico, there is even greater cause for concern.

In Mexico some 44 million tons of second-generation foodstuffs are produced annually from imported GM corn, possibly including Starlink corn. GM corn is distributed without any indication that it is modified. More than 11 million tons of GM corn were imported last year, of which 8 million was directed to internal food production, representing one-third of the corn consumed annually in Mexico.

Since corn products are the foundation of the Mexican diet, the pervasiveness of GM products worries Marielle and health advocates.

"Officially, GM corn only enters [Mexico] for consumption by animals and for industrial products for human consumption. But if you go to the supermarket, you'll find an astonishing quantity of products that contain corn, although it appears that you aren't buying corn," Marielle says.

Greenpeace Mexico has published a list of commercial products that contain GM corn. It includes various commercial brands of tortillas, as well as snacks and breakfast cereals. GM corn is also the basis for many industrial food products like corn syrup, fructose, and vegetable oils.

The principal biotechnology corporations doing business in Mexico are Monsanto, Dupont-Pioneer, Syngenta, and Dow. But Monsanto is the key player, both in Mexico and worldwide; it owns 90 per cent of GM seed patents globally and raked in profits of $8.6-billion last year. The company is infamous for its aggressive legal action against farmers whose crops are unwittingly contaminated by Monsanto's patented varieties.

A Monsanto press representative, Darren Wallis, says that GM products have been eaten by humans since their inception, but does not reply to questions about GM corn's possible negative effects.

"Biotechnologies, from Monsanto and many other companies," says Wallis, "have been used in parts of the world now for more than a decade. Food products from staple crops like corn and soybeans have used ingredients from these crops for the same amount of time and have been widely consumed by people around the world."

GM contamination: is it worth it?

The long-term effects of GM contamination on native maize are still unknown ‚ even the science behind genetic modification remains unclear. The biotech companies themselves are clueless as to exactly how and where transgenes attach themselves to DNA in the process of creating a GM food variety.

When GM contamination of native maize was discovered throughout Mexico in 2001 by both independent and government studies, it was revealed that some plants had been contaminated more than once, and by different GM corn varieties ‚ including Starlink. Farmers in areas of contamination have also reported high rates of mutated cobs.

Although the real extent of contamination is uncertain, it is clear that GM corn can seriously affect insect populations ‚ both pests and those beneficial to crops ‚ with possibly catastrophic results.

One of the most common types of GM corn is known as Bt corn. Bt is a primary contaminator of maize in Mexico, and produces its own insecticide thanks to the genetic fusing of a toxic bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, into the corn genome. Some studies have shown that Bt pollen is harmful or fatal to the larvae of Monarch butterflies ‚ millions of which breed each year in central Mexico ‚ although the biotech industry's own studies claim otherwise.

More alarming is that crop-destroying pests can become resistant to the Bt toxin, posing a threat not only to GM farms, but contaminated ones as well ‚ which could lead to widespread crop failures in the not-so-distant future.

Even Monsanto has realized this. Although the company has published strategies on avoiding the development of Bt-resistant pests, it maintains that such a possibility is unlikely.

"[Bt corn] is a good tool for farmers because it is toxic to target pests like the corn ear worm in corn, and specific pests in cotton, and is something already found in nature," says Wallis.

To protect non-GM corn varieties from contamination, Monsanto suggests separating some corn in "refuge areas" in order to maintain separate pest populations and avoid contamination from GM varieties.

"Monsanto has a rigorous stewardship plan that protects technologies, like Bt, and promotes its longevity. For Bt in particular, this comes in the form of natural refuge in cotton and refuge acres in corn," Wallis says.

In spite of such efforts, Marielle feels that the risks just aren't worth it.

"When we talk to Monsanto's scientists who work with GM crops, they say, ëWhat we know is really very little.' With so much information lacking, they want to sell us a product that's really not as safe as they say it is," she says.

It's the patents, stupid

Recently, Mexico has passed two laws relating to the planting and sale of GM seeds: in 2005, the Biosecurity Law ‚ known as the Monsanto Law for that company's alleged involvement in its creation ‚ and in 2007 the Law of Seed Production, Certification, and Sale. Both laws set the stage for the legal planting of GM corn, as well as the criminalization of farmers found to have fields contaminated by GM corn.

These laws are part of a process to institutionalize the rights of the transnational agro-biotech sector, similar to one already established in the US and Canada. After a few years of planting GM crops ‚ in test fields, or by farmers who have bought the seed ‚ Monsanto takes farmers whose fields have been contaminated to court for patent violations, forcing these farmers to buy Monsanto's GM variety, year after year.

In Canada, Monsanto won a case in 2001 against Percy Schmeiser, a Saskatchewan canola farmer whose field was contaminated by the company's GM canola from a neighbouring field.

Although the judge ruled that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto, he is not yet free from their grasp. In 2005, Monsanto's canola continued to pop up in Schmeiser's field, cross-pollinating his crop and contaminating his seed.

According to Marielle, the issue comes down to biotechnology patents.

"Everything is tied to the patents," she says. "For farmers, they represent a threat to a common good ‚ maize ‚ with the inheritance of hundreds of generations of farmers and 7,000 years of maize agriculture in Mexico. Fifty-nine maize races with over 1,200 identified varieties are cultivated here. There is a continuous diversification of maize that creates varieties adapted to every ecological niche."

But Marielle says that Monsanto wants to control the seed and fertilizer markets, turning every farmer it can into a lifelong client, and in the process effectively wiping out the genetic diversity of maize.

"It's not just the introduction of a GM gene into the native maize varieties, but the fact that the gene is the private property of Monsanto, entering into a public good," she emphasizes.

Monsanto: a step ahead of the game

Marielle believes that Monsanto's next step is to appropriate the genome of native maize varieties, and to turn some of them into Monsanto's private property.

"To date, all GM seeds are made out of hybrid seeds, but Monsanto is very interested in knowing what is it that makes a maize variety blue, or red, or resistant to droughts. They are promising to develop a GM corn that is drought-resistant," she says. "But here in Mexico we already have drought-resistant varieties ‚ or how do you explain that farmers plant corn in the desert? It's because farmers have been selecting, throughout many centuries, to adapt their seed to such extreme conditions."

Monsanto has already made inroads with farmers in the north of the country, despite the fact that it remains illegal to promote GM corn in Mexico. Of course, the farmers in Chihuahua who planted 9,000 hectares of it had to buy it from somewhere.

"Recently, farmers in the north have been quoted saying that ëWe want GM corn, and since the government hasn't decided its position, we're already planting it'," says Marielle, adding that Monsanto has influence in Mexico through an organization called Agrodinamica Nacional A.C.

Leonardo Estrada, a leader of the National Confederation of Farmers (CNC) ‚ tied to the country's longtime ruling party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ‚ in Guanajuato state, says that the CNC has strong ties with Monsanto and other bio-tech firms.

"We have a special office in the CNC, the office of Storage and Comercialization, which already has all the necessary ties and connections with the transnationals that can sell us GM seed," he says.

Recently, Monsanto signed an agreement with the CNC, formalizing the future sale of GM seed to CNC farmers as soon as it is legal. In exchange, Monsanto has initiated a project to "conserve" native varieties, hoping to create a database and seedbank of Mexico's maize varieties.

The project could give Monsanto the raw material to start patenting new GM varieties based on Mexico's native maize.

Monsanto's stated goal in undertaking efforts to "conserve" Mexico's maize diversity is to protect maize in the poor southern Mexican states ‚ by not planting there. Some of most contaminated regions, however, are in Oaxaca and Puebla, two southern states that are among Mexico's most impoverished.

Out of reach?

Biotech companies are campaigning hard in Mexico's industrialized north, trying to convince farmers to buy GM corn. Farmworkers are led to believe that GM corn will save them money, and are generally unaware of the risks of contamination.

"We are really ignorant as to how GM corn works," says Miguel, a farmer from Guanajuato state. "But GM corn yields more, and it doesn't need herbicides. In total, it already comes with everything, which for us represents a lot of money saved. We want the government to let us plant it, because it yields more with less water."

Biotech companies' own studies support the claim that GM corn yields more product, but critics argue that independent data indicates otherwise.

"Independent studies by scientists in the U.S. and Europe demonstrate that the improvement in yields isn't true," Marielle argues. "In some cases, yes, but it's never more that ten percent. Sometimes it's negative. There's one study that shows that, in the U.S., the average yield increase is two percent. Is it really worth it to run so much risk for such an insignificant increase in yield?"

Monsanto, however, maintains that GM corn is beneficial to farmers because of yield increases.

"In [GM] corn, some of the most dramatic benefits have come in the shape of increased yields which have helped create more food and feed for people and animals," says Wallis.

Although some farmers believe that they will save money with GM technology, even its proponents admit that small farmers can't afford to buy the large quantities of seed, fertilizer, and irrigation that GM corn requires.

"We have to make the federal government give us a subsidy, because our farmers in the CNC don't have the financial capacity to be buying large volumes of seeds," Estrada says. "We are only waiting for the financial resources to bring [GM corn] in."

A recent study on GM crops by Friends of the Earth International shows that since 1994 ‚ when herbicide-tolerant varieties of GM soy, corn, and cotton were introduced in the U.S. ‚ there has been a 15-fold increase in herbicide use.

Some of the GM corn varieties in Mexico are herbicide-tolerant, resulting in the increased application of glyphosate ‚ a Monsanto-produced herbicide known as Roundup. In Mexico, Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant YieldGuard corn varieties, along with Monsanto's Bt corn, are the principal GM contaminators of native maize.

Sin maíz, no hay país

A lot of attention has been paid recently to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a so-called "doomsday" bank in Norway to keep the world's seed wealth in suspended animation. But farmers are the real seed bank; they are the original biotechnicians, constantly adapting and bettering their seed as conditions change. Helping farmers maintain that seed diversity is the real key to food security.

Corn is one of the most important crops on the planet, with some 687.2 billion kilos harvested in 2006 and 2007. Although the majority of that corn is produced in the U.S. and in China ‚ and a large portion has recently been diverted to production of ethanol and other industrial products like glues ‚ it remains a staple food crop all over Africa and the Americas. Preserving the diversity of Mexico's maize is key to future world food security.

The import and planting of GM corn in Mexico ‚ whether illegal or legal ‚ threatens to contaminate maize all over the country, turning campesinos into Monsanto's slaves, obligated to buy its seed year after year.

Campesinos in contaminated areas filed suit in 2002 with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC), NAFTA's ruling authority on environmental issues, calling for a review of the risks of GM corn in Mexico. The CEC report called for Mexico to uphold its ban on planting GM seed, and to minimize the import of GM produce.

For the moment, Monsanto is content to wait before taking Mexican farmers to court to formalize their patent rights.

"Right now they're not going to persecute those who have contaminated fields. What they want to do is let their seed proliferate throughout the country," says Marielle.

But indigenous farmers all over Mexico have begun to fight back, holding rituals to cleanse their maize and starting their own seed banks to protect local diversity. However, testing for GM contamination is prohibitively expensive, costing over $200 for each sample.

According to Marielle, a moratorium on the import of GM corn is the only solution to wprotecting Mexico's maize. She argues that consumers must reject GM products and force the government into action.

"What is really needed is a total moratorium. And it's nothing more than a question of political will. It could be done tomorrow," says Marielle. "Why can Japan, who imports a lot of corn and rice from the U.S., successfully reject the importation of GM crops? Because the government of Japan is very strong, and most importantly, Japan's consumers are very strong."

On January 31, in one of Mexico's biggest protests ever, some 200,000 farmers from all over the country flooded Mexico City's central plaza, calling for the government to re-negotiate the terms of NAFTA's agricultural chapter and to immediately stop the importation GM corn.

Bety Cariño is an activist from Oaxaca's Sierra Mixteca ‚ 150 kilometres from where GM contamination was first discovered in 2001 ‚ and part of the Sin maíz, no hay país campaign. She says that GM contamination represented the final straw to not just farmers, but also to Mexico's indigenous peoples, for whom maize is often an important cultural item.

"The government has abandoned real support for the countryside, leaving our fields empty here in the Mixteca, where the youth have to leave for the United States to survive, leaving their communities behind and abandoning the field," she says. "And now, GM corn is going to finish off the countryside ‚ which is to say, Mexico's indigenous peoples."

However, thanks to organizations like GEA and Greenpeace and the Sin maíz, no hay país campaign, Mexican consumers and farmers are learning the risks of GM corn and starting to fight back.

Despite the government's inaction, campesino and indigenous activists all over Mexico have vowed to keep fighting to do what no one else will: protect Mexico's corn, farmers, and indigenous peoples.

"Better to die fighting," says Don Serdán with tears in his eyes, "than on our knees, begging for the food that we ourselves can produce."

Environmentalists Praise Results of Moratorium on Growing Soy in Brazilian Amazon

AP Alert - Agriculture. 31 March 2008. By Michael Astor.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- March 31, 2008 -- A moratorium on the purchase of soybeans from newly deforested areas of the Amazon appears to be keeping grain fields from adding to rain forest destruction, environmentalists and an industry group said Monday.

No new soybean plantations were detected in any of the 193 areas that registered deforestation of 100 hectares (250 acres) or more between August 2006 and August 2007, according to Greenpeace and the Brazilian Vegetable Oils Industry Association.

U.S. commodities giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Bunge Ltd., as well as France's Dreyfus and Brazilian-owned AMaggi, are participating. Together, the companies account for the majority of the soy trade in Brazil, the world's No. 2 producer of soybeans, after the United States.

"Without a doubt the results show that soy moratorium is being respected and that is good news," said Paulo Adario, coordinator of Greenpeace's Amazon campaign. "However, the high prices of soy on the international market are increasing producers' appetites for more land, which creates and important challenge for the companies committed to the moratorium."

Rising demand from China is among the factors that have pushed up prices and pressure for more soybean production.

The survey released Monday was the first field evaluation since the companies agreed to the two-year moratorium in 2006. The ban came in response to protests against expanding soy plantations, which had become a major source of rain forest destruction. There is no word on whether the moratorium will be renewed.

Adario said he is still concerned because the report shows much of deforestation has occurred in areas next to existing soybean plantations, suggesting that the grain fields could move into those areas to meet growing international demand.

Traditionally, jungle land in the Amazon has been cut for pasture and later sold to soybean growers after it has been overgrazed, usually in two to three years.

After declining over three years, deforestation in the Amazon is once again on the upswing. As much as 7,000 square kilometers (2,700 square miles) of Brazil's rain forest was cleared between August and December 2007, according to the environment ministry.

That would put Brazil on course to lose 5,790 square miles (15,000 square kilometers) for the year ending in August - a 34 percent increase from the previous 12-month period.

Demonstrations across France against GMOs
Anti-GMO demonstrations this weekend

Enviro2b, 31 March 2008

[for the original article in French - Manifestations anti-OGM ce week-end http://www.enviro2b.com/environnement-actualite-developpement-durable/8969/article.html ]

Numerous demonstrations were held this weekend in several cities in France prior to the opening tomorrow of the discussions on the draft GMO legislation in the Assembly. In Rennes, Clermont-Ferrand, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Avignon, Nancy and Lille, nearly 25,000 people gathered on the initiative of a group of anti-GM associations and organisations such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Voluntary Reapers and the Peasant Farmers' Confederation of José Bové.

In Brittany, a very agricultural region, 5,000 people according to the police, and 15,000 according to organizers, have gathered around slogans such as "Monsanto, assassin" or "We don't want GMOs". Arnaud Apoteker of Greenpeace France explains the success of the Breton event as follows:

"Britanny is very important to the question of GMOs, because it is here that the majority of livestock in France are concentrated, and 80% of GMOs are grown for livestock feed."

José Bové was in the middle of the crowd at Clermont-Ferrand, where after a picnic, 1,000 to 3,000 people strolled around the streets of the city. In Toulouse, 500 persons were found around the Capitol. In addition, supporters of the group GMOs 31 have symbolically planted organic maize in front of Pioneer's seed production factory at Aussonne, north of the Pink City [Toulouse].

In Lille, local producers have sold their produce, vegetables, meat, near the stands of Greenpeace, or WWF [World Wildlife Fund]. Finally, in Strasbourg, a dozen people demonstrated in silence, protected by white masks.

Heated debates in anticipation

The parliamentary debates this week are therefore lively, with the voices of the UMP [Union pour un mouvement populaire, a political party] more favourable to GMOs. For the president of the Assembly, Bernard Accoyer, French opinion [against GMOs] "was not built on balanced and objective information (S) a balance has been created between private interests, which are probably open to criticism, and GMOs in general, which are vital for the future of our agriculture, our agronomy, of research, of new drugs."

As for Patrick Ollier, the chairman of the committee of economic affairs, he also affirms his "confidence in science" and believes that GMOs are there to resolve some of the problems of feeding the world.

The Greens call for members to show greater independence than did the Senators. They demand that they oppose the "hypocritical and dangerous" text [of the bill in Parliament] and to hold firms that produce and import GMOs liable for contamination.

Finally, the Socialist Party's Francois Brottes pointed out the absence of guarantee in terms of reversibility of breeding [of GMOs]", while André Chassaigne (PCF, French Socialist Party) sees GMOs as "a food weapon as dangerous as nuclear weapons" for the planet.

30 March 2008

New Zealand: GM brassica trials to be challenged in High Court

Radio New Zealand News, 30 March 2008.

The GE Free NZ lobby will challenge in the High Court at Wellington this week an Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approval for field trials of genetically engineered brassicas.

The case will be heard over two days starting on Monday, though Crop and Food Research began planting the disputed brassicas last November.

Crop and Food Research planted GM cabbages, broccoli and other brassicas in the Lincoln region after getting clearance from ERMA for 10 years of field tests.

The plants are modified for resistance to caterpillar pests with genes derived from a soil bacterium.

The GE Free NZ organisation, supported by organic groups, argues that ERMA has committed errors in law in approving the trials.

It has submitted that under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, field testing must include testing for adverse effects and that ERMA has failed to demand that.

USA: Genetically modified crops banned
Montville enacts 10-year moratorium on DNA altered organisms

The Republican Journal & the Waldo Independent. By Jane Andrews, 30 March 2008.

MONTVILLE ó The town voted to enact a ban on genetically modified organisms for a period of 10 years by a strong majority at town meeting Saturday.

Anyone using such seeds would have two years to phase them out, but proponents of the ban said they weren't aware of any local farmers or gardeners using genetically modified organisms, although there are several non-residents who lease fields.

The Board of Appeals would handle any challenges from growers.

The three-page ordinance is aimed at providing protection against products introduced in the marketplace whose DNA has been altered through genetic engineering before risks and long-term impacts were identified.

"Super weeks" and "super insects" are among the unwanted, potential results of genetically modified organisms.

The ordinance grew out of a 2006 town meeting vote to set up a committee to study the issue and return wit a recommendation for town meeting action.

Kai George, a gardener who worked on the issue, said she was concerned about health and economic impacts of altered strains that could produce allergic reactions or digestive problems.

George also there could be environmental impacts that would be unpredictable, uncontrollable and impossible to reverse.

Economic problems could also arise as organic farmers discover their produce is no longer organic, or naturally occurring, and find they can't sell to the organic market any more due to unwanted cross pollination from upwind fields.

"Spain had a healthy corn crop, but allowed a couple of GMO corns in on an experimental basis and now, there's no more organic corn," said John Bednarik, a former selectman who expressed concern about the problem. "GMO bred into it. Once it's done, it's done."

Questions were raised about the ordinance.

"Nobody invests without scientific background," said Tom Hrichak. "If I plant something, it's what I think is the best."

29 March 2008

Canada: Monsanto to pay farmer Scheiser $660 for his time

Sun Media, Saturday March 29, 2008.

Percy Schmeiser may have lost his legal battle with Monsanto Canada over the use of genetically modified canola seed, but Canadian Press is reporting that the multinational giant will have to pay the Saskatchewan farmer for the time it took to pull the offending plants out of his fields.

In a deal reached March 19, Monsanto Canada agreed to pay the $660 claim Schmeiser brought against it in small claims court, the final act in a decade-long legal battle watched around the world that turned the Saskatchewan farmer into a folk hero to those opposed to so-called "Frankenfood."

In 1998, Monsanto took the Schmeisers to court for using its patented canola seeds, which were genetically modified to be tolerant to a Monsanto-produced herbicide, without a licence, seeking damages totalling $400,000. The farmers denied they had used the patented seeds, saying they could have blown over from a neighbour's farm or from passing trucks.

Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's valid patent on a gene it inserted into canola plants, although he did not have to pay the damages.

28 March 2008

EU: GMOs: The next asbestos?

Green Left, 28 March 2008. By Steve Griffin.

The European Commission is increasingly annoyed by its inability to foist unwanted, unnecessary and unsafe genetically modified crops onto European consumers and some member-state governments.

The latest example of this comes from Poland, which has announced that it is, after all, going to ban the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in livestock fodder, against the commission's diktat.

The new European Union-friendly Polish government had hinted to its chums in Brussels that it would drop the ban ó proposed by the previous government ó which is due to come into force in August.

The legality of the proposed ban is open to question, but only because the European Commission chooses to ignore overwhelming and ever-mounting evidence that GM foods and feed are potentially dangerous; that GM crops jeopardise the environment, consumers' health and farmers' livelihoods; and that the spread of GM varieties beyond their original plantings cannot, in most cases, be controlled.

'Safeguard clause'

EU member states have the right to apply what is known as a "safeguard clause" if they have evidence that puts a GM product's safety in question. The European Commission, however, refuses to accept the accumulation of scientific evidence. It consistently echoes the lies told by the industry and the public relations specialists whose disinformation campaigns ensure that the public remains confused.

Opponents of GMOs are constantly accused of being "anti-science", yet nothing could be further from the truth. One of our objections to this kind of agricultural biotechnology is that it diverts funds away from the truly vital research needed if we are to continue to produce enough food to feed the world.

Every year or so there is a hue and cry about a "new generation" of GMOs that won't be like the old ones. They will be drought-resistant, or vitamin-enhanced, or highly productive. Yet the only commercially available GMOs continue to be productive of nothing but enhanced profits for the shareholders of the companies that make them, and health and environmental threats for the rest of us.

The British-based Institute for Science in Society (www.i-sis.org.uk) has been monitoring the scientific literature and other sources of information on GMOs over the past decade, and in the words of one of its leading scientists, Dr Mae-Wan Ho, these "strongly suggest that the process of genetic modification may be inherently hazardous".

At the same time, ISIS has uncovered numerous examples of how national and international regulators have been ignoring this evidence while colluding with industry to manipulate scientific research. The institute recently listed more than 130 examples of health problems uncovered by research into GMOs, their conclusion being that "GM food and feed may be inherently hazardous to health, regardless of the plant species or the genetic modification involved".

Research examples include rats fed on GM soya beans ó of an internationally certified variety ó giving birth to severely stunted young, with over half dying within three weeks and the rest becoming sterile; farmers exposed to GM cotton and maize suffering serious allergy-like symptoms; and livestock feeding on GM crops becoming ill and dying in large numbers.

One problem with the technology is that it is poorly understood and thus unpredictable. A major difficulty is what is known as "horizontal gene transfer", where DNA is incorporated into the genomes of cells other than the ones targeted. This means that the results of a genetic modification can be quite different to those intended, and that they can vary.

This is particularly dangerous because genetically modified DNA often contains antibiotic resistance marker genes as well as genes from pathogenic micro-organisms. Their incorporation into cells is encouraged by the incorporation of "promoters".

As Mae-Wan Ho explains, however, if the strong promoter jumps into the wrong place in the genome of animal cells, it can boost the expression of oncogenes ó cancer-provoking genes ó which "cause the cells to multiply out of control".

In addition to these potential health problems, this form of agricultural biotechnology encourages the worst kind of industrial monoculture. GM varieties are more genetically uniform. This means that they are more susceptible to disease and pests. They are more dependent on intensive inputs of pesticides and fertilisers, contrary to claims made on their introduction.

The EU is now legally obliged to follow the precautionary principle in framing regulations to protect public health and the environment. This means that the burden of proof falls on those who wish to introduce any new product or process. They have to show that it is safe. But they have failed to do so.

What they have done instead is conduct a massive PR exercise, confusing the public and buying up scientists, elected legislators and public officials wholesale.

Consequences

Peter Saunders, professor of applied mathematics at King's College London, has made a study of the precautionary principle. Failure to apply it, he concludes, means that GMO-based food and feed "look like joining asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), BSE, tobacco and many others as yet another example of the government relying on bad scientific advice and ignoring the precautionary principle, with devastating consequences".

Finally, it has to be said that the safety or otherwise of GMOs is not the only issue at stake here. A recent survey showed that 76% of Polish consumers do not want them on their farms or in their shops. Whether their reasons are scientifically sound or not should, from a democratic point of view, be irrelevant.

As things stand, Poland allows the import of GM foodstuffs, provided, as is required by EU law, that they are clearly labelled. EU law does not, however, require the labelling of meat or other foodstuffs from animals fed on GMOs. The Polish government's view is that the absence of this information undermines the consumer's right to choose.

There are few better examples of the way the EU operates, putting corporate profit before health and environmental concerns, ignoring its own laws and our basic rights as both consumers and citizens, whenever it suits it.

[Steve McGiffen is the editor of Spectrezine, a former adviser on biotechnology to the United European Left/Nordic Green Left Group in the European Parliament, and author of Biotechnology: Corporate Power versus the Public Interest. This article was written for the Morning Star. Visit www.spectrezine.org.]

EU: Industry cooperation needed for applying rice tests

Food Navigator.com, 28 March 2008. By Laura Crowley.

The food industry is being asked to work with the European Commission to implement testing measures for rice imports from China to prevent unauthorised GM material entering the European food system.

The new strict methods will come into force on April 15th, following the identification of rice contaminated with the GMO Bt63 in imports from China. Bt63 is not authorised in either China or the EU.

While the Commission is responsible for regulation, under EU law, business operators are responsible for the safety of food or feed they put on the market.

Food companies and local authorities are being asked to inform enforcement authorities if such GM rice has left their possession and to recall it if it has reached consumers.

However, a spokesperson for FSA said she could not comment on the probability of Bt63 rice still being on the market. She said this will become apparent after the testing has been carried out.

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) sent out a letter today.

It said Chinese imports of rice and rice products may now only be placed on the EU market if: "a) they are accompanied by an original analytical report issued by an official or accredited laboratory which demonstrates that the product does not contain Bt63 or b) satisfactory results of analysis are received by the food authority at the point of entry to the Community, following sampling carried out by or under the supervision of that authority."

It added that positive and negative results must be reported to the Commission as emergency measures "need to be taken to ensure that products which are found to contain, consist or to be produced from GM rice 'Bt63' are not placed on the market".

Although the Agency says it is unaware of any health implications for consumers who eat rice products containing Bt63, European regulation 1829/2003 states that GM food and feed should not be placed on the EU market unless it is covered by an authorisation.

GM rice incident

GM contamination of Chinese rice was first discovered in September 2006. The Chinese authorities announced measures to address the problem of GM rice in 2007, including sampling and testing and an official Chinese Inspection and Quarantine Certifical.

Despite these measures, the presence of some material containing BT 63 was still being reported in some countries late last year, meaning the European Commission was forced to draw up stringent testing policies.

The Commission's Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health voted in February to introduce the emergency measures.

The European Commission has now set out the chain of responsibility for ensuring that imported products do not contain GM material.

It says that China is responsible for ensuring that Bt63 does not enter the EU food chain, and that imports are certified as free from this GMO.

Authorities in member states are responsible for controlling imports at their borders, and preventing contaminated consignments appearing on the market.

Member states should also conduct controls on products already on the market to ensure they are Bt63-free.

Finally, businesses importing rice products from China are responsible for ensuring Bt63 does not enter the food chain, and that imports are Bt63-free.

US contaminated rice

This appeal to businesses comes the same week it was decided rice imported from the United States no longer needs to be tested for GMO presence both at the point of export and on arrival in the EU, following an amendment to measures following a similar contamination incident.

Bayer's LL Rice 601, deisgned to tolerate the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, was discovered in batches of American long grain rice in the EU in August 2006. At that time the rice variety was not approved for human consumption. It has since been approved in the US, but no GM rice is allowed in the EU.

The two incidents have had a large impact on the rice industry, and brought into question the efficiency of the food alert system.

The FSA came under considerable fire when LLRice 601 was discovered in American rice supplies intended for export.

Friends of the Earth called for a judicial review, saying the FSA should have done more work with local authorities and the food industry to ensure illegal GM rice was detected and removed from shelves and other parts of the market.

USA: Council votes no GMO Taro

The Garden Island (Hawaii), 28 March 2008. By Nathan Eagle.

A deeply rooted community debate over the future of a culturally important crop on Kaua'i climaxed late Thursday night at the Historic County Building.

After hearing hours of heartfelt pleas and hopeful comments from farmers and scientists, keiki and kupuna, the County Council passed a resolution supporting a bill pending in the state Legislature that would place a 10-year moratorium on growing or developing genetically modified taro.

Councilmembers Mel Rapozo, Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, Tim Bynum and Jay Furfaro cast votes in favor of the resolution; JoAnn Yukimura, Ron Kouchi and Bill "Kaipo" Asing against it. The split 4-3 vote reflected a torn community.

Supporters want taro, or kalo in Hawaiian, to remain pure. Generations of Native Hawaiians consider it disrespectful to even consider messing with the genetic make-up of the sacred plant.

Legend has it Kalo sprouted from Haloa, the stillborn child of Wakea, the sky father, and Ho'ohokukalani, the star mother, to become the first taro plant thousands of years ago.

Kalo provides the kanaka maoli's life-giving sustenance, poi, and is seen as the older brother of mankind, according to Senate Bill 958, which would impose the temporary ban on genetically modified taro.

Bynum, a first-term councilman, said he was pulled in by the cultural arguments.

"I'm a transplant here. I was embraced with aloha by a whole lot of people who live here," he said yesterday. "They're saying it's sacred and are asking to honor the culture. That's what wooed me. It was my toughest decision yet."

While the vast majority of oral testimony pushed for the resolution's passage, some residents argued that genetic engineering research could uncover ways to produce a disease-resistant plant ó securing its future.

"All the taro farmers understand and are sensitive to the cultural significance of taro to the Hawaiian community and also have reservations about GMO taro," Kaua'i Taro Growers Association President Rodney Haraguchi said in his written testimony. "However, they are opposed to have a law passed for 10 years restricting research which may be necessary."

Kaua'i farmers produce roughly 75 percent of the state's taro, Bynum said.

The crop comprises less than 1 percent of all agricultural lands in cultivation in Hawai'i, according to state legislation.

The public hearing spanned some nine hours with the final roll call vote around 11:30 p.m., Bynum said. The council had to wade through this testimony in addition to input from another public hearing two weeks ago and a steady stream of written remarks.

Yukimura released a written statement yesterday explaining why she voted against the resolution.

"I do not believe it is pono to pass a law instituting a 10-year moratorium without taking the time to understand the objections, reservations and concerns of those who produce the majority of the taro in the state ó most of whom are Kaua'i farmers, our neighbors and friends who for generations have been keeping poi on all of our tables," she says. "This doesn't mean that I don't believe a moratorium might or should be eventually instituted, but I think that decision should be made by the stakeholders, not county councils or legislators ó at least not until after those with a stake in taro have gone through a process and come to a consensus or an agreement to disagree."

Council deferred the resolution at its March 12 meeting after hearing from residents who rallied with signs and taro-related shirts. The numbers were almost double on Thursday when an estimated 30 community members, some carrying taro plants as proof of a healthy GMO-free crop, filled council chambers.

The resolution's passage makes a policy statement, Bynum said, noting that its weight remains uncertain.

There is no genetically modified taro in production in the state and the University of Hawai'i recently abandoned attempts to patent some strains of the plant.

There are some 70 taro varieties in existence today, Senate Bill 958 states, down from an estimated 300 or more at the time European explorers arrived.

"For me, the question is how do we solve the problems of taro security and purity, including the debate over the 10-year moratorium, without breaking the 'ohana apart?" Yukimura says. "I passionately believe that there is a way to do that. That way is often harder because it takes deep listening, suspending our judgments and positions and really seeking to understand before seeking to be understood. But, in fact, the solutions to our problems, whatever the solutions may be, depend on the "ohana staying together and working together."

When 'ohana is broken into root words, "oha" is the smaller taro corms growing from the older part of the plant that is used to feed one's family and "ana" is a conjunctive word connoting regeneration or procreation, according to state legislation.

"In voting against the council resolution supporting SB 958, I know that there will be people who say that I am for GMOs. Or, that I don't have respect for the native Hawaiian culture, which will hurt me, but I accept that condemnation with the humility of knowing that in this job as a councilmember I will sometimes be misunderstood," Yukimura says. "I hope some people will try to read my heart and will understand that it is my respect for relationships and "ohana, also a value of our host culture, that underlies my position, and my passionate belief that people can come together, respect and listen to each other and resolve an issue together."

Both sides of the debate acknowledge a lack of information on the health risks associated with genetically modified taro.

Moratorium supporters say the temporary ban would provide time to learn more, but critics say it simply goes too far.

The House Agriculture Committee deferred Senate Bill 958 on March 19.

The council unanimously passed two separate taro-related resolutions in support of Senate Bill 2518 and Senate Bill 2915.

The House referred Senate Bill 2518, which would provide $500,000 in grant funding for taro research, to the Ways and Means Committee.

The House Finance Committee on Thursday passed an amended version of Senate Bill 2915, which would create a taro security and purity task force.

County councils on Neighbor Islands have recently passed measures supporting Senate Bill 958. Big Island passed its resolution Jan. 24. Maui passed its version out of committee two weeks ago and it is expected to head to a full council for a vote yesterday.

Former EU agriculture commissioner calls for positive GMO policy

EurActiv, 28 March 2008.

New political measures are needed to ensure thatİglobal food demand is met in an environmentally sustainable way, said Franz Fischler, who argued in favour of GMO technology to help produce new food crops that meet changing climatic conditionsİand can be used inİbiofuel production.

"We need a modern policy framework which enables our farmers to meet world food demand in an environmentally sustainable way," saidİFischler, speaking at aİforum on the future of EU agriculture on 27 March 2008.İ

The former agriculture commissionerİsaid thatİa market-driven approach to agricultureİcannotİdeal with issues such asİenvironmental security. "Participants in this conference acknowledge market failure in respect of food security and environmental security. Neither receives sufficient government attention or support," said Fischler,İcurrently chairman of theİRISE foundation , which supports and monitors rural private investment.

İ As forİthe current EU debate on GMOs, the former commissioner said that the problemİregardsİreal benefits forİconsumers. "Asİlong as we are not able to demonstrate to consumers that there is a benefit, their consumption behaviours won't change."İ

In addition to this, there are "two fundamental open problems" linked to the debate.İThe first, heİsaid, isİthat the agricultural sector must in future alsoİproduceİnew plants which are not used for food and feed but for other purposes, such as biofuels. "For these non-food purposes, GMO techniques could play anİincreasing role."

Theİsecond question isİclimate change and the need toİadapt plant varieties to newİclimatic conditions in a way that allowsİplants to consume, for example,İless water. "The discussion here is to know whether there is enough time to do this through traditional breeding methods orİwhether the development is soİfast that it will be necessaryİto use GMO techniques which canİproduce new varieties far more quickly," said Fischler.

Fischler's views were echoed by John AtkinİofİSyngenta,İa world leader inİagribusiness based in Switzerland, which sponsored the conference. "By 2030, 50% more food will be needed. This is two billion more people and mouths to feedİvia better diets," said Atkin. "Technology can contribute hugely toİresponding to the challenges of food security. For this, it is important to demonstrate what technology can do and illustrate the consequences of better seeds, better chemicals and better use of fertilisers," he added.İ

Regardless of several positive safety assessments from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU 27 remain divided over theİacceptability of GMOs and several member states are resistingİpressure from the European Commission to lift theirİindividualİGMO bans on certain varietiesİof GM maize exported by the Americanİgiant GM producerİMonsanto, for example.İİ

Early this year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy joined Austria, Germany and Polandİin invoking an EU safeguard clause enablingİFrance to suspend the marketing and growth on its territory of a GM crop that has EU-wide authorisation.İ The Commission has never substantiated the applications invoking the safeguard clause while EU environment ministers haveİrepeatedly failed to reach a qualified majority for or against the Commission's proposals to lift the national bans.

UK: EU approves Syngenta biotech maize for import

The Guardian, 28 March 2008. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS, March 28 (Reuters) - The European Union has authorised imports of a genetically modified (GM) maize type for sale across its 27 national markets for the next 10 years, European Commission officials said on Friday.

The maize, known by its codename GA21, is marketed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta and will be used in food and animal feed, not for growing in Europe's fields.

EU law allows for rubberstamp GMO authorisations when ministers cannot agree after a certain time. Since 2004, the European Commission has approved a series of GM imports -- nearly all maize -- in this way, outraging green groups.

In February, EU farm ministers were unable to reach a consensus agreement that would allow imports of five separate biotech products, one of which was GA21 maize.

EU approval of GA21 maize is of particular interest to grain traders in Spain, and also Portugal, since until now, the GM strain has only been permitted for import in processed form.

Spain's growing demand for grain for use in feed is mainly focused on maize. The EU's approval allows GA21 imports as grain and those shipments are expected to come into EU markets mainly from Argentina, a major GM crop grower.

"We welcome today's decision from the European Commission. Clearly it's good that we have GA21 approval. It makes it easier for grain traders in Argentina, Canada and the United States to export," Medard Schoenmaeckers, head of media relations at Syngenta International, said by telephone from Switzerland.

"It's encouraging as it shows the EU is open again for these GM varieties, with current high food prices and a rise in demand," he said.

GA21 maize has been engineered to provide resistance to herbicides containing glyphosate. The authorisation will only take effect once it has been published in the EU's Official Journal, likely to happen in the next few days, officials said.

(Reporting by Jeremy Smith, editing by Chris Johnson)

Syngenta welcome EU authorisation extension of GA21 GM maize

CNNmoney, 28 March 2008.

BRUSSELS, Mar. 28, 2008 (Thomson Financial delivered by Newstex) -- Syngenta (NYSE:SYT) welcomed today's EU authorisation extension of the group's GA21 genetically-modified maize and said the the approval could help boost sales, a spokesman said.

'We welcome today's decision. While we are unable to give specific sales figures, today's authorisation will make import easier and my thus contribute to better sales,' the spokesman said.

The sale of GA21 in processed form had already been authorised in the Europe Union.

The commission said today's decision extends the authorisation of products derived from GA21 to maize grains and thus allows imports from third countries where this GMO is cultivated.

GA21 is not approved for cultivation in the EU.

EU: Romania set to ban approved GM corn crop

Financial Times, March 28 2008. By Andrew Bounds in Brussels and Thomas Escritt in Bucharest.

Romania intends to join six other European Union members in banning the only genetically modified crop approved for use in the bloc, its environment minister said on Thursday, in a fresh blow to the biotechnology industry.

Attila Korodi called for a moratorium on planting MON810, a corn produced by Monsanto, the US company, and said his country's bio-security committee would start examining the possibility of a ban on April 15.

Romania, a major agricultural producer, was a big grower of GM crops before it joined the EU last year.

Mr Korodi told the Financial Times a ban was likely as the committee would examine studies used by Hungary and France to justify their recent prohibition of MON810 because of its negative impact on the environment.

"If they say they have concerns, then we will ask the European Commission for a temporary ban," he said. "We simply don't know what its environmental impact will be."

Italy, Austria, Greece and Poland have also banned the insect-resistant corn, claiming that the toxin it contains could be harmful to other wildlife. However, the Commission, which regulates the market, has yet to sanction their bans.

Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, has asked the European Food Safety Authority for an expert evaluation of MON810 and recommended that two similar products not be allowed on to the market because of environmental concerns.

Polls have shown most Romanians do not want to eat GM food, in tune with public attitudes in most EU countries.

Greenpeace, the environmental group, welcomed the news. "The Romanian people overwhelmingly reject this unsafe, unnecessary and unsustainable technology. It is vital the ban is in place as soon as possible, so natural crops can be safe from GM contamination before the sowing season starts," said Gabriel Paun of Greenpeace Romania.

Europabio, which represents biotech companies, said the concerns were baseless and the bans would hurt farmers.

"The specific biotech maize has also been the subject of thorough scientific reviews by scientific communities around the world and has received positive approvals by the world's most robust approval systems, as well as EFSA," it said in a statement.

Spain: Government of Canary Islands declares the archipelago a GMO-free region

EuropaPress.es, 28 March 2008.

The government of the Canary Islands has declared the entire archipelago as a GMO-free region, according to the Council of the Government in a proposal from the Regional Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food, The regional Ministry of Environment and the Territorial Planning and Land Management Registry. The council has also decided to make the Islands part of "The organisation of GMO-Free Regions".

Full article in Spanish:
http://www.europapress.es/epsocial/00313/20080325192002/
gobierno-canarias-declara-archipielago-zona-libre-cultivos-transgenicos.html

Short piece in English:

The government of the Canary Islands declares the archipelago free zone of GMOs

26 March 2008, translated by Isabel Bermejo, Ecologistas, Spain.

42% of the insular territory is declared as a Natural Space, the highest figure in all the national territory. The government of the Canary Islands has declared the archipelago as a GMO-free region, according to the information facilitated by the Council of the Government in a common proposal from the Regional Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food, The regional Ministry of Environment and the Territorial Planning and Land Management Registry.

Also, the council has decided to integrate the Islands in the communitarian forum "The organisation of GMO-Free Regions" to defend in front of the Communitarian Institutions the need for EU regulations which take into consideration the different productive and environmental strategies of the diverse regions of Europe.

"It would be highly valued within the National Commission of Bio-security, as general criteria, for the approval of GMO crops in the Canary Islands, the negative impact on the productive strategies of the whole Canaries agricultural sector" expressed the note from the Government.

27 March 2008

UK: GM rice 'unsafe' says Food Standards Agency

Friends of the Earth press release, 27 March 2008.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has this week declared that illegal GM rice found in the UK food chain eighteen months ago is "unsafe". In a letter to food companies the FSA advises them to recall any affected products that have reached consumers. The FSA will also shortly issue a food alert to local authorities with advice over what enforcement action they should take. Friends of the Earth welcomes this move - something the environmental organisation has demand in response to illegal GM contamination incidents.

The GM rice (Bt63) is an experimental variety genetically modified to produce an insecticide. It is not approved for human consumption or commercial cultivation anywhere in the world. The contamination in China stems back to 2005 and in September 2006, Friends of the Earth discovered two contaminated foods on sale in Asian specialty stores in London [1].

Scientific studies have raised raise concerns about the rice's risk to human health, particularly the potential to cause food allergies [2]. So little data on the rice exists that it is not even possible to carry out safety tests [3].

Friends of the Earth took the FSA to court last year over its failure to act over a similar contamination incident involving GM rice from the US [4]. In that case, the judge noted that the FSA should have issued a food alert to local authorities, something Friends of the Earth called for from the start of the incident. This decision to issue a food alert over Bt63 rice marks a shift in the way the FSA has responded to GM contamination incidents.

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said "We welcome the fact that the FSA is finally taking action over illegal GM rice. But it's outrageous that it took a court case and eighteen months since the contamination was first discovered in the UK to get there. In that time unquantifiable numbers of people have been exposed to this untested rice, with unknown health implications. The FSA must ensure local authorities carry out thorough testing to ensure that any contaminated foods are identified, removed from sale and recalled. It must also urgently introduce measures to prevent illegal GM ingredients entering our food in future".

For further information see Friends of the Earth and GM Freeze background briefing: www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_Rice_Contam_final_edit.pdf (PDF)

Notes

[1] In September 2006, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace discovered that the illegal Bt rice had contaminated Chinese rice products in the UK www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/illegal_gm_rice_found_in_u_05092006.html

This contamination incident stemmed from field trials in China. In 2005 an investigation by Greenpeace found that research institutes and seed companies in China had been illegally selling unapproved GM rice seeds to farmers. Further testing indicated that the whole food chain had been contaminated, with the most recent case being the contaminated Heinz rice cereal baby food in Beijing, Guangzhou and Hong Kong. The Chinese government, in the wake of the situation, reportedly punished seed companies and destroyed illegally grown GM rice crops.

However, new contamination incidents were reported in the EU in Autumn last year, which finally prompted the EC to put in place an Emergency decision on Bt63 rice, which will come into force on 15 April.

[2] The toxin detected is either the Cry1Ac protein, or a fusion Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac protein. A 1999 study partly sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency found evidence to suggest that the Bt protein Cry1Ac can elicit antibody responses consistent with allergic reactions in farm-workers and a series of studies published in 1999 and 2000 by a Cuban researcher Vasquez-Padron on Cry1Ac documented immunogenic responses to which indicate the potential for allergic reactions or other immune system responses: www.humboldt.org.ni/transgenicos/docs/what_experts_says_human_effects.pdf

[3] FSA Draft minutes of Bt63 scoping meeting, 22 February 2008

[4] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/food_standards_agency_take_21022007.html

www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/ruling_on_legal_challenge_23022007.html

EU: Romania mulls national ban on Monsanto maize

Reuters, 27 March 2008.

BUCHAREST - Romania's environment ministry wants to impose a national cultivation ban on Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research) MON 810 genetically modified maize this year, minister Attila Korodi said on Thursday.

"We're in the process of forming a committee on biosecurity that can start (working) on April 15. Taking into account all the European studies which raised too many questions regarding this maize, we will ask it to give a verdict," minister Attila Korodi told Reuters by telephone.

"We will request the committee to consider a ban on the commercial cultivation of MON 810 because we are worried."

Korodi said Romania has put around 330 hectares under MON 810 last year.

(Reporting by Radu Marinas; editing by Chris Johnson)

USA: Creamery pushes for tougher GMO rules
A local creamery will be certified as GMO free and wants tougher standards

ABC, 27 March 2007. By Terry McSweeney.

WEST MARIN, CA (KGO) -- A Bay Area creamery is about to become the first in the United States to certify its products to be free of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. It may give organic consumers peace of mind, but there's no chance it will end the fierce battle over the safety of food containing GMOs.

The Straus family creamery in West Marin went organic in 1995 and wants to keep that certification. That's why it was so disturbing to find genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, contaminating its organic ingredients.

"GMOs are not natural, they are not allowed by organic law and it's a huge issue for us," said Albert Straus, Straus Creamery owner.

Pollen from genetically modified plants has been contaminating organic crops. It had been turning up in milk and eggs used at the Straus Creamery and feed used at the Straus Dairy. About 75 percent of America's corn and soy are genetically modified. That means scientists have transferred genetic information from one plant to another. Making the recipient plant more like the donor plant; more drought resistant for example, or more tolerant to herbicide. But Straus doesn't think anyone knows what GMOs do to humans.

"I feel that not only am I a guinea pig for their research but all consumers are that we're supplying food for," said Albert Straus.

Which is why, in the next month, you will begin to see a 'No-GMO' certification on Straus yogurt and by September, on the side of all Straus products.

"All organic ingredients and products have a paper trail and a certification that goes along with them. We get a copy of all that, we get a copy of their tests as well as we do verification on our end," said Albert Straus.

Although it's a case of Straus certifying its own products and suppliers, it is still approved by the West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety, Rebecca Spector.

"At least Straus is taking the effort through the rigorous process to actually go to levels to make sure feed has been tested for GMOs. And what they are saying is that they won't accept shipments that are above a certain threshold," said Rebecca Spector, Center for Food Safety. Peggy Lemaux is with the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology at U.C. Berkeley. She says, yes, GMOs have only been in the human food chain for 13 years, but they were tested on animals for years before that.

"I've looked at all the safety tests that have been done on the products, that are in the commercial marketplace now, and there is nothing that has been confirmed as being an adverse effect in any of these animal tests that have been done," said Peggy Lemaux, U.C. Berkeley biologist.

Back at the Straus Creamery and Dairy, they're not convinced.

"We're encouraging the rest of the industry to step up and move forward as quickly as possible to get a verification program in place," said Albert Straus.

The GMO controversy in the United States pales in comparison with what's going on in Europe. Thousands of municipalities and tens of thousands of farmers and food producers in Europe have declared themselves GMO free and refuse to allow the use of genetically modified organisms in the agriculture and food in their territories.

Ireland: Poll shows majority are not in favour of GM food

Irish Farmers Journal. Letters to the editor, 27 March (dated 29 March) 2008.

Dear Sir,

In response to Mr Shane Morris's letter in last week's Irish Farmers Journal, I would like to suggest that he reads the results of the latest Eurobarometer poll.

This poll surveyed 26,740 people. It found that 58% are against GM food, while a mere 21% were for it.

Polls throughout Europe have consistently shown this trend. I think we can safely ignore this abberation highlighted by Mr Morris.

Kate Carmody
Beal Lodge
Asdee, Co Kerry
Ireland

EU's top maize producers reject genetic engineering;
Greenpeace applauds action and calls for European Commission to ban GE maize

Greenpeace Media Release, 27 March 2008

International - Greenpeace welcomes the Romanian Government's landmark decision to ban genetically engineered (GE) maize, announced today. The move is particularly significant as GE maize is the only commercially cultivated GE crop permitted in Europe.

Mr Attila Korodi's, Minister of Environment and Durable Development, announcement banning Monsanto's GE maize MON 810, makes Europe's largest per hectare maize producer [1] GE-free. Romania is the seventh of Europe's leading maize producers to ban the growing of GE varieties, following France, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Greece and Poland.

"Romania's GE ban marks a seismic change. It sends a critical message that this dangerous technology will not be tolerated. It is vital the European Commission [2] protects all of Europe's farmers, consumers and environment by introducing an EU-wide ban against GE cultivation," Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE campaign coordinator said.

Concerns over safety prompted the government to take action. Scientific studies show MON 810 maize is harmful to wildlife, soil and human health. Its inbuilt toxin which is designed to kill the cornborer, a pest considered insignificant in Romania and other parts of Europe, seeps into soil harming animals critical to soil health, such as earthworms, and other wildlife including butterflies, ants and spiders. Proof of its safety for human and animal health are inconclusive [3].

"The Romanian people overwhelmingly reject this unsafe, unnecessary and unsustainable technology [4]. It is vital the ban is implemented as soon as possible, so natural crops can be safe from GE contamination before the sowing season starts," said Gabriel Paun, GE Campaign Coordinator Greenpeace Romania.

Contamination of natural crops from GE cultivation is a serious problem. In 2007 alone, there were 39 new instances of crop contamination in 23 countries last year alone [5]. Despite this, there is no international standard holding biotech companies to account for the damage and financial losses they cause.

Notes to Editor

1) Romania is the European Union's top maize producer in terms of hectares with about 3 million hectares cultivated annually. Some 300 hectares of MON 810 have been cultivated in Romania since 2007, representing only 0.01 per cent of Romania's total maize production.

2) In 1998, Monsanto was granted a 10-year licence by the European Commission to grow GE maize MON 810 throughout the EU. The licence is now coming up for renewal, creating an important opportunity for the Commission to withdraw permission for the cultivation MON 810 maize throughout the EU, which would be in line with the majority of maize growing countries in Union. MON 810 is the only GE crop allowed for cultivation throughout the EU.

3) A recent study by Professor Gilles Eric SÈralini, a French governmental advisor on GE from the University of Caen, found signs of toxicity in the internal organs of tested animals fed with GE.

In late 2007, EU Commissioner for Environment, Mr Stavros Dimas used similar studies to block the cultivation of two other GE maize varieties, similar to MON 810, in the EU. He also referred to new studies showing that the Bt toxin produced by GE maize has negative effects on aquatic ecosystems.

4) An opinion poll, conducted by Mercury research and commissioned by Greenpeace in the summer of 2007, showed that 67 per cent of Romanians do not want to eat GE food.

5) Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK's annual GM Contamination Register Report. Since 2005, the Register has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GE crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996.

Contact information

Beth Herzfeld, Greenpeace International, Media Officer, Tel: +44 (0) 7717 802 891

Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International, GE Campaign Coordinator, Tel: (0) +31 646 197 328

Gabriel Pã:un, Greenpeace Romania, GE Campaign Coordinator, Tel: + 40 (0) 744351977

UK: lllegal GM Rice "Unsafe" say FSA

GM Freeze press release, 27 March 2008

Rice products imported from China contaminated with the unapproved and illegal GM trait Bt63 have been confirmed as "unsafe" by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

v In a letter to food regulators and the food industry sent on 26 March, the FSA state:

"The Agency takes the view that the unauthorised GM material is 'unsafe' as defined in Article 14 of Regulation (EC)178/2002 and that food business operators should inform enforcement authorities if such rice has left their possession, initiate procedures under Article 19 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 to withdraw it and to recall it if has reached consumers."

The EC regulations define food as "unsafe" if it is a) injurious to health or b) unfit for human consumption.

Bt63 was developed at the Huazhong Agricultural University in China and has not been approved anywhere in the world for commercial growing. Concerns have been expressed that the GM protein in Bt63 rice could cause allergic reactions, but the European Food Safety Authority has been unable to assess its food safety risk because of lack of data on the GM crop. The FSA will issue a Food Alert on Bt63 shortly.

Bt63 genes have been detected in foodstuffs in China and Europe since 2005. The illegal GM genes were found in a number of speciality rice products (such as rice sticks and noodles) in the UK, France, Germany and Sweden in September 2006. In 2007 the UK imported nearly 1,000 tonnes of these rice-based pasta products from China.[1]

In February the EU issued an Emergency Decision, which comes into force on 15 April, to prevent further import and distribution of rice and rice products contaminated with Bt63. Any presence of Bt63 would mean it would be illegal to market the products in question.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"We welcome the moves to remove products contaminated with Bt63 rice from the market, but why has it taken so long? The EU and FSA have been aware of the contamination in Europe for 18 months, and now they tell us the GM rice is "unsafe". Why the delay? We have no idea how many people might have been exposed to contaminated products. We are concerned that immune system or allergic reactions could occur in people eating them. The EU seems to have been too reliant on the Chinese authorities to deal with the contamination, but they have failed to do so. This case provides another warming about how easy it is to contaminate food with GM and how difficult it is to clean up the mess afterwards. Businesses affected by this incident should be compensated as soon as possible, and the EU should seek recompense from the Chinese Government."

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065

1. See GM Freeze/Friends of the Earth briefing www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_Rice_Contam_final_edit.pdf

Romania considers to ban the GM maize

GMO Informnation Centre, Bucharest, 27th of March 2008

Romania's Ministry for Environment publicly stated its support for the ban on MON810 genetically modified maize, during an organic lunch held at the Romanian Traditional Museum in Bucharest. The event was organized by Greenpeace and Romania's Federation of Organic Farmers (FNAE). Farmers came from all parts of Romania to participate in the event and show their disapproval of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in their products.

At the present time, Romania's Ministry for Environment (ME) is working to make the temporary ban of MON810 Monsanto maize official, with the approval of the Government. ME declared that it is highly important that the Government support this decision. "As we are at the beginning of the seeding season, I urge the farmers and the companies from the agricultural sector to avoid the cultivation of the GM maize. ME received new scientific studies which raise serious doubts about the safety of MON810 toward human health and the environment. These studies have been used by other EU Member States such as France, Hungary, Austria, Greece, Poland and Italy in order to avoid cultivation of this maize variety, which produces it's own pesticide. The European legislation allows the Member States to take restrictive measures against a GMO. We have significant questions concerning the release of MON810 maize into the environment and in these conditions we cannot be in favor of it's cultivation." said the Ministry of Environment Attila Korodi.

However, based on declarations made by the same Minister, we cannot consider this latest decision to be final. The Biosafety Commission, a scientific body under the control of Romania's Minister for Environment, will decide some time after 15th of April 2008 whether a moratorium on MON810 will indeed be imposed. At the moment this Commission is not functional because it has no members. Its nomination process has been ongoing since January this year and its activity is suspended until the nominations are made.

On the very same day, Dacian Ciolos, Romania's Minister of Agriculture reassured the public during the News aired by the Romanian TV channel 'Antena3' that the Ministry of Agriculture strongly defends organic farming and consumer's health and therefore, it would not allow, under any legal form, the contamination of this type of agriculture with GMOs. In Romania, the level of GMO contamination in organic agriculture must be 0%, according to national regulation.

"This new official position of the Ministry of the Environment is extremely good news for Romania's organic farmers. Unfortunately, there remain some worrisome aspects which we consider rather pertinent. The GM maize ban will be decided after seeding has taken place. Without any real preventive measures, the MON810 will thus already be cultivated by the time the Biosafety Commission expresses its decision. Unrelated perhaps but still interesting to note, Monsanto's permit for MON810 will expire in August. In the event that they will ask for a renewal of their authorization, will the Minister for Environment have the strength to say 'no'? This is a justified question particularly given that there will be parliamentary elections in Romania later this year; meaning that the head of the Ministry of Environment may very well change", declared Dan Craioveanu, GMO campaigner on behalf of FNAE.

For more informations, please contact:

Ramona Duminicioiu
President ‚ GMO Information Centre - InfOMG
Fax: +40 364 119 862
Mobile: +40 746 337 022
E-mail: infomg@ngo.ro

Norwegian Government: Svalbard Global Seed Vault
Summary of the Svalbard Conference

www.individual.com, 27 March 2008

The conference was held on the 25 th. of February, the day before the official ceremonial opening of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.

Draft - Nancy Hart

The Conference "Svalbard Global Seed Vault - Saving Seeds for Eternity?" included as speakers representatives from a range of organizations and areas of expertise that contributed to the development of the Seed Vault and also will be in a position to benefit from its existence. The fact that the title of the conference was presented as a question challenged the speakers to put the Seed Vault into both an immediate and long-term perspective. The conference was held the day before the official ceremonial opening of the Seed Vault.

Why a Seed Vault? Why Norway? Why Svalbard?

Terje Riis-Johansen, Norwegian Minister of Agriculture and Food "Norway is well aware of farmers' contributions" Norwegian Minister of Agriculture and Food, Terje Riis-Johansen, set the tone for the conference held in connection with the opening of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.

In his talk, he paid homage to the work that has gone on in the international community in the past two decades that set the stage for the Seed Vault.

He recounted the Nordic Gene Bank's efforts, in the early 1980s, to find a safe place for its security collection and the fact that it chose to store those valuable seeds in an old Svalbard mine very close to the location chosen for the Seed Vault. The success of that endeavor made them believe in the viability of the Seed Vault project.

"Of course, it never would have happened without the parallel evolution in the global community which led to establishment of a legal framework that provides common rules for the sharing of genetic diversity among nations. It brought the right mix of policy-makers, politicians and government leaders together with scientists and farmers and allowed this idea to be discussed in formal and informal settings."

During his talk, Minister Riis-Johansen announced Norway's commitment to support plant-breeding efforts in poor countries. Starting in 2009, the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food will make annual payments equal to 0.01 percent of the values of seeds sold in Norway to the benefit-sharing fund of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources that supports on-farm conservation efforts in developing countries.

"We all know that the real work of selecting, conserving and improving crop diversity has taken place in farmer's fields throughout the millennia. The establishment of this vault does not curtail that effort at all. The Government of Norway is well aware of farmers' contributions and, for us, it's 'pay-back time." He further challenged other OECD countries to make the same commitment.

Opening address

Dr Jacques Diouf, Director-General, UN Food and Agriculture Organization "... We all share a common future ..." In calling seeds "the vehicles of life", Dr Jacques Diouf, Director General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, pointed out that current global population trends indicate that the world will have 9 billion inhabitants by 2050, 3 billion more than today. He also noted that cereal production will have to increase by 50 percent in the next 25 years to keep up with demand.

Calling the Seed Vault "one of the most innovative and impressive acts in the service of humanity," Dr. Diouf said that the seeds that will be housed in the Seed Vault will be essential for increasing crop productivity, mitigating environmental stress such as climate change, pests and diseases, and ensuring a genetic resource base for the future.

Dr. Diouf also recognized that the way to the Seed Vault's establishment had been paved by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The International Treaty, already ratified by 116 countries, has ensured conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources with fair and equitable sharing of benefits.

"We may live in a world divided by inequalities but we all share a common future," he said. "No country is self sufficient in natural resources and all are ecologically interdependent. Wealth safeguarded in Svalbard will be global insurance to solve future challenges. Today, I urge countries to join the effort to securing world's crop diversity now and in the future."

Safe harbour in a perfect storm - the story of the Vault in the context of threats facing agriculture

Dr Cary Fowler, Executive Director, Global Crop Diversity Trust "Death of a thousand cuts" Dr. Cary Fowler, head of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, the organization entrusted with securing the funds to endow the worlds crop gene banks as well as overseeing the maintenance of the Seed Vault, is also referred to as the visionary whose lead position on the original feasibility study led to the construction of the Seed Vault. In addressing the Conference, Dr. Fowler referred to the current world situation in terms of viability for feeding future generations as "the perfect storm of challenges," ranging from climate change, declines in energy and water availability, development pressures and a burgeoning population.

"Diversity is threatened by climate change. On the other hand we're going to have to be making some major changes in the nature of the crops we have in the fields, which is going to require diversity. If ever there was a moment in history when conserving this diversity was worthwhile and yielded a great cost benefit ratio, it would be now," he said.

In referring to the threat to the viability of seed collections currently held in gene banks as well as to diversity of crops growing in the field, he called it "more than an apocalypse."

"It is death of a thousand cuts. We loose diversity every day - which is a benign way of saying it is becoming extinct. We are dependent," he said pointing to a chart showing the percentage of crop samples currently held in gene banks, huge collections that represent only a small portion of the total.

"We are all in the same boat and if we don't learn to share and cooperate, that will be a sinking boat."

Plant genetic resources conservation from a farmer's point of view

Tatay Gipo, Filipino rice farmer "From the 25 kilos, I harvest 132 sacks of rice" When Tatay Gipo introduced himself to the conference participants by showing photos from his family album, it was the perfect illustration of how individual farmers have potential to help the world's agricultural production. Mr.

Gipo only reached the fourth grade in school, and started farming when he was 12 years old. Yet he comes from many generations of farmers who have passed farming knowledge to him and because of his background, Mr. Gipo is credited with the discovery and development of a new robust rice variety.

When he began farming in 1957, he used traditional varieties and used pesticides to kill the pests that attacked the crops.

In 1966 he built his own farm and in 1967, the first varieties arrived from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) along with fertilizers and pesticides. But still, diseases appeared in the field.

In 1985, he adopted a high-yielding variety of rice that had been developed by IRRI. Yet, that variety also was attacked by pests. However, he observed that one plant in his field was not attacked by the virus. It was a different color and had a different stand, so he saved it.

"The next cropping season," he said, "I planted it. During the harvest, I could not believe I could harvest 25 kilos from the seeds that I had saved. I repeated it the next season. From the 25 kilos, I harvest 132 sacks of rice."

In 1993, Mr. Gipo received recognition as one of the outstanding farmers from the local government. He then set about learning about crop breeding and crop technologies. The NGO SEARICE, Philippines, has provided him with training and from the original variety discovered, he has made more than 10 crosses and is maintaining 15 lines from a cross he made between bordagol and basmati rice.

The role of crop diversity for food security

Maria Mayer de Scurrah, President Grupo Yanapai "Food security comes from variety" Speaking on behalf of Peruvian potato farmers, Maria Mayer de Scurrah, president of Grupo Yanapai of Lima, offered impressive numbers. Peru has nine species of potatoes, the average farming family farms eight varieties and the average community has 122 varieties.

"In the world," she said, "you know 'potato', but in Peru, we grow 'potatoes'. We know that food security comes from varieties. Everyone shares."

Grupa Yanapai is an NGO working on research and development of small-scale farming, especially on conservation of plant genetic resources and development of low input technology. Her work has included research in areas once inhabited by Incan population where she found a very important native variety was growing but also two wild species. "The question is whether the wild species are still interacting with our crops."

The farmers used to farm with huge community fields in which the individual farmers moved in rotation, taking their own varieties with them. This was a good defense against disease because the plantings changed each year. Now, they have moved to family plots which means they now must deal more with diseases.

Arctic climate change and global consequences

Pl Prestrud, Director CICERO "Warming in the Arctic is at twice the rate of the global average" The Arctic zone is experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth, according to Pl Prestrud, Director of the Norwegian Climate Change Center (CICERO). "The warming in the Arctic is at twice the rate of the global average," he said.

The reason for the faster increase is because snow and ice reflect solar radiation while open water captures it. Thus, as temperatures increase and snow and ice melts, there is more water, meaning more radiation is captured. In addition, as the sea ice melts, the water below it warms up and decreases the amount of freezing for the following year. This scenario has meant that the reduction of the snow cover is moving much faster than predicted, with an 8-9 percent reduction in the last 50 years. In addition he points to changes such as spring arriving 2-3 weeks earlier in the Arctic, Alaska's growing increasing by one and a half months, and the melting glaciers in Svalbard that have potential to increase sea level by 6-7 meters.

He said this will have both global and local consequences.

"Globally," he explained, the huge amounts of carbon stored in the permafrost will be released. There is more carbon stored in organic material and methane hydrates in the permafrost than is found in the atmosphere. Cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water, so as the water warms up, less CO2 will be captured."

Locally, people will face enormous challenges. "Although the warmer temperatures may mean more opportunity for agriculture, it will affect the biodiversity. We have a community of animals and plants connected to the ice." In addition, there will be more accessibility for exploitation of mineral resources which will impact land values.

In addition, in just a few years, it will be possible to go between North America and Europe via the Arctic Circle. This will have enormous political ramifications.

Future challenges regarding plant genetic resources and the role of the global seed vault

Patrick Mooney, Executive Director ETC group "We need seeds in the vault" In praising Norway for its contribution of the Global Seed Vault and its commitment to contribute to the benefit-sharing fund of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Patrick Mooney, Executive Directorof ETC group also warned that "we are not there yet."

Referring to a "lack of trust", Mooney sated that "if we are going to survive climate change, we need the ecosystem knowledge of farmers. If we are going to have a chance to adjust and shift to threats, we need the farmers to help us."

Farmers, he said, "have the ability to adjust. They were able to do it in the past and have the capacity to use it today, in situ. But, above all, there must be trust"

Mooney, who has some 30 years experience working with civil society organizations dealing with agriculture and biodiversity, spoke of what caused the problems of trust among farmers, scientists and governments in the first place. He listed genetic erosion of crops caused by monoculture farming practices of industrial agriculture, marketplace pressures, trade barriers and international property issues. "Problems," he says, "that are still there."

He recounted that 30 years ago there were 30,000 seed enterprises listed by FAO. Today the top ten countries have 55 percent of the seed market and four countries have almost 100 percent of the GMO market. Along with this, there are new challenges such as extreme genetic engineering that brings with it a risk, "we must remember that we cannot depend on technology to solve our problems. We need seeds in the vault." Ministry of Agriculture

Contact

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Norwegian Government Tel: +47 22 24 90 90 Fax: +47 22 24 95 55 e-mail: postmottak@lmd.dep.no

UK: GM crops: menace or blessing?

Letters, The Independent, 27 March 2008

Sir: Country Life magazine is wrong to suggest that GM crops are the way the world should feed itself ("It's crazy to ignore benefits of GM food, says Country Life", 20 March). GM crops have not produced increased yields, lower use of fertilisers, pesticides etc. Worse, peer-reviewed research is increasingly showing evidence of the negative health impacts.

A Russian study which investigated the effects of feeding GM soya to pregnant rats found very high mortality among their litters, and recently published Australian research showed GM peas fed to mice triggered allergic reactions. There is no sign of any retailer planning to stock GM food, and no advantage to consumers in buying these products.

GM companies are being irresponsible by spreading this poorly understood, inherently uncertain and potentially very dangerous technology, and people are right to continue to reject it.

Emma Hockridge
Policy Department, Soil Association, Bristol

"UK Farmers Upbeat about GM Crops" Debunked
Government Funding Industry to Market GM Crops

Institute for Science in Society, 27 March 2008. By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Peter Saunders.

How UK government funding agency misled the public

The UK Government's Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) recently put out a press release entitled, "What farmers think about GM crops" [1], which began: "Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops", according to research it funded.

It went to say that a research team at the Open University has taken "the first systematic look" at what large-scale, commodity farmers (specifically excluding those mainly involved in organic growing) think about GM crops. The research, aimed at the attitudes of farmers expected to be most favourably disposed to using GM crops, found that they regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques, and GM crops an innovation that "they would assess on its merits." Their real interest is in "how GM crops would work in practice and whether they can contribute to the profitability of their farms."

The research was actually done in 2005 [2], and involved interviewing just 30 commodity farmers. Half of the farmers, selected by SCIMAC (the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops), the industry group that supports GM crops, were among those who had hosted the three-year Farm Scale Evaluation of GM crops that SCIMAC had got the UK government to fund in 2000. And even this small, restricted group of farmers, expected to be most favourably inclined towards GM crops, have adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

But the ESRC press release quoted the lead researcher Prof. Andy Lane saying: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum by doing both of these things at onceğ.A particular advantage of GM is its potential to allow farmers to grow crops with high yields while using less herbicide."

Lane's statements are not based on any evidence provided by the Open University research team, the ESRC or anywhere else, and have been contradicted again and again by data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and studies carried out in universities (see below).

Predictably, the misleading message from the ESRC was widely repeated, often with embellishment, in the popular press. One headline went as far as saying: "UK farmers want to grow GM crops" [3]. Julian Little, Chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a GM industry group, wrote that [4]: "A study into the attitude of farmers by the Open University this week, announced that farmers recognise the clear economic and environmental benefits of GM crops to themselves and the wider public. It demonstrated that new technologies are seen as a way to achieve high quality produce at a low cost for consumers, while being socially responsible." He added: "Scientific trials of GM crops must go ahead unmolested." Biotech giant Monsanto, too, lost little time in posting one such article on its website [5]: "Shhhh - Farmers Love Frankenfoods. British farmers are ready to throw in the organic cotton towel and start growing biotech crops just like their American cousins, finds a new study from Open University."

Data consistently show that GM crops reduce profit for farmers and increase pesticide use

GM crops are neither profitable for farmers nor do they result in less herbicide use. Data from the USDA and US universities have consistently shown that GM crops gave no increase in crops yields or profitability, and more often a reduction in both, while increasing rather than decreasing the use of pesticides (reviewed in The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World [6]. Both the two major GM traits that make up nearly 100 percent of all GM crops, Bt and glyphosate tolerance, have decisively failed at least as far back as 2005 [7, 8] (Scientists Confirm Failures of Bt-Crops and Roundup Ready Sudden Death, Superweeds, Allergens..., SiS 28), and promoting them can be a recipe for ecological and agronomic disaster.

The Friends of the Earth report [9] released January 2008 confirms those findings. It highlights the more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate herbicide on the major crops - soybeans, corn and cotton - from 1994 (when GM crops were first introduced) to 2005, based on data from the USDA. The increase in glyphosate is not compensated by a decrease in other herbicides. While farmers growing glyphosate tolerant Roundup Ready crops initially used lower quantities of herbicides other than glyphosate, that trend soon reversed. Increasingly, farmers have found it necessary to apply larger amounts of both glyphosate and other herbicides to kill weeds that have become resistant to glypohsate. From 2002 to 2006, the use of the second leading soya herbicide 2,3-D more than doubled from 1.39 to 3.67 million lbs, while glyphosate use on soybeans increased by 29 million lbs (a 43 percent rise). Similarly, glyphosate on corn increased 5-fold from 2002 to 2005 simultaneously with a rise of atrazine by nearly 7 million lbs (12 percent up). Atrazine, the most heavily used herbicide on corn in the US, is banned in Europe because of its links to serious health problems such as endocrine disruption, breast and prostate cancer.

Finally, a 4-year study just completed by researchers at the University of Georgia and the USDA concluded that the use of transgenic cotton does not provide increased returns to the farmer [10]. They found that no transgenic technology system produced significantly greater returns than a non-transgenic system in any year or location.

ESRC complicit in supporting marketing for the biotech industry disguised as research

ESRC spokesperson Astrid Wissenburg stated in a reply to Dr. Brian John of GM-Free Cymru [11] that while accepting "the phrasing of the opening line of the press release could have been more precise, ğ the facts as stated in the press release are accurate and stand as written [though obviously the quotes attributed to Andy Lane are not accurate]ğThe purpose of the research was never to undertake a survey of views on GM, but to undertake an in-depth study of farmers' views on GM crops as a new technology and investigating the major influences on their views and decisions." The original proposal was to interview 60 farmers, but for "both funding and scientific reasons" the total number was scaled back to thirty.

Why was such a research project undertaken at all? It cost the taxpayer at least GBP131 000 to interview a select group of 30 farmers and it did not tell us anything remarkable or new. Wissenburg explained: "Given the very limited extent of GM trials in the UK, and the decision not to proceed with licensed GM varieties, the pool of those who could have participated is quite small, so the project could not draw upon a random sample from the whole UK farming population."

That makes it clear why this research was carried out and why no conclusions about UK farmers can be drawn from it. A representative sample of the whole UK farming population would indeed have included only a very few farmers who have grown GM crops, simply because only a small proportion of UK farmers have grown GM crops. A survey based on such a sample could have provided a basis for determining the views of UK farmers about GM, which is what is claimed in the title of the project, in the press release, and in subsequent articles in the media.

The next sentence in Wissenburg's reply confirms the real purpose of the research: "The group involved in the research was therefore relatively small, but not 'unrepresentative' of farmers with experience of GM crops. Because of the sensitive nature of the project, access to GM farmers was facilitated by SCIMAC."

The project was intended to target "farmers with experience of GM crops". In reality, it was little more than a marketing exercise aimed at promoting GM crops to commodity farmers [12] (see Marketing Exercise Masquerading as Scientific Research, SiS 38). SCIMAC and the biotech industry had more than a facilitating role. The nine project advisors included Bob Fiddaman and Daniel Pearsall, respectively chair and secretary of SCIMAC, Helen Ferrier, NFU Food Science Advisor, responsible for assembling and distributing the GM propaganda newsletter called Agbiotech News Roundup; and Richard Powell and Karen Holt from Syngenta Seeds Ltd.

The ESRC later told Times Higher Education that the report had been "subject to peer review" [13] but as recently as 17 March 2008, the ESRC specifically said on its own website that the final report had not been peer reviewed [2]. It had certainly not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

The Farm Scale Evaluation revisited

What Wissenburg said of the GM crop trials was also inaccurate. The UK government had agreed to fund the 3-year Farm Scale Evaluations for SCIMAC to the tune of GBP3 million of taxpayers' money, which critics generally regarded as commercialisation via the backdoor.

The trials were rigged in favour of GM crops right from the start, and crucial aspects such as safety or crop yields were not investigated [14] ("Cynical & Dishonest Science" in GM Maize Trials, SiS 20) because it would have revealed GM in a bad light, as exposed by citizens monitoring their local trials, who provided photographic evidence that the GM maize was severely stunted with fewer and much smaller cobs compared to the conventional maize variety [15] (Bogus Comparison in GM Maize Trial, SiS 22). Despite all attempts to manipulate the trials and conceal unfavourable data, the official findings went against GM crops. But the UK government gave the go ahead to grow GM maize without a debate in Parliament, a move condemned by the influential all party Environment Audit Committee. In the event, gene giant Bayer withdrew, saying it was "economically non-viable" [16].

So it was against such a background of failures that this 'research project' was funded, presumably in the hope of resuscitating GM crops for Britain. It would actually have been interesting to find out what UK farmers in general think about GM crops, but perhaps the researchers and their funders were as sure as we are about what the outcome would have been and would rather not ask the question.

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/UKFUAGMDFull.php

[Membership] Details here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php

An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of GBP3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

26 March 2008

BAYER refuses to accept liability for damage in Germany

Countermotions to Bayer's Annual Stockholders' Meeting
Press Release, March 26 2008
Coalition against BAYER Dangers (Germany)

The German group Coalition against BAYER Dangers introduced countermotions to Bayer's Annual Stockholders' Meeting. The Coalition will discuss the proposals within the meeting in Cologne on April 25. Main topics will be the marketing of Trasylol, the construction of waste incinerators and coal plants on Bayer's sites, Bayer's business activities in Burma and Bayer's continued participation in illegal price fixing cartels. Several environmental groups announced to participate in the meeting.

Bayer published the countermotions on their website. Please find the full text at http://www.cbgnetwork.de/2396.html

[EXTRACT] Last August, the Agricultural Ministry of the State of North-Rhine Westphalia came across genetically modified rape seed that is not approved in Germany. Despite this, the seed was sown on an area of 1,500 hectares. The contamination is due to a herbicide-resistant product from BAYER CropScience. As in the United States, where conventionally grown rice was contaminated by a herbicideresistant type from BAYER in 2006 and was subsequently distributed on the worldwide market, the contamination of the rape is probably due to field trials carried out many years ago. BAYER refuses to accept liability for the damage.

This case shows once again that genetic engineering in agriculture inevitably leads to contamination of conventional seeds. Despite this, BAYER is pushing into new markets. In Australia, BAYER wants to cultivate genetically modified rape, while the company has also applied for import permits from the EU for genetically manipulated rice and rape.

Romania reconsiders its welcome of biotech corn

International Herald Tribune, March 26 2008. By James Kanter.

PARIS: Romania, which has been one of the most receptive markets on a skeptical Continent for genetically modified crops, is moving toward a reversal of its stance, in what would be another setback for the beleaguered biotechnology industry in Europe.

Attila Korodi, Romania's environment minister, said he would ask a committee of experts Thursday to revaluate a gene-altered version of corn, MON810, the only modified crop that has been approved for commercial planting in the European Union.

During an interview, Korodi said not enough studies had been done to gauge the effects of the corn on ecological systems in Romania, including in the Black Sea area.

In addition, he said, banning biotech crops could increase rural prosperity by allowing farmers to take advantage of a growing global demand for organic feed and foodstuffs, which, in addition to being unaltered, are grown without chemical pesticides or fertilizers.

Such products can command higher prices - although experts question whether farming practices in much of Eastern Europe are developed enough for such a specialized market.

"I think becoming an organic country is a good thing," Korodi said. "We have to analyze the true costs of growing GMOs," he added, since the technology was potentially harmful to the environment and had become widely unpopular in Romania.

An actual ban would still be some ways off and could require parliamentary support, he said.

But its consideration, coming a month after France imposed a similar ban on the corn variety, would be another obstacle for the industry in Europe, where there is widespread skepticism about biotech foods. Specifically, it would hurt the U.S. seed company Monsanto, which produces MON810.

Romania, the biggest corn grower in the 27-member EU by hectares under cultivation, represents a vast potential market for Monsanto and other biotechnology companies. MON810 is designed to combat pests and enhance yields.

"We would be very disappointed to see Romania following France even in attempting to ban such a product, which has proved its benefits to farmers in Romania," said Cristina Cionga, the manager for public and government affairs for Monsanto Romania. "Our products are completely safe for planting and consumption."

EU authorities approved MON810 for cultivation a decade ago, but since then four EU countries - Austria, Greece, Hungary and, most recently, France - have imposed bans. Poland operates restrictions on the sale and import of gene-altered seeds, and very little cultivation takes place there.

Most of these countries, including France and Hungary, which are the second- and third-biggest corn growers in Europe, justified the bans on the grounds that the crops potentially could harm soils and reduce biodiversity.

Even in countries that do not operate formal bans, there are impediments.

Italy, which grows roughly the same amount of corn as Hungary, has delegated decisions on biotech crops to its regions, many of which operate de facto bans. In Tuscany, for example, the supply of gene-altered produce is prohibited in catering for schools, hospitals, convalescent homes and in local and regional government offices.

Romania planted only about 325 hectares, or 800 acres, of MON810 in 2007 and this year is expected to plant about 10,000 hectares. That still represents just a fraction of the roughly 2 million to 3 million hectares of corn planted each year in Romania.

Even so, Korodi's strategy would mark a major change for Romania.

Over the past decade, Romania became the largest producer of gene-altered crops in Europe because of large amounts of modified soy, mostly produced by Monsanto and Pioneer, a unit of DuPont. That crop was approved for use by farmers in Romania but not in the EU, and the government had to pledge to stop growing the crop when Romania joined the bloc in 2007.

In the future, Korodi said, farmers - particularly those with small plots in mountainous areas - could prosper from selling smaller quantities of unmodified produce, as it would command higher prices on local and international markets.

"GMOs mean crops are cheaper to produce," Korodi said. "But if we look at the market price that GMO-free crops earn, and we look at the costs to biodiversity of using GMOs, then non-GMO crops are better," he said.

Early this month the Hungarian agriculture minister, Joszef Graf, said his country's seed industry earned 25 percent more by selling seeds that had not been cross-pollinated with altered crops.

But Nathalie Moll, a spokeswoman for Europabio, a group representing the biotechnology industry, said seed companies had disputed the minister's statement.

Klaus Reinsberg, a senior researcher at the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, said growing nonbiotech crops was often more expensive, requiring more manual labor to remove weeds and to control pests. But labor costs in Romania remain low compared to other parts of the EU, potentially giving the country a competitive advantage.

USA: Soy companies forming alliance

Plainsman, 26 March 2008.

MILLER ó World Food Processing LLC of Oskaloosa, Iowa, and South Dakota Oilseed Processors LLC of Miller are forming a strategic alliance.

World Food Processing is a leader in the development of soy products for the domestic and international markets, utilizing non-GMO and organic soybeans. The company uses a state-of-the-art traceability program where the end user of its products can go on its Web site and enter a code off of its World Food package and meet the farmer who grew the soybeans used to make the end product.

South Dakota Oilseed Processors is building a soybean crush facility six miles east of Miller, using traditional expeller pressing with the addition of a new technology developed by Crown Iron Works of Roseville, Minn. It allows the company to manufacture a high quality soy-meal and a high quality soy-oil with no chemical residual associated with hexane soybean extraction.

"We see tremendous potential for both our investors and for soybean growers in South Dakota in the Identity Preserved Soybean Markets," said Mike Trosen, chief executive officer of the Miller company.

"Our new alliance with World Food will allow us to combine our resources by combining current World Food marketing opportunities with SDOP soy-meal and soy-oil products," he said.

"Our goal is to serve the health-conscious American and international consumer and livestock producer by providing them with natural, high-quality soy products."

Germany: Countermotions to Bayer's Annual Stockholders' Meeting

NewsBlaze.com, 26 February 2008.

The German group Coalition against BAYER Dangers introduced countermotions to Bayer's Annual Stockholders Meeting. The Coalition will discuss the proposals within the meeting in Cologne on April 25. Main topics will be the marketing of Trasylol, the construction of waste incinerators and coal plants on Bayers sites, Bayers business activities in Burma and Bayers continued participation in illegal price fixing cartels. Several environmental groups announced to participate in the meeting.

Bayer published the countermotions on their website. Please find the full text below:

[Extracts only]

ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS MEETING ON APRIL 25, 2008

Countermotion to Item 3: The actions of the members of the Supervisory Board are not ratified

Reasoning: The Supervisory Board does not adequately fulfill its functions of overseeing the work of the Board of Management, and its actions should therefore not be ratified. Below are some examples of an irresponsible corporate policy that is tolerated by the Supervisory Board:

•

Last August, the Agricultural Ministry of the State of North-Rhine Westphalia came across genetically modified rape seed that is not approved in Germany. Despite this, the seed was sown on an area of 1,500 hectares. The contamination is due to a herbicide-resistant product from BAYER CropScience. As in the United States, where conventionally grown rice was contaminated by a herbicide-resistant type from BAYER in 2006 and was subsequently distributed on the worldwide market, the contamination of the rape is probably due to field trials carried out many years ago. BAYER refuses to accept liability for the damage.

This case shows once again that genetic engineering in agriculture inevitably leads to contamination of conventional seeds. Despite this, BAYER is pushing into new markets. In Australia, BAYER wants to cultivate genetically modified rape, while the company has also applied for import permits from the EU for genetically manipulated rice and rape.

USA: No ban on genetically modified coffee

Star Bulletin (Hawaii), 26 March 2008. By Mark Niesse, Associated Press.

Hawaii won't ban genetically altered coffee, a decision that worries growers of the Kona coffee brand who want to keep it pure.

State lawmakers shelved a bill recently that would have prohibited growing genetically modified coffee in Hawaii until 2012. Instead, they want to order a study into the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops.

Coffee farmers are worried that genetically modified coffee could contaminate expensive Kona blends, which are only grown on Hawaii's Big Island and exported worldwide.

"The fact that you're creating a 'frankenfood' is very scary. What will it do to my morning cup of coffee?" asked John Langenstein, sales manager for Koa Coffee Plantation.

Coffee drinkers in Japan and parts of Europe wouldn't buy Kona coffee if it becomes mixed up with genetically changed coffee, causing it to lose its value and uniqueness, Langenstein. Others argue that genetically modified coffee poses little danger to Kona coffee because it would be grown on a different island and could benefit the economy.

One company plans to begin planting a special kind of modified coffee on Oahu, likely early next year, that grows decaffeinated naturally.

"Our field trials would have absolutely no effect on Kona coffee, so it doesn't really make sense to ban field trials of transgenic coffee across the whole state," said John Stiles, chief executive officer for Integrated Coffee Technologies Inc. "We don't want to be known as the anti-technology state." Hawaii lawmakers won't even hear the proposal to impose a moratorium on genetically modified coffee.

Instead, they'll form a task force to consider the merits of genetically modified coffee, labeling effectiveness and consumer education, said Sen. Jill Tokuda, chairwoman for the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs.

"We need more time to really examine these issues and understand all of the facts," said Tokuda (D, Kaneohe-Kailua). "When you have a moratorium on research, that sends a negative message out."

A decaffeinated coffee bean could double Hawaii's overall coffee production, invigorate the agriculture industry and create new jobs, Tokuda said.

Even though the genetically altered decaffeinated coffee would be grown on Oahu, far from the Big Island's Kona coffee fields, its seed could spread through human dispersal, said Una Greenaway, whose Kuaiwi Farm Kona Old Style coffee won the top prize at last year's annual Kona Coffee Cultural Festival's cupping contest.

"We really need to protect our industry. If those plants come to Kona, we'd be in serious economic trouble," she said at the state Capitol, where she was joined by a few other coffee growers.

Lisa Gibson, president of the Hawaii Science and Technology Council, said legislators should avoid passing laws limiting scientific study.

"It's a very slippery slope to begin legislating research," Gibson said. "If we're going to diversify our state, it needs to be based on knowledge."

China: Big funding for GM research

RSC / Chemistry World, 26 March 2008. By Hepeng Jia.

Beijing -- Chinaİis to launch a huge research programme on genetically modified (GM) crops by the end of the year, according to top agricultural biotechnology advisors.İ

Huang Dafang, former director of theİChineseİAcademy of Agricultural Sciences' (CAAS)İInstitute ofİBiotechnologies, says the programme could receive as much as 10 billion yuan (US$1.4 billion) over the next five years - five times more than the country spent on GM research in the preceding five years.

A member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC),İChina's upper house, and a key government advisor on biotechnology policies, Huang revealed the news at a briefing on the annual report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit organisation promoting agricultural biotechnology.

The ISAAA report indicates in 2007 a total of 114.3 million hectares of GM crops were cultivated worldwide - an increase of 18.3 per cent from 2006.

The most widely adopted GM crop is Bt cotton, engineered to produce a toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to fight bollworm.İChina has developed GM petunias, tomatoes, sweet peppers, poplar and papaya, and several varieties of rice but to date policymakers have only allowed GM cotton to be marketed.

Huang says that yield, quality, nutritional value and drought resistance will be major targets of the new research programme. As well as rice and cotton - which have been the focus of GM technology research in the past - corn and wheat will also now be priority crops for research.

Receptive farmers

Hu Jifa is chief research fellow at the the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy (CCAP), China's chief think tank on food policy issues.İ

He confirms the programme is set to go ahead and says that funding for research on safety and environmental monitoring will be included in the programme.

The GM seeding programme was mentioned in China's 11th Five-year science and technology development plan (2006-2010) but decisions on the funding and scope of the programme have been delayed for two years due to the sensitivity of the area, Hu says.

But policymakers are now more receptive to GM technologies, says Hu, and that could lead to more GM crops getting the go-ahead for commercialisation.

Judy Wang of CroplifeİChina, an organisation representing agricultural biotech firms, welcomes the news, and says that the research programme could help make GM crops more acceptable to Chinese farmers.

Liu Xuehua, an associate professor of environment planning atİTsinghuaİUniversity, says that while she is not opposed to GM technologies, policymaking in the area should be more cautious and transparent.

'Stakeholders, rather than scientists alone, should be involved in the policy-making process concerning GM commercialisation so that more potential risks can be identified,' Liu says. 'The decision to commercialise them should not be based simply on the fact that there is now big government funding for the area,' she adds.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Lao Tse, Han Shan and Confucius would consider this embrace of GM crops as proof that China has now irrevocably lost touch with the Great Way of its wise ancestors.

Meiji recalls GM sweetener in Japan

FoodNavigator.com, 26 March 2008. By Dominique Patton.

Japan's leading chocolate maker Meiji Seika has recalled a range of confectionery products, after it was discovered that they contained a novel sweetener made with an unapproved genetically modified enzyme.

Environmental campaign group Greenpeace is now calling on the company to issue a list of other firms that are buying the sweetener developed by Meiji for use in their products.

The GF2 sweetener is described as a sugar alternative and targeted at the weight loss foods market. The company had not filed the appropriate paperwork to gain approval for the ingredient in Japan however, said a Greenpeace GMO campaigner, Sachiyo Tanahashi.

"The consumer doesn't even know if it is safe," she told ConfectioneryNews.com. "Meiji has also told us previously that they have a GMO-free policy."

Meiji Seika could not be reached by ConfectioneryNews.com but a spokesman at the firm told Reuters that "we're confident about the safety of the products based on a pile of test data we've collected".

The company plans to apply for approval from the health ministry "as soon as possible" so that it can return to selling the sweetener, he said.

Meiji issued a voluntary recall on Wednesday last week of sixteen products containing the sweetener including chocolate, cocoa and a snack bar as well as the sweetener sold as a stand alone product.

Another food firm, Fuji Food, has also recalled several products containing the sweetener.

But Greenpeace says other products containing GF2 may remain on the market.

Sweeteners are seeing booming demand around the world as consumers seek to avoid sugar for weight loss reasons. Recent research by Mintel found that just over 34 per cent of UK consumers are now actively avoiding sugar, while in France and Germany, the figures are 40 per cent and 37 per cent respectively.

Selling sweeteners made with GM ingredients is a different story however. Japan has approved 36 different varieties of GM corn for human consumption as well as other food ingredients. But Greenpeace claims labeling laws are weak and confusing to consumers.

Under Japanese food labeling laws, only the top three ingredients by weight in a food product are required to be labeled if they are genetically modified, and then, only if they are above a 5 per cent threshold. Highly processed products such as soy oil are not required to be labeled.

"We're also asking the government to improve labeling laws," said Tanahashi. "The consumer doesn't know when they're eating GMO food."

Japanese consumers show considerable resistance to genetically modified food products when surveyed but researchers say that better marketing and information could improve uptake.

Research by a team from Canada published in the Journal of Food Products Marketing in August 2006 concluded that safety and specific quality benefits of GM food need to be effectively communicated to Japanese consumers through reliable sources and media if marketers wish to increase willingness to accept GM food. İ

25 March 2008

EU accused of heavy reliance on industry lobbyists

EU Observer, 25 March 2008. By Honor Mahony.

BRUSSELS - An alliance of environment groups, trade unions and academics has accused the European Commission of relying too heavily on business and industry lobbyists when drawing up EU legislation.

The transparency group Alter-EU, made up of 160 organisations, said the commission - which of the EU institutions has the sole power to initiate European laws - has over-filled its advisory expert groups with industry lobbyists.

In a report published Tuesday (25 March), Alter-EU says some of the commission's most controversial advisory groups such as those on biotechnology, clean coal and car emissions are among those controlled by industry.

The report found that industry representatives made up more than half of the membership of a quarter of the groups surveyed while 32% percent had members representing a "wide range of interests." The remainder of the 44 groups surveyed were considered "unbalanced."

Alter-EU also accused Brussels of not being transparent about the composition of such expert groups, which are there to advise commission policy-makers.

The transparency campaigners say they choose the 44 groups from what they consider "key policy areas" - the environment, energy, agriculture, consumers, health, water and biotechnology.

According to their report, the total number of expert groups has increased by more than 40% since 2000 with one group for every eight officials working in the European Commission. Total membership of the groups runs to over 50,000.

"The Commission seems unwilling to provide information about who is on its Expert Groups, and in some cases does not even appear to know whether groups exist or not. This reveals an appalling attitude to transparency and public accountability in the law-making process," said Paul de Clerck of green group Friends of the Earth Europe.

Report author Yiorgos Vassalos of Corporate Europe Observatory said: "These groups should act in the public interest, but it appears that some are being allowed to further their own commercial interests."

The report says that while the commission in 2005 started an online register of the groups, it does not list who is in them while "several academics, lobbyists and even EU officials have estimated a much higher figure" than the around 1,200 listed groups.

The report found that a climate change panel, for example, had 30 industry representatives, 13 commission officials, plus 7 further members coming from NGOs and universities and a regional member.

For its part the commission on Thursday said that only around 20 percent of experts represent industry.

It also said it planned to make public the names on such committees by the summer.

"It's still a work in progress to the extent that the commission is still compiling the various elements to be able to release the names on the expert groups," said a commission spokeswoman.

She also pointed out that experts from national governments and agencies made up two-thirds of those in the groups.

The transparency report comes at a time of heightened awareness about the importance of legislation coming out of Brussels, with a corresponding growth in recent years of lobbyists, NGOs and think-tanks in the EU capital.

Last year the commission set out plans for a voluntary register for lobbyists, with estimates suggesting there are about 15,000 in Brussels.

The European Parliament, whose powers to influence legislation are set to grow substantially next year under the proposed EU treaty, is also looking into establishing a voluntary register.

Both institutions have come under criticism for not automatically opting for a mandatory register.

USA: Farmers can save on crop insurance with GMO corn

Minnesota Public Radio, March 25, 2008. By Dan Gunderson.

For the first time, the federall government is endorsing a specific genetically modified crop. Minnesota is one of four states taking part in the pilot program. Farmers who plant a Monsanto corn variety can get a price break on their crop insurance premiums. But many farmers are skeptical.

Moorhead, MN ó Corn gets a lot of attention from biotechnology companies and as a result, has had a number of genetic modifications which make corn plants resistant to insects, disease and specific herbicides.

Monsanto put all the genetic modifications in a single plant, a process that's called stacking genetic traits.

The federal government says the triple stack genetic technology is less risky to grow so farmers should pay less to insure that specific variety.

Federal Risk Management Agency Administrator Eldon Gould says the goal is to save farmers and taxpayers money.

"The premium that the farmer is going to pay is subsidized by the taxpayer so by the fact the farmer is paying less on his portion of the premium, the taxpayer is paying less on the taxpayer portion of the premium so there is in fact a savings to the taxpayer," says Gould.

Monsanto is the first company to qualify for the crop insurance reduction allowed by Congress. Monsanto New Business Development Manager Tim Hennessy says the federal endorsement is a competitive edge, "This really opens the door for future submissions like this. The process is very thorough and a rigorous evaluation that requires substantial amounts of data. So it's not something that can be built around just any product, but certainly those products that represent that, I do think it opens the door for a lot of future opportunity," says Hennessy.

To prove its genetically modified crop is less risky to insure, Monsanto needed to provide three years of data. Federal officials say the data proved the crop produced higher yields under adverse conditions. That means farmer are less likely to get payments from their crop insurance policy, and that would save taxpayers money.

Monsanto says farmers can save $3.00 to $7.00 per acre on their crop insurance if they plant triple stack corn.

So, Minnesota farmers are flocking to the program, right? Maybe not.

Several farmers say they plan to use the triple stack corn variety, but they're not signing up for the crop insurance savings.

Jerry Larson says there's some fear of government red tape. Larson raises corn in western Minnesota. He recently attended an informational meeting about the program.

"I suppose there was 50 farmers there and there was some skepticism about the amount of detail that was being required," recalls Larson.

At least 75 percent of a farmers corn crop must be the Monsanto variety to qualify for the insurance price break. Larson says he could save $6.00 per acre on crop insurance by using only Monsanto triple stack seed, but he's not ready to switch all of his loyalty to one company.

"I think other companies feel like it wasn't fair. But Monsanto took the initiative. My suspicion is other companies will get on board and maybe the insurance industry will broaden the parameters a little bit to make it more user friendly," says Larson.

Farmers are also concerned about the complex record keeping required by the program. They need detailed records of exactly where the genetically modified crops are planted, because insurance companies will do random testing.

There are also Environmental Protection Agency rules to follow. When farmers plant a genetically modified crop, 20 percent of the field must be a buffer zone of plants that are not genetically modified. Federal Risk Management Agency Director Eldon Gould says he understands the skepticism among farmers. He doesn't even have a good guess as to how many farmers will embrace a single corn variety in exchange for crop insurance savings.

"That remains to be seen and I'm just as curious as the next person to see what happens when this all shakes out and we get the totals by the middle of the summer," says Gould.

He believes it may take a couple of years for farmers to get comfortable with the new program, but Gould says they should get used to it, because in the future it's likely there will be more government incentives to plant genetically modified crops.

EU: Dual testing no longer needed for US rice

Food Production Daily, 25 March 2008. By Jess Halliday.

Rice imported from the United States no longer needs to be tested for the presence of GM material both at the point of export and on arrival in the EU, following an amendment to emergency measures following the 2006 contamination incident.

Bayer's LL Rice 601, engineered to tolerate the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, wasdiscovered in batches of American long grain rice in the EU in August 2006. At that time the rice variety was not approved for human consumption. It has since been approved in the US, but no GM rice is allowed in the EU.

Following the incident, which had a large impact on the rice industry, the European Commission introduced emergency measures so that only consignments of US long grain rice that had been tested by an accredited laboratory using a validated testing method and accompanied by a certificated assuring the absence of LL Rice 601 could enter the EU.

It was decided in November 2006 that batches needed to be tested twice because the authorities in the EU and the US could not agree on which testing method was best toensure a high degree of consistency and accuracy.

According to an advisory issued by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) today, however, agreement has now been reached, removing the need for duplication. Details on the agreed method were not available prior to publication of this article.

"From now on, each consignment of US rice must be certified free from the unauthorized GM rice, according to the same test method that is used by enforcement agencies in the EU," said the FSA.

The UK government agency said that the amendments to the emergency measures were agreed by the European Members States in December 2007 and came into force at the end of last month.

The European Food Safety Authority has said that the contamination incident was unlikely to cause an imminent safety concern.

However following detection of the GM material, rice futures prices plummeted some $150m. Several multi-million dollar class action lawsuits and individual lawsuits were filed against Bayer by US farmers who suffered severe financial losses.

The USA is one of the major suppliers of rice to the EU. The EU imports approximately 20.000 tons of long grain husked, semi-milled and wholly-milled rice from the USA per month on average.

The UK's Food Standards Agency has come in for criticism for the way it handled the incident.

A judicial review took place in February 2007, which found in favour of the regulatory agency - but the judge did highlight a number of mistakes made by them in dealing with the emergency.

As a result, the FSA called for the views of stakeholders in advance of a meeting held in London at the end of November 2007.

The FSA would not comment on exactly what was discussed at the meeting, but said a report is being drafted and will be considered by its Emergencies Committee, alongside a draft action plan.

ALTER-EU calls for unbalanced advisory groups to be dissolved

ALTER-EU - Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation in the European Union
Press release, 25 March 2008

Brussels, 25 March 2008 - Industry lobbyists are dominating parts of the European law-making process, campaigners warned today on the back of a new report analysing the membership of a number of Commission Expert Groups. Researchers also warn that the European Commission is impeding public accountability, by failing to reveal details of who sits on the Groups.

ALTER-EU ‚ a coalition of 160 organisations concerned with transparency within Europe ‚ is calling on the European Commission to dissolve some of its Expert Groups because of the dominance of industry lobbyists.

The report "Secrecy and corporate dominance - a study on the composition and transparency of European Commission Expert Groups" reveals that industry representatives have a disproportionate influence on a number of the Commission's most controversial Expert Groups, including advisory groups on issues such as biotechnology, clean coal and car emissions.

Expert Groups are established by the Commission to provide advice on the development of new laws and policies, giving group members considerable power over EU legislation, the report says.

Report author Yiorgos Vassalos of Corporate Europe Observatory said: "Expert Groups are responsible for shaping policies on some of the most controversial issues being dealt with by the European Commission. Information about who has access in this crucial initial stage of decision making is not made public, but our research shows that industry representatives are playing an important role. These groups should act in the public interest, but it appears that some are being allowed to further their own commercial interests."

ALTER-EU warns that the public interest may be at risk given the dominance of industry representatives on some Expert Groups. In a study of Expert Groups advising on some of the most controversial issues, it found that industry representatives made up more than 50 per cent of the membership of one in four of the groups surveyed. More than two thirds of the groups were unbalanced and just 32 per cent of them were composed of members representing a wide range of interests.

Relevant information about the make-up and work of Expert Groups is not currently published by the Commission, with an online register only including very limited information on the sectors represented on the Groups.

Using the "access-to-documents" directive, researchers were able to obtain more details, but crucial information was still refused for commercial, security or "privacy" reasons.

The survey shows that the Commission failed to provide necessary information. In 34 per cent of all cases there was no reply at all to the information request, while in another 34 per cent the Commission only provided partial information.

Paul de Clerck of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The Commission seems unwilling to provide information about who is on its Expert Groups, and in some cases does not even appear to know whether groups exist or not. This reveals an appalling attitude to transparency and public accountability in the law-making process."

The EU Commission President JosÈ Manuel Barroso promised last year to make information available on Expert Group membership, following pressure from the European Parliament. In February this year the Parliament stepped up pressure and called for an investigation into the composition of Expert Groups following further concerns about lack of transparency.

ALTER-EU says that Expert Groups dominated by industry should be dissolved and methods must be found to prevent privileged access of Expert Groups. The public interest coalition is also demanding immediate disclosure of Expert Group membership, as promised by the Commission for this year.

For more information please contact:

Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth Europe, ph: +32-494380959, email: paul@milieudefensie.nl

Yiorgos Vassalos, Corporate Europe Observatory, ph: +30-6973524282, email: yiorgos@corporateeurope.org

The full report "Secrecy and corporate dominance - a study on the composition and transparency of European Commission Expert Groups" can be found at: http://www.alter-eu.org/en/publications/secrecy-and-corporate-dominance-study

Notes:

[1] The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) is a coalition of over 160 civil society groups, trade unions, academics and public affairs firms concerned with the increasing influence exerted by corporate lobbyists on the political agenda in Europe and the resulting loss of democracy in EU decision-making.

[2] For more details on the role of Expert Groups and the online register of groups see: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/

[3] The European Parliament called for an investigation by the Commission in its "Report on transparency in financial matters" (2007/2141(INI))

[4] Summary findings from the report:

Access to Documents:

•

In 34 per cent of the cases, the European Commission failed to provide any information about the Expert Groups;

•

In a further 34 per cent of all cases the European Commission only provided partial information

•

The Commission only provided a complete and satisfactory response in 32 per cent of the cases

•

In just 36 per cent of the cases the European Commission provided information within the prescribed 15 working days.

•

In only 43 per cent of the cases the European Commission provided names of organisations and individuals that were represented in Expert Groups.

Membership of the Expert Groups:

•

Over 25 per cent of the Expert Groups surveyed appear to be controlled by corporate interests: more than half of all their members (including governments) are industry representatives.

•

In 64 per cent of the Expert Groups studied, business interests appear to be over-represented: industry representatives make up more than 50 per cent of the non-Commission and non-government members.

•

Only 32 per cent of the Expert Groups sampled appear to have a more balanced allocation of stakeholders.

•

One Expert Group (4 per cent) was unbalanced in favour of NGOs.

The report was based on a survey of 44 (out of more than 1200) Expert Groups that were chosen from a number of key policy areas that are particularly important both to the EU's legislative role and the need for the wider public interest to be reflected in policy-making: environment, energy, agriculture, consumers, health, water and biotechnology.

The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation in the European Union, www.alter-eu.org

24 March 2008

UK: GM crops - what are the risks?

GM-free Cymru (Wales), 24 March 2008.

Multinational companies are aggressively promoting genetically modified (GM) crops around the world, claiming that they are 'the way to feed the hungry'. These crops have had genes from other species added to them, in a haphazard and unpredictable process which often involves the use of bacteria and viruses.

Most GM crops are 'engineered' to be resistant to specific patented herbicides like glyphosate, some of which are highly toxic. Nobody knows for sure what the effects of these plantings or the herbicides will have on human health or on the environment. Agrochemical companies are manipulating and patenting living organisms, and are releasing GM crops into the environment on a large scale without having any idea what the long-term consequences may be, and without devising any means of controlling their spread or "recalling" them in case of disaster.

FACTS

1.

Evidence from more than ten years of GM plantings in North America shows increasing use of herbicides, problems with herbicide resistant 'superweeds' and falling yields

2.

Once released, there is no way to prevent GM pollen contaminating bees and native plant species and no way to prevent seed spillage and contamination due to mismanagement.

3.

DNA from GM crops has been found in wild maize growing in remote mountains in Mexico, 62 miles from the nearest GM crops in California and 4 years after Mexico introduced a moratorium on all GM plantings. The number of GM "contamination incidents" worldwide has reached almost epidemic proportions, involving GM rice, GM maize, GM canola and many other varieties.

4.

A director of Monsanto has said that his company "should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible". Like the other biotechnology multinationals, Monsanto systematically resorts to fraud in its own GM research and promotion work, and systematically suppresses "inconvenient" evidence relating to GM health and safety.

5.

There is increasing evidence of physiological damage to animals fed on GM components during feeding trials, and of environmental damage associated with GM crops and their associated herbicides. This evidence is frequently sidelined or belittled by regulatory bodies in the UK, EC and USA, since these bodies are for the most part packed with hand-picked GM scientists.

6.

Most of the approvals for GM crops are based upon "advocacy science" provided by the GM companies in dossiers which are often protected from public scrutiny by "commercial in confidence" provisions. Inconvenient or potentially damaging evidence is systematically omitted from these dossiers.

7.

Much of the research presented in support of GM applications is non-replicable, since the GM multinationals will not allow their seeds to be used by genuinely independent researchers for public-interest research.

8.

GM crops and foods do nothing to alleviate global hunger and poverty, and evidence from around the world shows that in areas where GM crops are introduced, small farmers and whole communities become serfs in a system dominated by high costs, viciously enforced contracts, chemical management methods, and corporate feudalism.

This all adds up to a system which is thoroughly corrupt, and which places public health and safety at risk. That is why GM Free Cymru, and many other organizations, are fighting for sound science and a GM regulatory system that places the public interest above the narrow commercial ambitions of the biotechnology multinationals

How to order "The World According to Monsanto" DVD

Feedback from those having seen the new 'World According to Monsanto' DVD (run time approx 120 mins) is that it is a brilliant exposure of Monsanto over the years and has many snippets of information, not just GMOs, of Monsanto working in so many countries.

If you can understand French you can order online at:

http://www.arte-boutique.fr/HomeEn.action

otherwise you have to download an order form at:

http://www.arteboutique.com/media/pdf/bon_commande_en.pdf

and fill in the details.. Le Monde Selon Monsanto (English version) K8188, unit cost € 14.99, plus postage at € 9 for up to 2 DVDs otherwise € 12 for three or more.

and then pop the form in the post, with a stamp!

USA: Wal-Mart Move 'Tipping Point' for Driving Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone off the Market

Environmental News Network, 24 March 2008. Organic food proponents will remember Thursday as the day the ground shifted.

Giant food retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that its store brand milk in the United States will now come exclusively from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones.

The move sends a powerful signal to food manufacturers about the growing mainstream demand for health food products. With Wal-Mart already the largest retailer of organic milk in the U.S., it has been clear that consumers interested in greener food products are no longer the narrow group of back-to-the-earth types and wealthy urban yuppies.

"It's reached the tipping point," said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association in the U.S., who has spent years campaigning against the use of hormones designed to boost milk production by up to 15 per cent in dairy cows.

"Even Wal-Mart's customers are demanding milk free from genetically engineered hormones."

Similar demands are growing in Canada, with mainstream grocery retailers like Loblaw Cos. Ltd. introducing reams of new products to meet mainstream demands for organic and "green" foods. Canada, however, banned artificial growth hormones for dairy cows in 1998, so is not affected by the milk changes sweeping the United States. "I think things are accelerating now and people are getting more h

ealth conscious and are getting more conscious about the connection between their personal health and the health of the environment," Mr. Cummins said.

Grocery chain Kroger Co., with 2,500 stores in the U.S., began last month selling only milk produced without the use of hormones like recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). Safeway Inc., with more than 1,700 stores, has switched its in-store brands to non-rBST milk, though it also sells other brands produced from cows given the hormone. And starting in January, Starbucks Corp. has only used non-rBST milk in its stores.

As the largest grocery retailer in the United States with more than 4,000 locations, however, Wal-Mart was the "big get" for consumer advocates.

The retailer said Thursday that its change was prompted by consumer demands. "Many Wal-Mart customers have expressed a desire for milk choices," the company's release said. The change means Wal-Mart's Great Value store brand milk will be rBST-free, as will milk offered at the company's Sam's Club warehouse locations...

Full Story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC. 20080322.RMILK22/TPStory/Business

Africa: Farmers Planting Maize That Poses Threat to Humans

Calibre.com, 24 March 2008. By John Mbaria.

Nairobi, Mar 24, 2008 (The Nation/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) -- Farmers in one of Kenya's largest grain-producing areas have been cultivating genetically modified maize that is potentially harmful to human health without knowing it.

The Sunday Nation can exclusively report that the relevant seeds are sourced from a South African company that is a subsidiary of Dupont, a leading US-based biotechnology firm.

This was revealed to the Sunday Nation by officials of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition (KBioC), a body that brings together 45 farmer groups, NGOs and civil society bodies.

KBioC took samples of maize seeds from agrovet shops in various towns in Rift Valley to Eurofin GeneScan, a specialised laboratory in Europe.

After tests, it was conclusively established that the sample was contaminated with traces of MON810, a genetically modified maize variety owned and marketed by Monsanto, an American biotechnology company.

Documents made available to the Sunday Nation by KBioC officials show that they had taken 42 samples of maize seeds from agrovet shops in Kibwezi, Machakos, Thika, Nakuru, Eldoret and Kitale. The officials got several maize seed varieties owned and marketed by local and international seed companies and then ground them into flour. After preliminary testing, 19 of the samples were found to be suspect and shipped to Eurofin for further tests.

"It was then that Eurofin isolated phb30v53, a variety that is owned and patented by Pioneer, a South African company," said Dr Daniel Maingi, a scientist with KBioC. Several South African and European media have since covered the saga.

The variety is named after Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., a subsidiary of the US-based biotech multinational, Dupont. In its website, Pioneer describes itself as "the world's leading developer and supplier of advanced plant genetics to farmers worldwide". It has been a long-time competitor of Monsanto.

Pioneer denies

But now, Pioneer denies that it has been deliberately exporting genetically modified maize to Kenya. In a telephone interview with the Sunday Nation, the head of Pioneer in Africa, Jeff Johnson, denied that his company sells contaminated maize seeds.

"We respect the Kenyan law and go to great lengths to ensure that our seeds are not contaminated. Indeed, our testing protocol conforms to international standards," he said.

Even then, Mr Johnson said that it is not possible anywhere to ensure that maize seeds are 100 per cent devoid of biotechnology material. "Although I have not seen the test results, I am not ruling out anything. It could be possible that the seeds sold in Kenya might be contaminated." However, he added that such contamination is insignificant and is unlikely to compromise the quality of his company's seeds.

Speaking from South Africa, Mr Johnson also said that his company is involved in the marketing of genetically modified maize to countries where it is approved. "We are not selling any such maize in Kenya or any other country in East Africa," he said.

Information on the contamination of the Pioneer maize variety was passed on to relevant arms of the government during a National Biosafety Committee meeting held on February 27 at the offices of the National Council for Science and Technology (NCST) in Nairobi.

In attendance, among others, were representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) and the University of Nairobi.

During the meeting, KEPHIS representatives revealed that the former Minister for Agriculture, Kipruto arap Kirwa, released the maize seed variety in question into the Kenyan market in 2006 "after it passed all the field test procedures".

The minutes of the meeting also reveal that the Pioneer variety originates from the United States and is reproduced in South Africa before being shipped to Kenya where it is distributed by FarmChem Seed Co. Ltd.

The minutes reveal that on October 31, 2006, FarmChem imported an initial consignment of half a tonne.

Long-running suspicions The revelation confirms long-running suspicions among many Kenyan farmers that they could have been cultivating genetically modified varieties of maize without being aware of it.

"Initially, we were given the suspect seeds as donations by politicians and we planted them. But when we harvested, the maize started rotting almost immediately," said Isabel Wandati, a farmer and official of a women's group in Butere.

She laments that she finds it impossible to replant the same maize and blames the Kenya Bureau of Standards for not properly inspecting the relevant maize variety.

She adds that instead of arming farmers in Butere with the relevant information on the variety, the local agricultural extension officials have been championing its cultivation.

There is now a danger that the country's entire maize crop could be contaminated with traces of MON810. This is because maize is a cross-pollinated crop and pollen that bears traces of MON810 might be transported by wind from contaminated farms into uncontaminated ones.

The variety is patented by Monsanto and is banned in several European countries because of its negative impact on the environment and its harmful consequences on such useful insects, such as butterflies and bees.

Research conducted in some European countries had shown that feeding mice on the variety damaged their kidneys and livers.

However, its effects on humans is yet to be fully studied since maize is generally not used as human food in Europe and America. It is instead fed to horses and other domestic animals.

Once the country's maize crop is contaminated with genetically modified varieties, Kenya risks losing traditional hybrid varieties that were painstakingly developed by KARI at the taxpayer's expense.

Genetically modified grains are injected with bacteria that produce poison to kill nuisance pests and resist adverse weather conditions.

However, these poisonous bacteria have the downside of potentially destroying the soil by killing helpful bacteria and insects. Also, they compromise food safety and might prove to be harmful to humans over time once the grains are consumed. Copyright The Nation. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

USA: Both Promise and Peril

Voice of San Diego, 24 March 20087. By Mike Kalichman and Larry Hinman

In "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley described a future in which technology would free us of the pains of life, but at the cost of our humanity. Less than a century later, each week brings us news of technological breakthroughs that rival Huxley's imaginings.İRecent examples, many of which are from San Diego, include:

•

In January, Stemagen, a San Diego biotechnology company reported the first successful cloning of a human embryo.

•

Neuroscientists at the University of California, Berkeley recently reported primitive success in using brain scan technology to determine what someone is looking at.İThis is the next step in an attempt to "read" visual experience and is crudely an example of "reading minds."

•

A University of Pennsylvania scientist claims to have regrown a severed fingertip -- bone , nerve, muscle, nail, and skin -- in just four weeks using a powder made from pig bladder.

•

Genetic testing, once prohibitively expensive, is increasingly available on the open market.İOne such test, developed by a UC San Diego researcher is now available as a diagnostic tool for people who have or may develop bipolar disorder.

•

San Diego is also at the forefront of regenerative medicine with stem cell research. For example, scientists at The Scripps Research Institute used mouse embryonic stem cells to create beating heart muscle, a feat recently repeated using human cells at the Technion in Israel.

Yesterday's science fiction is becoming today's reality. As these and other breakthroughs pass through the stages of research and development to validate results and ensure safety, society must grapple with questions that extend beyond the domain of the laboratory.İClearly we have an obligation to use our scientific prowess to alleviate pain and suffering.İThe question is not whether to pursue such opportunities but how to do so wisely.

We, individually and collectively, must together seek the best answers to these challenges.İWhere will such wisdom come from? Scientific leaders, the scientific research community and its professional organizations, governmental regulation and recommendation, and market forces are all possible sources of such wisdom.İLeading scientists, many of whom work or have worked here in San Diego, have taken prominent, public roles in both creating and discussing challenging developments in science and technology.İThese individuals include Francis Collins, Francis Crick, Jonas Salk, and Craig Venter.

Yet wisdom is not confined to scientific leaders alone: religious leaders, politicians, judges and media figures also play prominent roles in these conversations.İThe unique perspective of leaders is essential for helping us all to make informed decisions, but it is certainly not the final word.

The voice of the scientific research community is most clearly heard through professional organizations and scientific publications.İThese contributions are also important because these are the people most knowledgeable about the science.İThese are the people who know best how science is done, what we know, what we don't know, what is possible, and what is most likely impossible. This also is an important component of informed decision-making, but we need to hear from those who will be subjected to or benefit from new technology.

Some look to the government for wisdom. Federal and state regulation may succeed in preventing certain kinds of research with potential for abuse, such as human cloning for reproduction, but the mere presence of "government" and "wisdom" in the same sentence is certain to raise skeptical eyebrows. Yet when we look more closely, we see that governmental commissions and committees often provide much more nuanced guidance to the ethical thickets created by emerging technologies. Reports of various presidential and congressional committees and councils often offer remarkably insightful analyses of emerging issues, analyses from which we can learn much.

Finally, some believe the market forces will shape the most prudent choices. Products that are beneficial will survive and those that are harmful will be eliminated. But if we rely solely on market forces, we certainly have some tough questions to answer. To what extent will new technologies be available only to the wealthy?İWill insurance companies harvest data on our genetic anomalies and adjust our premiums accordingly? Unfortunately, market constraints perhaps best capture the limits within which wisdom is to be found rather than wisdom itself.

Another dimension of market forces is the extent to which we now have a global economy. The problems are often global in character, but the structures for resolving those problems rarely extend beyond national borders.İRegulation in one country may simply drive production offshore.İMany first-rate U.S. stem cell scientists, including some from San Diego, have moved to Singapore and other countries with more money and less regulation for research.İConversely, the European Union has enacted requirements for clear labeling of genetically modified food, but the United States has few such strictures.İ

Avoiding the challenging pitfalls of new technologies is not the sole responsibility of scientists, the market, or government.İIf the public is not part of an effort to seek wise decisions, we will have given up a role in shaping our own future.İThe public has a right to be part of this discussion because they will be helped or harmed by such developments and also because that research has been funded in part by their tax dollars. The questions at hand are not narrowly scientific, and they are not out of reach of the average citizen. We can and should make thoughtful judgments on these issues, but first we must be informed.İThat process begins in the schools and continues with thoughtful and accurate scientific reporting in the media. The Web has greatly enhanced the effectiveness of such reporting and of thoughtful discussion of scientific advances.İ

Technology has always carried with it both promise and peril. Our challenge is to reap the benefits of the promises while avoiding the perils. It is both our privilege and our responsibility to educate ourselves, to identify the challenges, and to promote the best possible solutions. We can vote for candidates and ballot measures that define the contours of our technological future. We can use the Web to learn and discuss on a scale not possible as recently as 10 years ago. We can be part of community discussions that include representative voices from all interested sectors, not just the scientists. We know that a brave new world is knocking at our door. Instead of flinging the door open wide, or securely locking it, we should work together and open the door to those choices that are most likely to contribute to a better life.

Mike Kalichman and Larry Hinman are the founding co-directors of the Center for Ethics in Science and Technology. E-mail Kalichman at kalichman@ucsd.edu. E-mail Hinman at hinman@sandiego.edu. Kalichman is the director of the Research Ethics Program and professor of pathology in the School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego. His website on research ethics is here. Hinman is a professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego. He writes widely in the area of applied ethics; he is also the founder of Ethics Updates.

23 March 2008

USA: Asian oysters will get yet another trial run
Amid concerns the non-native species will hurt local waters, the state Seafood Council seeks more information

Daily Press (USA), 23 March 2008. By Patrick Lynch.

The Virginia seafood industry is preparing to embark on what could be the last trial run growing non-native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay before getting final word on the possibility of creating an industry with the Asian shellfish.

The Virginia Seafood Council is asking state and federal officials for permission to grow 1.3 million baby oysters of the Crassostrea ariakensis variety, beginning in June. The trial, using sterile oysters, would be the largest since the council began these tests in 2000.

Virginia's native oyster, C. virginica, is barely surviving in the Chesapeake Bay's polluted waters, where oyster-killing diseases thrive. Along with it, the oyster industry remains hobbled, and the bay is losing out on the oyster's natural filtering capabilities.

But the Asian oyster has proven tolerant of those diseases, and many people in the seafood business stake hope on the shellfish's promise.

Scientific concerns have held up any large commercial aspirations for the Asian oyster. Scientists worry that the non-native species could do what foreign species introduced into a new ecosystem sometimes do: invade, crowd out native stocks and bring unintended consequences.

No more trials were planned after 2007. But last year, federal officials said the years-long series of environmental studies wasn't complete. A draft environmental impact statement ó the Army Corps of Engineers is leading the process ó is due June 1, and a final report could be completed by the end of the year.

In the meantime, the Asian oyster trial growers didn't want the profitable markets that they've developed for their product in the past seven years to languish, said Frances Porter, executive director of the Virginia Seafood Council.

"We feel we have built markets, and we need to maintain those markets," Porter said.

The council's proposal goes before a public hearing at Tuesday's Virginia Marine Resources Commission meeting in Newport News. The Army corps also has to sign off. The trial oysters would go in the water no earlier than June 1 and would have to be removed by June 1, 2009.

Tommy Mason of Mason Seafood in Chincoteague has grown Asian oysters in every trial. He'll grow 100,000 more this year. The baby oysters are genetically modified at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science to be sterile, so no reproducing shellfish make their way into Virginia waters during the trials.

Mason said he had no problem marketing the Asian product. He sells almost all in Chincoteague for shucking and to be served on the half-shell.

Mason also grows clams and native Virginia oysters using similar controlled "aquaculture" methods that he uses with the Asian oysters. The shellfish are grown in enclosed mesh bags and floats. Side by side, his Asian oysters have produced nearly double the yield of the natives.

"It's eating fantastic," Mason said. "As a matter of fact, I'm going to have some for Easter dinner."

Virginia's shellfish woes

Crabs to oysters, these aren't good times to be a Chesapeake Bay icon. Here's an update on the latest, and sometimes controversial, efforts to revive the state's ailing species.

•

The Virginia Seafood Council will likely run a large trial this year growing sterile Asian oysters, while federal officials could complete a final environmental impact statement on Asian oysters by the end of the year. Many in the industry see it as a potential boon, but scientists remain concerned about wide introduction of a non-native species.

•

The Virginia Marine Resources Commission recently plotted a new course for native-oyster restoration efforts that would double the state money for projects and attempt to reverse 15 years of a stagnant, historically low population.

•

Last month, the VMRC passed a slate of commercial crabbing regulations intended to begin a population turnaround and crack down on overfishing. The baywide crab population is an estimated 30 percent of its early 1990s size. On Tuesday, the commission will vote on extending a crab sanctuary. In April, it will take up even tougher regulations, including a potential closure of the winter dredge fishery and up to a 30 percent reduction in the number of allowable crab pots.

21 March 2008

Britain ahead of most of Europe on GMOs

Farmers Guardian, 21 March 2008.

THE majority of Europeans, 58 per cent, say they are opposed to the use of genetically modified organisms while around a fifth ‚21 per cent ‚ support their use.

The British public looks slightly favourably on the technology with 49 per cent opposed and 25 per cent in favour, according to a Eurobarometer survey about the attitudes of EU citizens towards the environment.

Only five countries show less opposition to GMOs, including Ireland and Spain. At the other end of the scale opposition rates of more than 75 per cent were found in four member states, topped by Slovenia (82 per cent).

However, the survey suggests attitudes towards GMOs are softening. Just 20 per cent of Europeans say they are worried about them, compared with 24 per cent in 2004, while 80 per cent are not concerned about the use of them in farming.

Many people still feel uninformed about GMOs, with 34 per cent citing a lack of information as a concern.

The survey also sought opinions on the Common Agricultural Policy. It revealed that food price was the main concern among the European public, with 43 per cent believing that ensuring reasonable prices should be a main priority of the CAP, compared with 35 per cent in 2006.

Ensuring the health and safety of food products was seen as a priority by 42 per cent of respondents, while 40 per cent believed that providing a fair income for farmers was a CAP priority.

An overwhelming majority (86 per cent) agreed that all agricultural imports should comply with EU health and quality standards.

Japan rejects GM corn for human food

AllAboutFeed.net, 21 March 2008.

Japan, the world's largest corn importer has long had animal feed that uses genetically modified organisms, or GMO, but is still holding out against genetically modified corn for human food use.

But food makers in Japan are caught between U.S. farmers demanding a higher premium for GMO-free corn. The rising costs and difficulty of dealing with modified corn separately from unmodified could also see more tie-ups in the industry.

"We've started to ask each of our customers in an interview whether and how much they can take," said Yoshihiko Shikakura, senior managing director at the sales department of Oji Cornstarch, a joint venture between Oji Paper and the trading company Mitsui.

Use of GMO costly

Until recently, most corn processors have used only non-GMO crops to produce corn starch and corn syrup, a widely used sweetener, as some customers, mainly beer and drug makers, refuse to use GMOs. But smaller corn processors have already used unseparated cargoes, taking advantage of lax labeling laws for small quantities of raw materials in foods in Japan. Use of GMO could be costly for corn processors. If an unapproved GMO trait is found, importers, not exporters, are responsible to pay the extra cost to dispose of the unwanted material.

Larger companies

However, if Japan will approve the use of GMO in human food, Oji Cornstarch is already prepared to process the GM material. The company last year formed an alliance with Gun-ei Chemical Industry and another smaller rival. Being a larger company makes it easier to introduce GMO corn, as their enlarged businesses can allocate complete plants to handle GMO supplies separately.

Another group is also forming. Nihon Shokuhin Kako announced an alliance with Kato Kagaku in January, bringing together two of the top three processors, while a grouping of smaller processors is also possible. "The more the non-GMO premium rises, the more business alignment is formed here," said Shikakura of Oji Cornstarch.

USA: Wal-Mart Brand Milk Will Be rBST-Free
As Monsanto Fights Hormone-Free Labeling, Big Retailer Listens to Its Customers

Daily Green, 21 March 2008. By Dan Shapley.

At a time when hormone-free milk labeling is under assault by Monsanto and its allies, Wal-Mart has taken a stand in favor of its consumers.

All Great Value-brand milk sold at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club will be free of rBST (recombinant [ie genetically engineered] bovine somatotropin, a growth hormone), the company said this week.

"As many of you know, there is a fair amount of controversy on this topic, but ... Wal-Mart's customers are telling us that they are very concerned so we listened, and we've made a pretty big change," Rand Waddoups wrote in Check Out, a blog by Wal-Mart buyers.

While there are no known health effects from drinking milk produced from cows treated with rBST, and normal milk will contain cow hormones that are nearly indistinguishable, many consumers see the hormone-free label as a window into the operations at farms. Hormones keep cows producing milk at volumes and for durations that are unnatural, and their use often goes hand-in-hand with other "industrial" farming techniques, like keeping large herds in close proximity and whole-herd treatment with antibiotics and pesticides.

Monsanto, which manufactures the artificial growth hormone, has been going state-to-state, urging local agriculture departments to outlaw the use of labels like "rBST-free" on milk. Wal-Mart, which has proved that it knows well what American consumers want, has voted. Wal-Mart made no statement about the Monsanto initiative in its announcement about going hormone-free.

EU: Researchers identify new 'biodiversity threats

EurActiv, 21 March 2008.

Inİan attemptİto spotİthe next GMO-like controversy before it happens, environmental scientists, policymakers and environmental NGOs have, in a joint 'horizon scanning' exercise, drawn up a list of 25İnovel threats andİopportunities likely to affect biodiversity in the UK between now and 2050.

İ "Horizon scanning is more and more common in government and business, but we should also be using it to help prioritise scientific research," said professor Bill Sutherland of the University of Cambridge.

İ Sutherland is the lead author of anİarticle presenting a list of the 25 most urgent issues expected to affect biodiversity in the future.İThe list was drawn up on the basis of a joint effort of 35 environmental scientists, policymakers, environmental NGOs and representatives ofİacademia and scientific journalism, who consulted some 452 persons.

For each topic identified, the article outlines the associatedİthreats, opportunities and research needs.

İ "The exercise shows how 'horizon scanning' could help us foresee issues that have taken scientists and policy makers by surprise in the past, such as the UK public's response to genetically modified crops," said British Ecological Society in a statement.

İİ The list, publishedİlast weekİin theİJournal of Applied Ecology,İidentifies, among others,İthe following as the most pressing challenges for biodiversity: nanotechnology, artificial life and biomimetic robots, the impact of geo-engineering the planet to mitigate climate changeİand the effect of rising demand for biofuels. Other issues include change in demand for food,İdramatic changes in freshwater flows, new illnesses andİan increase in non-native invasive species due to climate change. The aim of the exercise was to identify the 25 topics of highest relevance, but not to rank them. However, with the methodology used by theİhorizon scanning team, nanotechnology scored highest "because of the uncertainties involved in both the way the technology would come to be used and the environmental impacts".

İ The authors of the article argue that horizon scanning -İincorporating wide consultation with providers and users of environmental science -İshouldİbe used by policymakers and researchers to identify knowledge gaps andİhelp set policy and research agendas.

20 March 2008

Ireland: GMO debate

Irish Farmers Journal, letter to the Editor, 20 March 2008.

Dear Mr O'Keefe,

I think that you spent too long lost in the pages of the Journal firing volleys at targets you can neither see nor understand. Any chance to have a go at the Green lobby is never wasted by your good self but to what end?

That we are a "minority lobby getting ill deserved attention" is laughable, when your paper does everything it can to present organic food and farming as some kind of freak show. Of course this kind of language only comes from someone who feels threatened, afraid that all they hold dear may be discredited. After all the broad alliance between the pharmaceutical industry and the food industry can only be good for us a while people who try to produce food in a natural way that does not rely on "good science" may be harming the public health?

Now I am sure that you are aware that we are living on a planet with dwindling natural resources especially oil, and that in addition our behaviour as homo-sapiens has brought us to the stage where we are having a major negative impact on our environment. The "Green Revolution" which you and others continue to espouse is part of the problem and unfortunately "good science" does not seem to be able to find solutions.

The consumers out there are obviously giving the pharmaceutical companies a real headache these days when you quote Dr Pinna Sandholm who states "quality health products must be effectively publicised to reach their market potential. Strong competition exists among the public from quacks and Greens". What an insulting statement. The reality is that the consumer does not trust the the globalised, industrial food offering, and are purchasing organic and natural products in ever greater quantities.

The statement you make that "Food satisfies hunger and health comes with package" is even more laughable. What you are in essence saying that we need to supplement food as it is not capable of supporting human health. The recent Newcastle Study that shows higher levels of anti oxidants and other beneficial elements in Organic Food is hardly surprising and would NOT having to supplement not be the better option for the Consumer? I am sure that the results of this study will only further annoy you and your friends in the "good science" sector.

In this bold new age of energy descent organic food will make its mark despite the sniping from the main stream farming press. Why even under the new REPS programme there is the inclusion of clover pastures, stolen directly from the "organic manual. Are you aware that Teagasc and The Department of Agriculture are supporting these Quacks and Greens. Maybe you should aim your blunderbuss at them?

Like the great economists whose theories lie in shreds ever since we all realised that we are sitting on a dwindling bank of commodities the Agri/pharma theorists are going through the same crisis. The plain truth is that the closer to nature farming is the less likelihood of their being imbalances. Food in its most natural form grown without the aid of residues from the oil industry is now the pragmatic choice for the planet. Man is the one species who is seriously messing up his bed and expecting to have a quality of life afterwards. I think that you should look to revising some of your dearly held beliefs and come down with your Blunderbuss off "Planet Paddy" and join the rest of the public us "Greens and Quacks". Rather than just satisfying your hunger you might even enjoy the taste experience.

Yours sincerely

John Brennan
Manager
Laitrim Organic Farmers Coop

Austria: Steamroller protest outside US embassy in Vienna over GM corn

AFP, 20 March 2008.

Around 30 environmental activists used a steamroller to crush corn outside the US embassy in Vienna Thursday to protest alleged US pressure on Austria to accept genetically modified corn.

"Greenpeace is protesting the Bush administration's threat to impose prohibitive taxes on Austrian imports if Vienna continues to forbid genetically modified products," one of the activists said at the rally.

The United States "is violating our sovereign right to use only products free of genetically modified organisms, because the majority of Americans strictly reject foods that contain GMOs," he added.

The Austrian branch of the environmental group called on US diplomats working in Vienna Thursday to prevent the imposition of import taxes. Greenpeace Austria said the US government was currently preparing a black list of products that would be subject to [end of article missing]

UK: GM, Corporate Feudalism and the Dark Ages

Letter to the editor of Country Life magazine, 20 March 2008.

Dear Editor

GM, Corporate Feudalism and the Dark Ages

I have read your Editorial in the March 20 edition of "Country Life", which has been given additional exposure through the Telegraph newspaper. I am amazed that a journal which purports to represent the "countryside community" should have chosen this moment to promote the interests of the GM industry in such an unbalanced way, and to demonstrate its lack of awareness of what that industry is trying to do to all of us. Sadly, the piece is full of inaccuracies and misapprehensions. It could well have been written by Dr Helen Ferrier of the NFU, or by Clive James of ISAAA, who is one of the chief spin doctors for the GM industry.

You seem to think that "designer crops" produced by the GM industry will somehow solve the problems associated with over-population, desertification, loss of plant diversity, nutrient depletion in soils, and even sea level rise. Dreams about wonderful technical fixes are obviously alive and well. If only life were so simple. In fact the GM industry is itself heavily implicated in the creation and exacerbation of these problems. Around 97% of the GM crops currently grown are herbicide tolerant or designed to express insecticides; they emphatically have NOT increased yields, and they HAVE increased the usage of proprietary chemicals including Roundup and Liberty. GM farming is essentially industrial/chemical farming associated with very high energy inputs; any extension of GM farming will inevitably lead to a great increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

GM crop varieties are also patented life forms (which is an outrage in itself, if you are concerned about ethics and the Christian message) and those who grow them are debarred from seed saving or from passing either seed or harvest through unapproved channels. Big commodity farmers are probably happy enough with this situation in the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina, but small farmers are turned into serfs in a world of corporate feudalism. That is why so many African states are desperately worried about the activities of the GM corporations, which are supported ruthlessly by US and WTO diplomatic pressure. That is why thousands of small farmers growing BT cotton in India have committed suicide.

You repeat the lie that GM is a means of speeding up the process of selective breeding that's been practised for millennia. It is absolutely different in a number of respects, creating new varieties that are uniquely unstable and erratic in their behaviour and which have the potential to cross-pollinate and out-compete in the wild, with wholly unforeseen consequences. There are increasing signs that they are also harmful to the health of animals and humans since they contain unique proteins and toxins. The implications of GM farming for biodiversity are horrendous, as the signatories to the Cartagena Protocol know full well. And while the biotechnology multinationals are trying to breed their new wonder varieties using GM techniques, they are systematically buying up seed merchants and their catalogues, and removing "inconvenient" local varieties from the seed lists. Not so long ago, there were hundreds of canola (oilseed rape)varieties available in Canada; now, after the predations of Monsanto and the other GM corporations, there are 28 GM varieties and only one non-GM variety left.

The scenario which opens up is truly terrifying. We will have a world in which three or four gigantic GM corporations will literally control the world's seed supply and hence the world's food supply. Farm chemical use will rise inexorably, in association with the management of herbicide-tolerant crops and also to counteract the spread of "superweeds". The corporations will impose a very small number of GM crops onto subservient communities, and in locations which are ill-suited for them. Crop failures and famine will increase dramatically, not decrease. Locally adapted indigenous crops, bred over millennia in response to local climatic and soil conditions, will be systematically squeezed out because Monsanto, Cargill and other huge companies will have claimed ownership of them and then wiped them off seed catalogues.

There is no sign whatsoever of salt-tolerant or drought-tolerant GM crops performing any better than plants developed by traditional and new breeding methods, let alone providing any "quick fix" or even long-term fix for the problems which the world will face in the coming decades.

Your final paragraph, relating to the Christian message, suggests that GM technology "has the potential to alleviate some of the dangers" which we face over coming decades. The GM industry trots out this argument all the time, but the manner in which it operates is in fact profoundly anti-Christian. It replaces the old concept of respect for all living things with the practice of life-form patenting and ownership. It replaces the concept of stewardship with the unrestrained pursuit of the profit motive. It replaces the concepts of freedom and self-determination with the practice of corporate control and feudalism. It replaces love and beauty with lies, scientific fraud, brutal enforcement of patents, and the vilification of those who have the courage to stand in the way of corporate ambitions.

You refer to the Dark Ages in your arguments in support of GM "enlightenment." Well, you are welcome to your opinion; but my nightmare vision is of a world inhabited by our children and grand-children and controlled by a few gigantic biotechnology corporations who feed us poisonous food and tell us it is good for us, who control farmers through patents and contracts and tell them that is the only way forward, who destroy fragile environments and communities and pretend that their actions are benign, and who systematically remove the ability of independent scientists, farmers and even governments to innovate, adapt and benefit from the accumulated wisdoms of past generations. In the world of Monsanto, there is nothing but contempt for the very idea of "the commons." That is not a world that I want any part of -- and shame on you, Mr Hedges, for seeking to promote it through the pages of your magazine.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Brian John
Trefelin, Cilgwyn, Newport, Pembs SA42 0QN
UK

Mexico: GMO, Oh, Mexico ...
Mexico to allow planting of genetically modified crops

Reuters, 20 March 2008.

Mexico has taken the last step toward finalizing rules that will allow genetically modified crops to be planted in the country. That has many farmers in the so-called birthplace of corn worried that GM varieties could contaminate their fields. Under the rules, GM corn wouldn't technically be allowed in certain areas of Mexico considered "centers of origin" for unique corn plants, but critics nevertheless remain concerned for crop biodiversity. "This is a step in the government's intention to bow to pressure from Monsanto to allow the contamination of Mexico's native corn," said farmer Victor Suarez.

Canada: Grain farmer claims moral victory in seed battle
Ten years after he took on the multinational Monsanto, Saskatchewan man gets $660 and the right to talk about it

Globe and Mail, 20 March 2008. By Matt Hartley With a report from The Canadian Press.

Percy Schmeiser's decade-long legal odyssey has finally come to an end - and he's got a cheque for $660 to prove it. The 77-year-old Saskatchewan farmer and his wife, Louise, became international folk heroes for their legal struggle with agribusiness giant Monsanto Canada Inc., after the company sued them for violating its patent on genetically engineered canola seeds in 1997.

Although the Schmeisers eventually wound up losing their court battle with the St. Louis-based company in a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2004, the couple have now earned a moral victory that they hope will encourage others to carry on their cause.

Yesterday, Monsanto agreed to pay the Schmeisers $660 to settle a small-claims court case they brought against the company for costs associated with removing the patented Roundup Ready canola from their field in 2005.

"After 10 years, finally justice has been served," Mr. Schmeiser said in an interview last night. "I really feel that if a farmer is now contaminated, he has a right to go after Monsanto for liability and to clean up the contamination. By settling out of court, Monsanto now realizes the seriousness of the liability issue."

Monsanto agreed to pay the costs associated with removing the canola back in 2005. However, the Schmeisers refused the offer because the company insisted the couple sign a release stating they would never talk about the terms of the agreement.

"That release form they sent us was a gag order," Mr. Schmeiser said. "We could never talk to anyone for the rest of our lives about what the terms of the settlement were. There was no way we were going to give up our freedom of speech to a corporation."

Several other Western Canadian farmers have agreed to sign Monsanto's standard release form, including 16 in 2007, according to a statement issued by the firm yesterday. The Schmeisers' deal does not stop them from talking about the terms of the settlement.

"Although we are pleased Mr. Schmeiser finally approached us and agreed to settlement terms, it is frustrating that he essentially accepted the same offer we put before him in 2005," Monsanto public affairs director Trish Jordan said. "This entire matter could have been resolved more than 2? years ago and Mr. Schmeiser would have saved himself some legal costs."

The Schmeisers became international causes cÈlËbres because of the David and Goliath nature of the case. Mr. Schmeiser has been invited to speak at universities and parliaments all over the world, and appearance fees have helped to pay for much of the couple's court costs. In December, they were awarded the Right Livelihood Award - unofficially considered to be the alternative Nobel Prize.

The Schmeisers' saga began more than 10 years ago, when Monsanto sued them after plants grown from genetically modified canola seeds were found on the couple's farm near Bruno, Sask., about 90 kilometres east of Saskatoon.

The company said the Schmeisers violated its patent on the seeds, which had been genetically modified to resist Monsanto-brand herbicide, and that the couple knowingly planted them without paying the technology fees. Monsanto's claim sought damages totalling $400,000.

But the Schmeisers denied using the Monsanto seeds, arguing that the seeds blew onto their property from a nearby road or neighbouring farms.

In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favour of Monsanto, stating that plant genes and modified cells can be patented. Although the Schmeisers lost the case, the court ruled they did not have to pay damages.

The following year, more of the genetically modified canola appeared on the Schmeisers' farm. They pulled it out themselves and sent Monsanto a bill for $660.

Mr. Schmeiser doesn't grow canola on his farm any more, only wheat and oats, and he rents out most of the land to other farmers. Although he said he's looking forward to spending more time with his family, he hopes the fight to bring awareness to the issues surrounding genetically modified foods will continue.

"This is a great victory for farmers all over the world," he said. "Now they have at least an opportunity to have some recourse on a corporation when they are contaminated."

EU GMO feed battleground

Truth About Trade and Technology, 20 March 2008.

With most food processing companies unwilling to risk their brand names and the obligation to label products containing GMOs, only very small quantities of the latter are currently reaching the supermarket shelves. At least in Europe.

The battle-ground between for and against, the multi-national biotech companies and consumer groups, is shifting to animal feedstuffs. Under new EU guidelines, since May 2004 it is quite possible to import genetically modified maize and feed animals with it without any obligation to label the resulting meat or products.

Representatives of specialist quality label food processors met in Rodez, Aveyron, in July to discuss their future under the auspices of a new association called Fil Rouge.

Already much of their sales argument has disappeared since the mad cow crisis and the obligation for all meat products to be traceable back to the farm. Referring to the recent curious decision by the French government not to subsidise the final phase of a current study on the question, the president of Fil Rouge expressed disappointment that it is still not possible to detect GM products in animal muscle and called for further scientific research.

Another member, Martin Lajoinie, suggested a publicity campaign stressing the superior quality of grass-fed animals to counter some of the rumours surrounding meat production.

According to an article in 'Le Monde' in May, Syngenta's Bt11 maize may not be canned as sweetcorn for salads as the European consumer is 'not ready' for it. There was, we can guess, some concern that consumers of sweetcorn might get the wrong idea and refuse to buy. France is the world's second biggest producer of maize.

Some of the small communes in the Haute-Garonne, Lanta and Montgeard for instance, are refusing to allow the planting of experimental GMC fields. The maire of Plan, near Cazères, called for the government to restore the moratorium.

Scientists devise list of potential threats to UK

The Telegraph, 20 March 2008. By Paul Eccleston.

Scientists have drawn up a list of 25 technological advances and environmental changes which pose a potential threat to the UK.

They include the use of artificially created life, the building of microscopic robots through nanotechnology, the use of biofuels and the arrival of invasive species.

Although their impact is uncertain and some will turn out to be irrelevant, some may become the keys issues of the future.

A new study led by Prof Bill Sutherland of Cambridge University calls for scientists to "scan the horizon" so keys issues can be studied and assessed and the right environmental policies put in place.

Outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and climate change were examples of controversial events which should have been foreseen.

"We are not scare mongering or trying to frighten people because we are saying that these issues may also present opportunities which will bring great benefits," said Prof Sutherland.

"I was involved in the GM crops issue and although we did some science it struck me that we were doing it too late and that we should have identified it as a possible problem before the products came on the market."

The list was drawn up after a meeting at Cambridge of academics, government representatives and environmental organisations and followed an earlier conference to identify the 100 ecological questions that most needed answering.

It includes the use of nanotechnology - the ability to manipulate matter at scales of billionths of a metre - to build tiny robots, which led to a call by the Prince of Wales for an investigation into the possible consequences of their use.

The new study, in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology, says that although there are expected to be social benefits for medicine, electronics and the environment there was also a need to predict their impact on the environment.

There was also the possibility that artificially created life - engineered organisms and synthetic microbes - could be released into the environment with unpredictable effects.

Climate change could bring about the spread of damaging non-native species currently kept out by winter temperatures damaging our biodiversity and leading to the establishment of invasive communities.

The use of biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels also had implications for the environment which needed to be studied.

"There may be no environmental consequences at all but we should be identifying these issues so we can start talking about them," said Prof Sutherland.

UK: Welsh GM ban would ruin stock industry say biotech firms

Daily Post, 20 March 2008. By Andrew Forgrave.

WALES' tough stance on genetically modified crops could spell disaster for the Welsh livestock sector, GM companies believe.

Monsanto hit out after the Assembly Government slammed the door shut on any lingering hopes of introducing GM crops in Wales.

New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will ban even trial plantings.

But a Monsanto spokesman said the proposal was inconsistent with EU guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.

It would end up destroying the Welsh livestock industry, he said.

"Approximately 85% of compound animal feed throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the large shortage of home-produced protein, " he said.

"We would have concern that in the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive livestock production overseas."

GM companies have long resisted efforts to make them responsible for "leaks" of GM material and concurrent Defra proposals for England stop short of pinning liability on the operator in the event of environmental or economic damage.

But Cardiff's proposals would make GM companies like Monsanto and Bayer, and GM crop growers, legally liable for contamination or "genetic trespass". Such liability would apply even if they have a licence and even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the material was harmless.

The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.

"We have a particular commitment on GM," confirmed Wales rural affairs minister Elin Jones.

English GM crop farmers would become liable if they contaminated land in Wales but Ms Jones said she did not foresee any difficulties in implementation.

"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries, but it' s the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.

Supporters of the proposal include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member of the GM Free Alliance - a group of organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and GM Free Cymru.

FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the union was concerned by the threat of cross-contamination.

"It would be completely unfair if non-GM farmers' incomes suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that was beyond their control," said Mr Walters. "The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers, whereas Defra has left English farmers out in the cold."

The GM Free Wales Alliance described Cardiff's proposal as "the latest step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".

Brian John, of GM Free Cymru, said he expected the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow suit.

"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the other three authorities have," said Mr John.

"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."

The Monsanto spokesman said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with more than 100m hectares grown every year by 10m farmers.

"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a range of farming methods," he added.

19 March 2008

Canada: Percy Schmeiser receives compensation from Monsanto
Monsanto admits responsibility for genetically engineered contamination

Percy Schmeiser press release, 19 March 2007.

In an out-of-court settlement between Percy Schmeiser and Monsanto, Monsanto has admitted its responsibility for the genetically engineered contamination of Schmeiser's canola (rapeseed) fields.

In an earlier legal dispute, the highest instance under Canadian law had accepted the legality of the patent protection on Monsanto's genetically modified organisms, and at the same time remitted the question of the legality of patenting life forms to the Canadian Parliament for re-evaluation. Based on the legal situation at the time, the holder of the patent to a specific gene is also the owner of the related harvest. Parliament has yet to tackle this issue.

As at the time Schmeiser could demonstrate that he did not use genetically engineered seed from Monsanto, or the total herbicide Roundup associated with this seed, and that he could not obtain any advantages from the contamination of his harvest, he was acquitted of claims for damages by Monsanto.

In 2005 Schmeiser again found Monsanto canola plants in his fields. He informed Monsanto and demanded that the corporation remove the plants. Monsanto confirmed in writing to Schmeiser that the plants were Roundup Ready canola and they were the property of Monsanto. With reference to the existing judgment that the owner of a plant must also be held liable for the damage caused by contamination, Schmeiser had the plants removed professionally and sent the bill to the corporation.

As Monsanto was not prepared to pay the bill for $660 in an initial attempt at an out- of-court settlement, Schmeiser took the company to court. Monsanto was only prepared to pay the damages on the condition that Schmeiser signed a confidentiality agreement on the issue. This agreement would have taken away from him and his wife the right to talk about the case in public for the rest of their lives, or in future to take Monsanto to court for the contamination of their harvest. Schmeiser declined. The conditions placed by Monsanto were contrary to public policy.

When asked by the judge why a corporation like Monsanto did not simply pay a bill for $660, the Monsanto lawyer Richard W. Danyliuk replied that the issue involved much more than $660.

An hour before the court hearing scheduled for 19 March 2008, Monsanto accepted Percy Schmeiser's demands and admitted their responsibility for the contamination on Schmeiser's fields. Monsanto not only paid the damages, but also accepted that Schmeiser could report in public about the exact background to the case and express his opinion. The admission on the part of Monsanto, as holder of the patent to genetically modified organisms, that is it also responsible for the contamination of neighboring fields now opens the way for affected farmers all over the world to issue claims for damages against Monsanto.

For more detailed information:

www.percy-schmeiser-on-tour.org
www.percyschmeiser.com

Interviews:

Percy Schmeiser, Canada: + 1 306 369 25 20 (in English)

Responsible for the content:

Jürgen Binder, Germany: + 49 170 185 74 24 (in German)
email: presse@percy-schmeiser-on-tour.org

French council upholds decision on GMO crop ban

Reuters, 19 March 2008.

PARIS - France's highest legal authority upheld on Wednesday a government decision to ban the commercial use of the only genetically modified (GMO) crop grown in the country, legal sources said on Wednesday.

"Our case has been rejected, we are studying the conclusions (of the State Council)," one source close to the case said.

French seedmakers, including Monsanto, attacked the government's earlier decision to ban the use of maize seeds using Monsanto's MON 810 technology.

(Reporting by Valerie Parent; Editing by Peter Blackburn)

Comment by GM Watch:

Fantastic news - France's highest administrative body, the state council (Le Conseil d'Etat), has today rejected Monsanto's complaint about the French Government's ban on Monsanto's MON810 corn.

There was massive controversy last year, and a continuing series of protests and confrontations, over the planting of 22,000 hectares (55,000 acres) of Mon810. This year there should be NO Mon810 at all in France which, as it is the only GM crop that can be grown there, means that - barring crop trials - French fields should be completely GM free.

Opponents of genetically modified crops win victory in France

International Herald Tribune, 19 March 2008. By James Kanter.

PARIS: Opponents of gene-altered crops won a victory in France on Wednesday when the country's top court upheld a ban - for the time being - on a corn variety produced by the U.S. seed company Monsanto.

Growers had argued that the economic harm they faced was serious enough for the month-old ban to be lifted immediately, before the start of the spring planting season. In addition, proponents said allowing plantings could benefit consumers at a time of rising food prices.

The Conseil d'état maintained the ban on the variety, known as MON810, until it could rule on its scientific underpinning. Hearings in that case are expected to be held in the coming months.

In his ruling, Judge Jean-Marie Delarue pointed out that a report, issued in January by a committee of French experts, had called for more studies on the product's safety.

French officials were correct to have paid attention to "new elements brought to light by the committee that could be seen as posing a grave risk to the environment," Delarue wrote.

The decision was a success for environmentalists and for farmers opposed to genetically modified food products. They had warned that the corn, which resists pests, could pollute other crops and pose threats to the environment and human health.

Other farmers, backed by the biotechnology industry, argue that the products could help lower costs and reduce the use of pesticides.

"We are disappointed," said StÈphanie PiÈcourt, a spokeswoman for Monsanto in France. Corn growers "will not be able to benefit from the economic, agricultural and environmental advantages that this product offers."

In January, President Nicolas Sarkozy recommended banning MON810, and on Feb. 7, the French Agriculture Ministry imposed the ban, saying it should remain in place until a review of the product - required every 10 years - was completed by EU authorities.

Efforts to overturn the ban were led by the General Association of Corn Growers in France and a number of biotechnology companies including Monsanto and Pioneer, a division of the U.S. chemical company DuPont.

CÈdric Poeydomenge, a spokesman for the French association of corn growers, said farmers had hoped to plant 100,000 hectares, or 247,000 acres, using the pest-resistant corn.

He said farmers would plant nonmodified corn this year, but would face §10 million, or $15.6 million, in potential losses from pests and from purchasing large amounts of insecticide.

Poeydomenge said only about 22,000 hectares were planted with MON810 last year although product was appropriate for use on 700,000 hectares of France, in regions affected by pests that include Poitou-Charentes, Midi-PyrÈnÈes and the RhÙne Valley.

France plants a total annual crop of about 3 million hectares of corn for food use and for feeding cattle, Poeydomenge said.

Battles over gene-altered crops have been fought across Europe for more than a decade but there now are signs that some governments and policymakers are prepared to ease long-standing opposition.

Nathalie Moll of Europabio, an industry association in Brussels, said she expected MON810 to be cultivated this year in at least seven EU countries including Spain and Germany. MON810 has been used in the United States for more than a decade.

Officials at the European Commission have deemed many genetically modified products safe and want to introduce more of them into the bloc to normalize trade relations with countries like the United States, and to reduce costs for farmers.

But several governments, including those in Austria and France, are extremely wary of softening their stance on genetically modified foods because of continuing distrust among many citizens who consider gene-altered products to be "Frankenstein" foods.

Australia: Tassie markets to go global with GM free

ABC, 19 March 2008

A state parliamentary inquiry has heard Tasmania could export canola seed to the world, if the state's ban on genetically modified crops is maintained.

A review is underway this week to determine if Tasmania should extend its ban on GM crops beyond 2008.

Alex Schaap, from the Department of Primary Industries, told the parliamentary inquiry there could be benefits from keeping the ban.

"One of the opportunities for Tasmania, that I hope the industry will explore, is the opportunity to actually develop a GM-free canola seed industry here, where we bulk up seed in a place that's much, much safer from GM contamination than anywhere else in the rest of the world."

French Farmers Lose Bid To Overturn GMO Corn Ban

AFP, 19 March 2008.

PARIS - France's top legal authority on Wednesday upheld a government decision to ban commercial use of the only genetically modified (GM) crop grown in the country by rejecting an emergency injunction filed by the pro-GM camp.

France issued decrees banning the use of MON 810 maize seeds in February after a government-appointed committee said it unearthed new evidence of damage GM products could inflict on the environment.

Ecologists and ordinary consumers hailed the ruling, but seedmakers, including MON 810 creator Monsanto (nyse: MON - news - people ), and maize farmers lodged an emergency injunction in an attempt to overturn the ban.

In a document released on Wednesday, France's State Council shot down arguments put forward by pro-GM groups, saying they did not cast doubt on the validity of the government's stance.

"(Those seeking the injunction) have no foundation to demand the suspension of the decrees banning commercial sowings of MON 810 maize," wrote the judge overseeing the case.

The State Council still has to issue its verdict on a separate appeal from the pro-GMO faction, this time questioning the legal foundation of France's February decrees.

Conclusions for that appeal should come towards the end of the year, well after the close of France's maize planting season which kicks off in April, legal sources told Reuters.

Wednesday's State Council ruling confirmed French farmers will be unable to use maize seeds which incorporate GM technology, created by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, in 2008.

Bitter divide

Farmers sowed Monsanto GM maize on 22,000 hectares last year, representing just under 1.5 percent of France's cultivated maize area. The European Union has authorised MON 810 throughout the 27-nation bloc but is set to re-evaluate its use later this year.

In February, France followed through on its decrees by invoking a legal mechanism, known as the safeguard clause, at EU level to secure a more long term ban.

To succeed, France will need to provide new, scientific proof of the risks posed by the GM seed.

While GM crops are common in the United States, France -- Europe's biggest grain producer -- remains highly suspicious of them, like many other European nations.

Supporters say use of GM crops could help feed the world's poor. Opponents, which polls say include a majority of French people, fear they could harm humans and wildlife by triggering an uncontrolled spread of modified genes.

Highlighting deep divides, even within France, leading maize growers' association AGPM, which jointly filed the injunction, expressed hope that future French rulings would favour use of the GM maize seed.

"We are deeply disappointed but that is the decision and we acknowledge it," said Luc Esprit, who heads AGPM.

In the meantime, imports of GM maize would continue to flood into France to feed the country's livestock, Esprit said.

"This doesn't alter the fact that we are confident about the final judgement which will be made later," he said, referring to the State Council's decision on the second appeal.

Greenpeace embraced Wednesday's State Council decision.

"Greenpeace rejoices in the fact that the challenges of protecting our citizens and the environment have been judged more important than the private interests of a handful of multinationals and the pro-GMO lobby," it said in a statement.

(Editing by Valerie Parent; editing by Chris Johnson)İ

French state body upholds decision on GM crop ban

Reuters, 19 March 2008. By Valerie Parent.

PARIS -- A group of French farmers Wednesday lost a bid to overturn a government ban on a strain of genetically-modified corn, a month after it came into force. İ

France's highest administrative body, the state council, rejected the challenge from nine plaintiffs including a corn producers' association backed by U.S. agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. (MON), which produces the strain. İ

"The judge has rejected the complaint," said a spokeswoman for the state council. "There are no serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions" to ban the use of MON810 strain of corn, the only GMO crop grown in France. İİ

The French government in February officially banned the GMO crop after a watchdog authority said it had "serious doubts" about the product in a report that has been controversial even among the scientists who put it together. İ

France's Provisional High Authority on GM Organisms pointed to what it described as "a certain number of new scientific facts relating to a negative impact on flora and fauna." İ

In its ruling, the state council said the government was right to resort to the ban as a precautionary measure, given concerns about the possible public health effects. İ

Reacting to the decision, a Monsanto spokesman said he was disappointed but expressed hope the company's arguments will prevail when the state council issues a final ruling in the case at a later date. İ

France invoked a European Union safeguard clause to bar the corn that gives an E.U. member state authority to ban a GMO crop provided it has scientific evidence to back this decision. İ

France this month proposed replacing the E.U.'s system for authorizing GMO crops with tougher standards which take into account a wide range of environmental and safety factors. İ

Last year, 22,000 hectares were sown with the product - less than one per cent of the sown acreage for corn in France. İ

Canada: Schmeiser pleased with victory over Monsanto

CNW, 19 March 2008.

CALGARY -- In an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields.

The issue revolves around unwanted Roundup Ready canola plants that arrived on Schmeiser's fields. Monsanto refused to reimburse or compensate Schmeiser for this contamination unless he signed an agreement to not speak publically on the matter and that he would never sue Monsanto for contamination.

A significant part of the agreement is that there was no gag-order imposed on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred.

Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.

"In an indirect way, Monsanto has acknowledged liability for the contamination of a field by the unwanted appearance of its genetically altered product," stated Schmeiser in reaction to the settlement.

For further information: Percy Schmeiser, (306) 369-2520

Canada: Saskatchewan farmer, Monsanto Canada settle $660 small claims case

The Canadian Press, March 19 2008

WINNIPEG -- Percy Schmeiser may have lost his legal battle with Monsanto Canada over the use of genetically modified canola seed, but the multinational giant will have to pay the Saskatchewan farmer for the time it took to pull the offending plants out of his fields.

In a deal reached Wednesday, Monsanto Canada agreed to pay the $660 claim Schmeiser brought against it in small claims court, the final act in a decade-long legal battle watched around the world that turned the Saskatchewan farmer into a folk hero to those opposed to so-called "Frankenfood."

In 1998, Monsanto took the Schmeisers to court for using its patented canola seeds, which were genetically modified to be tolerant to a Monsanto-produced herbicide, without a licence, seeking damages totalling $400,000.

The farmers denied they had used the patented seeds, saying they could have blown over from a neighbour's farm or from passing trucks. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's valid patent on a gene it ed into canola plants, although he did not have to pay the damages.

But in 2005, more modified canola sprouted on Schmeiser's land and he was ordered to remove it.

"Monsanto ... offered to remove it, but before they did so, they wanted Percy to sign a release with a confidentiality clause," said Schmeiser's lawyer Terry Zakreski. "Percy was not prepared to do that.

"He picked out the weeds himself and sent Monsanto a $660 bill."

Now that that bill will be paid, that's likely the end of Schmeiser vs Monsanto, said Zakreski. An outstanding lawsuit the farmer brought against the agribusiness giant has lain dormant for years.

But Schmeiser found himself an international spokesman for those opposed to genetically modified crops.

Donations from across the continent and speaking fees from conferences as far away as Rome helped pay his legal bills. And last year, the Schmeisers were among the winners of the 2007 Right Livelihood Award, a Swedish award considered an "alternative Nobel" for their efforts to promote peace, biodiversity and renewable energy.

In a release, Monsanto spokeswoman Trish Jordan said the company has assisted many others with removing unlicenced modified canola _ 16 farmers in 2007 alone. None raised concerns with Monsanto's release form, Jordan said.

"It is frustrating that (Schmeiser) essentially accepted the same offer we put before him in 2005. This entire matter could have been resolved more that two and a half years ago."

- By Bob Weber in Edmonton

EU set to approve Syngenta GM maize on March 28

Reuters, March 19 2008. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS - EU regulators will approve imports of a genetically modified (GM) maize type next week that should help Spain's livestock farmers secure extra supply of raw material to feed their animals, a document said on Wednesday.

The maize, known by its codename GA21, is marketed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta and intended for use in food and animal feed, not for growing in Europe's fields.

According to a draft document due to be adopted by the European Commission on March 28, imports of GA21 maize will be labeled "not for cultivation" and be permitted for food, food ingredients and animal feed produced from the modified strain.

The approval will be valid for a standard 10 years across the EU's 27 countries and enter into force on publication in the EU's Official Journal, likely to take only a few days after it has been formally endorsed by the Commission, the EU executive.

EU law allows for rubberstamp GM authorizations when ministers cannot agree after a certain time. Since 2004, the Brussels-based European Commission has approved a string of GMs -- nearly all maize -- in this way, outraging green groups.

EU approval of GA21 maize is of particular interest to grain traders in Spain, and also Portugal, since the GM strain may only be imported in processed form at present. Spain's growing demand for grain for use in feed is mainly focused on maize.

The request for EU approval by Syngenta, one of the world's largest producers of GM seeds, would allow GA21 imports as grain. When authorized, those imports are expected to come into EU markets mainly from Argentina, a major GM crop grower.

In February, EU agriculture ministers were unable to reach a consensus agreement that would allow imports of five separate GM products, one of which was insect-resistant GA21 maize.

Of the EU-27, 12 countries voted in favor of an approval: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Netherlands.

Nine countries voted against -- Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Slovenia -- and the remaining EU member countries abstained.

(Reporting by Jeremy Smith, editing by Atul Prakash)

The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won't ever see

Axis of Logic, 19 March 2008. By Siv O'Neall
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26304.shtml

The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years. The endless list of genetically modified seeds sold and controlled by Monsanto are putting at enormous risk age-old agricultural patterns under the presumptuous slogan of aiming at solving the huge problem of hunger in the world. İ

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French televisionİ (ARTE ‚ French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, entitled 'The World According to Monsanto' (Le Monde selon Monsanto[1]). Starting from the Internet over a period of three years Robin has collected material for her documentary, going on to numerous interviews with people of very different backgrounds.İ She traveled widely, from Latin America, to Asia, through Europe and the United States, to personally interview farmers and people in influential positions. İ

As an example of pro-Monsanto interviews, she talked at length with Michael Taylor who has worked as a lawyer for Monsanto and also for the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), where he had great influence on the legalization of the genetically modified bovine growth hormone (BGH). It also became FDA policy during Taylor's tenure that GM seeds are declared to be "substantially equivalent"[2] to non-GM seeds, hence proclaiming proof of the harmlessness of GMs to be unnecessary. Michael Taylor[3] is a typical example of technocrats employed via 'the revolving door policy'. He is now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation. İ

The gospel according to Monsanto is that their patented GM seeds and their bovine growth hormone (BGH) will increase worldwide production of agricultural, dairy and meat products and Bt cotton to the extent that worldwide hunger and poverty will be eradicated. İ

The actual truth is rather the opposite. GMOs are creating serious damage all over the world and artificial BGH injection in cows[4] cause numerous health problems, and even death. İ

Monsanto is not held back by any considerations of ethics and it hides the reality of its sordid machinations behind a wall of secrecy. Everything Monsanto does is exclusively with the intent of increasing its own profit ‚ everything else be damned. If left to its own devices it will most certainly destroy the livelihood of millions of farmers ‚ a process begun a decade ago in India and certainly in many other countries as well[5]. The planet's ecosystems will be seriously threatened by unnatural ways of changing agricultural patterns. The dangers of GMO cultivation to the environment come in many forms:

•

Switching from age-old biodiverse crops that can tolerate low-level amounts of water to industrial monocultures of crops such as GM soya, cotton, sugarcane, etc. that require large amounts of irrigation.

•

Inundating cultivated lands with toxic herbicides, in particular the dangerous Monsanto product Roundup, to which the GMO seeds have been made biotechnically resistant. Any other growth should succumb to Roundup, were it not for the fact that weeds to a very large extent become Roundup resistant.

•

Putting an end to biological [i.e. organic] farming and poisoning non GM cultures through pollenization from GM crops and accidental exposure to Roundup herbicide.

•

Deforestation to make more land available for the culture of the GM seeds Monsanto sells at high prices to poor farmers.

On top of all these dangers to biodiversity and biological farming comes the fact that Monsanto has patented its products and farmers are legally bound not to save seeds for replanting for the following year. They must buy new seeds from Monsanto every year and the company has a sizeable staff that just deals with prosecuting farmers suspected of illegally using one year's seeds for the planting of the next year's crop. İ

Globalization and Poverty İ

Biological [i.e. organic] farming is adapted to existing ecosystems. But age-old biological farming has had to give room to industrial monocultures that enrich the few and cause poverty and despair for millions of small farmers. Now there is soil erosion, destruction of biodiversity and social/economic disasters in tow. Contrary to Monsanto promises that GM seeds and Roundup would reduce production cost, farmers now have to pay skyrocketing prices for herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer. [6] İ

The destructive effects of genetically engineered crops are worldwide, but the extensive damage done in India has been widely documented by Dr Vandana Shiva. She is a physicist and environmentalist as well as a tireless activist and author of many books concerning the nefarious consequences of GM farming as opposed to the wisdom of traditional family and biological farming. She is currently based in New Delhi. İ

Quote from Dr. Vandana Shiva:

"I am writing this statement from beautiful Doon Valley in the Himalaya where the monsoons have arrived, and our Navdanya (Nine SeedsóOur National Movement on Conservation of Biodiversity) team is busy with transplanting of over 300 rice varieties which we are conserving along with the rich diversity of other agricultural crops. Our farm does not use any chemicals or external inputs. It is a self-regenerative system which preserves biodiversity while meeting human needs and needs of farm animals. Our 2 bullocks are the alternative to chemical fertilisers which pollute soil and water as well as to tractors and fossil fuels which pollute the atmosphere and destabilise the climate."[7] İ

"Economic globalization has become a war against nature and the poor" says Dr. Vandana Shiva.

"Recently I was visiting Bhatinda in Punjab because of an epidemic of farmers' suicides. Punjab used to be the most prosperous agricultural region in India. Today every farmer is in debt and despair. Vast stretches of land have become waterlogged desert. And, as an old farmer pointed out, even the trees have stopped bearing fruit because heavy use of pesticides has killed the pollinators ó the bees and butterflies. İ

And Punjab is not alone in experiencing this ecological and social disaster. Last year I was in Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, where farmers have also been committing suicide. Farmers who traditionally grew pulses and millets and paddy have been lured by seed companies to buy hybrid cotton seeds referred to as "white gold", which were supposed to make them millionaires. Instead they became paupers."[8]İ İ

In India as well as in China it has been proven that the unscrupulous promises of Monsanto that Bt cotton (genetically engineered cotton) would produce a far higher yield and prove less costly in terms of herbicide and fertilizer required has been the exact opposite of what was promised. Bt cotton increases irrigation and water requirements where biological cotton would thrive without added irrigation. Thus the yield of Bt cotton has been far inferior to that of biological cotton and the costs of production significantly higher.[9] İ

Disastrous health problems caused by GMO products İ

In spite of the reassurances from Monsanto and its own lawyers and scientists that GMO cultures and Roundup herbicide are not health hazardous, it has been proven in their own research that rats have developed different forms of tumors and other health problems. However, instead of pushing the research further, they put a complete stop to it. İ

"As farmers know there is a cancer epidemic in America's heartland ‚ partly resulting from exposure to chemicals like Roundup, and partly from ingesting contaminated food and drinking water." (Economic, health & environmental impacts of Roundup-type chemical and Roundup Ready soybeans)İ İ

Particularly when Roundup is applied by aerial spraying the risk of drift of the herbicide to close-by crops and trees is considerable. Both trees and nutritious and medicinal herbs have been proven to be killed or producing severely damaged fruit and leaves from the effect of Roundup being sprayed on nearby cultures, by air as well as by ground spraying. İ

Quote from "New research on the impact of GMOs on health" İ

"Although some GMOs have been approved and marketed for several years, there was no body of scientific research on their impact on the biology of living organisms. This is partly because animal feeding trials are not required in the current safety approval process for GMOs in the EU or USA. Only now is a body of evidence starting to emerge from a small number of animal feeding trials into the health effects and progress in the new science of epigenetics. This indicates that genetic engineering is much more unpredictable and risky than traditional breeding."[10] İ

Various health problems from GMO products have been identified, from serious skin problems in humans in Argentina at soya plantations (documented by Marie-Monique Robin in her film ‚ The World According to Monsanto), to allergies in humans as well as tumors, damage to internal organs and internal bleeding in rats fed with genetically engineered potatoes. İ

From a lack of sufficient research and the fact that many health hazards develop over a long period of time, there is still no complete list of real health hazards to humans caused by GMO products. Monsanto who provides 90% of the world's long list of genetically engineered products[11] (having bought up 50 smaller companies during the last decade) does their business with such complete secrecy that there are still sold-out individuals out there who praise the complete revolution of agriculture achieved by the culture of GMO crops. These corrupt İpeople seem to be totally unaware of the health hazards and the drive to despair and ruin of small farmers caused by GMO products. They seem to still believe that genetically engineered seeds can save the world's food problems. Or worse yet, they don't care. İ

A high representative for Monsanto has openly admitted that "We want to control the world's food supply." [12] It is also very clear that they have no concern for health hazards or human disasters caused by the callous decisions of world leaders to give up on biological farming and opt for genetically engineered food production and monoculture industrial farming. İ

The proofs that GM huge industrial monocultures and Roundup herbicide are destroying the earth's environment and human health are completely censured and ignored, due to intense lobbying and pressure from sold-out individuals at the United States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Drug Administration. İ

Once again, only corporate profit counts and people as well as the environment are of no importance. And the neocon puppets are playing the game with great gusto. İ

Notes: [1] Also entitled 'Monsanto, une enterprise qui vous veut du bien' (Monsanto, a company that wants the very best for you.) Monsanto is the multinational producer of Agent Orange, dioxin, bovine growth hormone, Round Up and 90% of the world production of GMOs. New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins.İ See also:İİ Le Monde selon Monsanto İ

[2] [Michael Taylor] Attorney for Monsanto who rewrote the "regulations" for Genetically Modified foods. His brilliant addition is the "substantial equivalence" measure which says if the nutrition measures are the same for the GMO as the natural food it is nobody's business what the chemical companies add.İ İ

[3] Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA - still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company - still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration - and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding - now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation. İİ

[4] Reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson Blow Whistle On News Station - Florida Milk Supply Riddled with Artificial Hormone Linked to Cancer. They Were Ordered to Lie About it on Fox-TV.İ İ

[5] 1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness, was at the root of farmers taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy, a loosing economy. Two factors have transformed the positive economy of agriculture into a negative economy for peasants - the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalisation. (Vandana Shiva) İ

[6] The shift from farm-saved seed to corporate monopolies of the seed supply is also a shift from biodiversity to monocultures in agriculture. The District of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh (India) used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Seed monopolies created crop monocultures of cotton, leading to disappearance of millions of products of nature's evolution and farmer's breeding. Monocultures and uniformity increase the risks of crop failure as diverse seeds adapted to diverse ecosystems are replaced by rushed introduction of unadapted and often untested seeds into the market. When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 Kg / acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kg. Instead of increased incomes of Rs. 10,000 / acre, farmers ran into losses of Rs. 6400 / acre. (Vandana Shiva)İİ

[7] Monocultures, monopolies, myths and the masculinisation of agriculture - Statement by Dr. Vandana Shivaİ İ

[8]İ Indian Agrarian Crisis İ

[9] "Several studies have shown Bt cotton yields to be substantially lower than non-Bt varieties." Has the Bt cotton bubble burst?İ (Devinder Sharma) İ

[10] New research on the İimpact of GMOs on health İ

[11] New movie damns İMonsanto's deadly sins. İ

[12] Greenpeace researcher uncovers chilling patent plans - One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. (Direct quote in Marie-Marianne Robin's documentary)İ İ

İ Siv O'Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France.İ She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com İ

Read the Biography and additional articles by Axis Columnist, Siv O'Neall İ

İ © Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com İ

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you! İ

10 reasons GM won't feed the world

The Ecologist magazine, March 2008. By Mark Anslow.

1. Failure to deliver

Despite the hype, genetic modification consistently fails to live up to industry claims. Only two GM traits have ever made it to market: herbicide resistance and BT toxin expression (see below). Other promises of genetic modification have failed to materialise. The much vaunted GM 'golden rice' - hailed as a cure to vitamin A deficiency - has never made it out of the laboratory, partly because in order to meet recommended levels of vitamin A intake, consumers would need to eat 12 bowls of the rice every day. In 2004, the Kenyan government admitted that Monsanto's GM sweet potatoes were no more resistant to feathery mottle virus than ordinary strains, and in fact produced lower yields. And in January 2008, news that scientists had modified a carrot to cure osteoporosis by providing calcium had to be weighed against the fact that you would need to eat 1.6 kilograms of these vegetables each day to meet your recommended calcium intake.

2. Costing the Earth

GM crops are costing farmers and governments more money than they are making. In 2003, a report by the Soil Association estimated the cost to the US economy of GM crops at around $12 billion (£6 billion) since 1999, on account of inflated farm subsidies, loss of export orders and various seed recalls. A study in Iowa found that GM soyabeans required all the same costs as conventional farming but, because they produced lower yields (see below), the farmers ended up making no profit at all. In India, an independent study found that BT cotton crops were costing farmers 10 per cent more than non-BT variants and bringing in 40 per cent lower profits. Between 2001 and 2005, more than 32,000 Indian farmers committed suicide, most as a result of mounting debts caused by inadequate crops.

3. Contamination and gene escape

No matter how hard you try, you can never be sure that what you are eating is GM-free. In a recent article, the New Scientist admitted that contamination and cross-fertilisation between GM and non-GM crops 'has happened on many occasions already'. In late 2007, US company Scotts Miracle-Gro was fined $500,000 by the US Department of Agriculture when genetic material from a new golf-course grass Scotts had been testing was found in native grasses as far as 13 miles away from the test sites, apparently released when freshly cut grass was caught and blown by the wind. In 2006, an analysis of 40 Spanish conventional and organic farms found that eight were contaminated with GM corn varieties, including one farmer whose crop contained 12.6 per cent GM plants.

4. Reliance on pesticides

Far from reducing dependency on pesticides and fertilisers, GM crops frequently increase farmers' reliance on these products. Herbicide-resistant crops can be sprayed indiscriminately with weedkillers such as Monsanto's 'Roundup' because they are engineered to withstand the effect of the chemical. This means that significantly higher levels of herbicide are found in the final food product, however, and often a second herbicide is used in the late stages of the crop to promote 'dessication' or drying, meaning these crops receive a double dose of harmful chemicals. BT maize, engineered to produce an insecticidal toxin, has never eliminated the use of pesticides, and because the BT gene cannot be 'switched off' the crops continue to produce the toxin right up until harvest, reaching the consumer at its highest possible concentrations.

5. 'Frankenfoods'

Despite the best efforts of the biotech industry, consumers remain staunchly opposed to GM food. In 2007, the vast majority of 11,700 responses to the Government's consultation on whether contamination of organic food with traces of GM crops should be allowed were strongly negative. The Government's own 'GM Nation' debate in 2003 discovered that half of its participants 'never want to see GM crops grown in the United Kingdom under any circumstances', and 96 per cent thought that society knew too little about the health impacts of genetic modification. In India, farmers' experience of BT cotton has been so disastrous that the Maharashtra government now advises that farmers grow soybeans instead. And in Australia, over 250 food companies lodged appeals with the state governments of New South Wales and Victoria over the lifting of bans against growing GM canola crops.

6. Breeding resistance

Nature is smart, and there are already reports of species resistant to GM crops emerging. This is seen in the emergence of new 'superweeds' on farms in North America - plants that have evolved the ability to withstand the industry's chemicals. A report by then UK conservation body English Nature (now Natural England), in 2002, revealed that oilseed rape plants that had developed resistance to three or more herbicides were 'not uncommon' in Canada. The superweeds had been created through random crosses between neighbouring GM crops. In order to tackle these superweeds, Canadian farmers were forced to resort to even stronger, more toxic herbicides. Similarly, pests (notably the diamondback moth) have been quick to develop resistance to BT toxin, and in 2007 swarms of mealy bugs began attacking supposedly pestresistant Indian cotton.

7. Creating problems for solutions

Many of the so-called 'problems' for which the biotechnology industry develops 'solutions' seem to be notions of PR rather than science. Herbicideresistance was sold under the claim that because crops could be doused in chemicals, there would be much less need to weed mechanically or plough the soil, keeping more carbon and nitrates under the surface. But a new long-term study by the US Agricultural Research Service has shown that organic farming, even with ploughing, stores more carbon than the GM crops save. BT cotton was claimed to increase resistance to pests, but farmers in East Africa discovered that by planting a local weed amid their corn crop, they could lure pests to lay their eggs on the weed and not the crop.

8. Health risks

The results of tests on animals exposed to GM crops give serious cause for concern over their safety. In 1998, Scottish scientists found damage to every single internal organ in rats fed blightresistant GM potatoes. In a 2006 experiment, female rats fed on herbicide-resistant soybeans gave birth to severely stunted pups, of which half died within three weeks. The survivors were sterile. In the same year, Indian news agencies reported that thousands of sheep allowed to graze on BT cotton crop residues had died suddenly. Further cases of livestock deaths followed in 2007. There have also been reports of allergy-like symptoms among Indian labourers in BT cotton fields. In 2002, the only trial ever to involve human beings appeared to show that altered genetic material from GM soybeans not only survives in the human gut, but may even pass its genetic material to bacteria within the digestive system.

9. Left hungry

GM crops have always come with promises of increased yields for farmers, but this has rarely been the case. A three-year study of 87 villages in India found that non-BT cotton consistently produced 30 per cent higher yields than the (more expensive) GM alternative. It is now widely accepted that GM soybeans produce consistently lower yields than conventional varieties. In 1992, Monsanto's own trials showed that the company's Roundup Ready soybeans yield 11.5 per cent less on harvest. Later Monsanto studies went on to reveal that some trials of GM canola crops in Australia actually produced yields 16 per cent below the non-GM national average.

10. Wedded to fertilisers and fossil fuels

No genetically modified crop has yet eliminated the need for chemical fertilisers in order to achieve expected yields. Although the industry has made much of the possibility of splicing nitrogen-fixing genes into commercial food crops in order to boost yields, there has so far been little success. This means that GM crops are just as dependent on fossil fuels to make fertilisers as conventional agriculture. In addition to this, GM traits are often specifically designed to fit with large-scale industrial agriculture. Herbicide resistance is of no real benefit unless your farm is too vast to weed mechanically, and it presumes that the farmers already farm in a way that involves the chemical spraying of their crops. Similarly, BT toxin expression is designed to counteract the problem of pest control in vast monocultures, which encourage infestations. In a world that will soon have to change its view of farming - facing as it does the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil - GM crops will soon come to look like a relic of bygone practices.

Mark Anslow is the Ecologist's senior Reporter

18 March 2008

UK: GM crops: The Welsh Assembly has led, the Scottish Government must follow

Green MSP media release, 18 March 2008.

Greens today put down a motion at Holyrood (1) calling on Scottish Ministers to follow the approach of the Welsh Assembly Government to GM crops, and welcoming their proposals, published today, which would bring in full liability for all GM crop producers. (2) These plans, which are backed by the Farmers' Union of Wales and by environmental campaigners, would ensure that GM companies would have to bear the costs of any environmental or economic damage their crops cause, such as contamination of either organic or conventional produce.

Robin Harper MSP said:

"The science clearly shows the failings of GM crops, which bring nothing but risk for Scotland's farmers and corporate control for our food chain. Scottish legislation must now be extended beyond the moratorium to make GM companies fully liable for any problems their unwelcome crops bring."

Notes

1. GM Crops - That the Parliament welcomes the proposals by the Welsh Assembly Government to make producers of genetically modified crops fully liable for any damage these crops cause; believes that this policy will in effect amount to a complete ban on the planting of genetically modified crops because of the significant scientific uncertainty about the associated risks; notes the support this move has received from the Farmers' Union of Wales as well as from the RSPB and other environmental organisations; further notes the decision by Scottish Ministers to continue with a moratorium on the planting of genetically modified crops, and calls on Scottish Ministers to go further and adopt the same type of full liability approach proposed in Wales.

2. See today's Western Mail: http://tinyurl.com/2ofbrx

James Mackenzie
Media and Communications
Scottish Green MSPs
Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh EH99 1SP
Tel: 0131 348 6360
Mob: 0790 99 33 074
Fax: 0131 348 5972

UK: Wales set to ban GM crops

Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail.

PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban genetically modified crops from Wales.

New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even to trial plantings.

GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.

But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for contamination or "genetic trespass" ‚ even if they have a licence and even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the material was harmless.

The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.

"We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones.

"It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM crops in Wales.

"We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."

The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of contamination on the Welsh side of the border.

"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries, but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.

"This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."

The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member of the GM Free Alliance ‚ a group of environmental and countryside organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and GM Free Cymru.

Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to oppose GM crops.

"Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.

"The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers, whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the cold."

The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".

Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh lead.

"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the other three authorities have," said Mr John.

"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."

Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh approach

"The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable if something goes wrong," said Mr John.

"The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies like the RSPB have been asking for."

A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.

"These specify that member state rules should respect the right of both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he said.

"Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive livestock production overseas."

He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.

"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a range of farming methods," he said.

USA: Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble

The Huffington Post, 18 March 2008. By Robert Weissman.

There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.

Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting the proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12.3 million hectares, to reach 114.3 million hectares in 2007, the second highest area increase in the past five years.

For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. "If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015," says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released report, "biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade."

In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply -- and posing enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet.

For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all planted genetically modified seed is for only four products -- soy, corn, cotton and canola -- with just two engineered traits. Most of the crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.

Most of the genetically modified crops in developing countries are soy, says Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and co-author of "Who Benefits from GM Crops," a report issued at the same time as ISAAA's release. These crops are exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed. They do absolutely nothing to supply food to the hungry.

As used in developing countries, biotech crops are shifting power away from small, poor farmers desperately trying to eke out livelihoods and maintain their land tenure.

Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but, concludes "Who Benefits from GM Crops," these biotech seeds "allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop." This requires expenditures beyond the means of small farmers -- but reduces labor costs, a major benefit for industrial farms.

ISAAA contends that Bt planting in India and China has substantially reduced insecticide spraying, which it advances as the primary benefit of biotech crops.

Bt crops may offer initial reductions in required spraying, says Freese, but Bt is only effective against some pests, meaning farmers may have to use pesticides to prevent other insects from eating their crops. Focusing on a district in Punjab, "Who Benefits from GM Crops" shows how secondary pest problems have offset whatever gains Bt crops might offer.

Freese also notes that evidence is starting to come in to support longstanding fears that genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops would give rise to Bt-resistant pests.

The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased anew every year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have blown onto their fields from neighboring farms. "That has nothing to do with feeding the hungry," or helping the poorest of the poor, says Hope Shand, research director for the ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent. It is, to say the least, not exactly a farmer-friendly approach.

Although the industry and its allies tout the benefits that biotech may yield someday for the poor, "we have yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better," says Shand. "Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or socially useful," although they have been useful for the profit-driven interests of Monsanto, she says.

Freese notes that the industry has been promising gains for the poor for a decade and a half -- but hasn't delivered. Products in the pipeline won't change that, he says, with the industry focused on introducing new herbicide resistant seeds.

The evidence on yields for the biotech crops is ambiguous, but there is good reason to believe yields have actually dropped. ISAAA's Clive James says that Bt crops in India and China have improved yields somewhat. "Who Benefits from GM Crops" carefully reviews this claim, and offers a convincing rebuttal. The report emphasizes the multiple factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt and Roundup-Ready seeds alike are not engineered to improve yield per se, just to protect against certain predators or for resistance to herbicide spraying.

Beyond the social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of small farmers, a range of serious ecological and sustainability problems with biotech crops is already emerging -- even though the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.

Strong evidence of pesticide resistance is rapidly accumulating, details "Who Benefits from GM Crops," meaning that farmers will have to spray more and more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide use is rising rapidly in biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest user of biotech seeds -- the United States, which has half of all biotech seed planting -- glyphosate-resistant weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to "Who Benefits from GM Crops," and use of other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely foreshadows what is to come for other countries more recently adopting biotech crops.

Seed diversity is dropping, as Monsanto and its allies aim to eliminate seed saving, and development of new crop varieties is slowing. Contamination from neighboring fields using genetically modified seeds can destroy farmers' ability to maintain biotech-free crops. Reliance on a narrow range of seed varieties makes the food system very vulnerable, especially because of the visible problems with the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.

For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech crops and food, one might imagine that there were huge, identifiable short-term benefits. But one would be wrong.

Instead, a narrowly based industry has managed to impose a risky technology with short-term negatives and potentially dramatic downsides.

But while it is true, as ISAAA happily reports, that biotech planting is rapidly growing, it remains heavily concentrated in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.

Europe and most of the developing world continue to resist Monsanto's seed imperialism. The industry and its allies decry this stand as a senseless response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a rational assessment of demonstrated costs and benefits -- and an appreciation for real but incalculable risks of toying with the very nature of nature.

USA: Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies

Article Manual, 18 March 2008. By Darrell Miller.

Arguments made by the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates plant produced pesticides, tell us not to worry about the thought of consuming toxic pesticides. Instead, they say that the pesticides used, Bt, are produced naturally from a soil bacterium which has a history of safe use by organic farmers who have used the solution for yeas as a method of insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces Bt and insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants, making the plant do the work, instead of the farmer. They also say that the Bt toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach, and even if it survived would not harm humans or any other mammals. However, these arguments are solely that, arguments, which are unsupported and refuted according to a lot of research.

When a study was done, spraying natural Bt over areas in Vancouver and Washington State for months, about 500 people reported reactions, mostly those being allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six of those people had to go to the emergency room, while workers who applied the Bt sprays reported that their eyes, nose, and throats were irritated. Similarly, farmers who were exposed to liquid Bt said that they had reactions such as infection, ulcers on the cornea, skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness. One woman even reported fever, altered consciousness, and seizures when she was accidentally sprayed with Bt. This proves that the statements of Bt doing no harm on humans is extremely false. As for being destroyed in the digestive system, studies on mice disproved this as well. Results of these, and other, studies showed that plant-produced Bt is always active and much more likely to trigger an immune response than the natural version.

Additional studies in 2005 reported by medical investigators in India found that hundreds of agricultural workers are developing severe allergic reactions when they are exposed to Bt cotton. This exposure includes picking cotton, loading it, cleaning it, or simply leaning against it. Some people that work at ginning factories must take antihistamines daily in order to go to work. These reactions are only trigger with the Bt varieties and the symptoms are virtually identical to those that were described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt.

Another study was done on the basis that Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in pollen which can be breathed in. Therefore, a village of Filipino people were studied in 2003 when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating. 100 of these people were stricken with disease which included symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever, and allergies, along with respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms first appeared in those that were living closest to the field and then progressed to those further away. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, the same symptoms returned in all four areas only during the time of pollination.

All of these studies confirm that GM crops engineered to produce built-in pesticides provoke a great variety of immune responses. Allergic reactions are a defensive and often harmful reaction from the immune system to an external irritant that occur when the body interprets something foreign as harmful and offensive and acts accordingly. Since all GM foods have something foreign and different, it is easy to see why the body would react in such ways.

As the GM foods arise on the market place make sure you scan each label to make sure you are not buying a GM vegetable of fruit. Check every label this way you will not be stricken with debilitating symptoms that may prevent you from going to work. Always say NO to GM foods and support your organic foods store.

More information on Genetic Modified Foods and Organic Foods is available at VitaNet ®, LLC Health Food Store: www.vitanetonline.com

UK: Cancer treatment: The chickens that lay golden eggs

The Telegraph, 18 March 2008.

With a few genetic alterations, hens could soon be 'pharmed' to produce cancer-fighting drugs. Roger Highfield reports

With Easter just days away, thoughts naturally turn to eggs of the chocolate kind. So here's a question: what's the most valuable egg in Britain? İ

The egg proteins are rich in expensive drugs that can fight cancer and other diseases

Forget about the elaborate creations of master chocolatiers. The genetically modified brown eggs produced by a flock of designer hens at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh are the biotechnological equivalent of a FabergÈ.

Several generations of Isa Brown hens - a prolific egg-laying French cross between Rhode Island Red and Rhode Island White - have been bred from "founder birds" that were genetically altered by Dr Helen Sang and her team to contain human genes.

Each gene provides the recipe for the production of a corresponding human protein. In the Roslin Institute hens the human protein is found only in their eggs, reducing the risk of harm to the hens themselves.

The egg proteins are rich in expensive drugs that can fight cancer and other diseases, with each egg containing enough medicine to treat a handful of patients each year.

With this technique, Dr Sang's team has created a potential anti-cancer antibody as well as the drug interferon, marking an important advance in "pharming" - the use of farm animals for the production of pharmaceuticals.

Existing methods for making protein drugs, such as the monoclonal antibodies used to treat cancer and arthritis, are expensive and time-consuming.

Producing protein drugs in the eggs or milk of farm animals is potentially cheaper, faster and more efficient, but researchers have, until now, had only limited success in making pharming workable.

Because GM hens can each lay 300 eggs annually and can make faithful copies of human proteins, they could, within a few years, offer the prospect of mass-producing drugs that currently cost £10,000 a year per patient, at a fraction of today's cost.

To harvest drugs from eggs, Dr Sang's team worked with Oxford Biomedica, a pharmaceutical company that specialises in gene therapy.

They used a virus called equine infectious anaemia lentivirus, which infects horses, to insert the human genes into chicken embryos in newly laid eggs, by creating a chimera - a blend of GM and normal cells.

Crucially, some of the sperm cells in the resulting chimeric cockerels carried the new gene for the human protein, and passed on the implanted gene to their daughters.

These hens also contain the human gene in every cell of their bodies. The team controls precisely where the gene is used for protein production in the birds, to ensure that the potent biotech drugs do not affect the birds themselves.

The gene is tagged on to part of the hen's gene for ovalbumin, the major protein in the white part of its eggs.

Because this gene is only used in egg white, the protein drug does not harm the birds.

An online experiment by the Telegraph last year showed how egg white shrugs off bacteria and fungi to protect the precious drugs. After 50 days in our office, a bowl of egg white dried out, with no signs of decay, because of antimicrobials present in the white.

The Roslin team has hatched several drugs this way: miR24, a monoclonal antibody with potential for treating malignant melanoma; the antiviral drug human interferon b-1a; and beta interferon, used to treat multiple sclerosis.

The institute is also about to publish research showing that it has around 20 birds that can make even higher levels of alpha interferon, about a gram per litre of egg white, to treat hepatitis C. Although there have also been attempts to make protein drugs in the milk of sheep, goats, cattle and rabbits, Dr Sang believes the conversion of hens' eggs into "bioreactors" offers many advantages.

The chickens lay eggs after six months and are much cheaper to look after. A 5,000-strong flock could lay eggs containing up to 100 kilograms of human proteins annually.

Despite its huge potential, the project had a setback last November when Viragen Scotland, the company that bought the rights to commercialise the technology, closed following the insolvency of its parent company, Viragen Inc.

However, the team is pressing on with its plan to use chickens to make drugs.

The Roslin team is also working with Cambridge University to create a GM "superchicken" that is resistant to the avian flu virus.

To interfere with the multiplication of the virus, including the lethal H5N1 strain, one piece of implanted DNA would allow the chicken to manufacture an antiviral protein and short versions of another genetic material, RNA, to block key viral genes.

It is an exciting development for pharming, an industry that Britain helped to pioneer by inserting human genes into animals such as sheep so that they could be turned into living drug factories. Tracy, a Scottish Blackface born at the Roslin Institute in 1990, was probably the most famous sheep in the world until the birth there of Dolly the cloned sheep.

Tracy's milk was rich in the human protein AAT, used to treat cystic fibrosis and emphysema. But, despite the support of Sir Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly, the manufacture failed to materialise as quickly as expected.

The first medicine produced from genetically modified animals (goats, in this case) was developed by GTC Biotherapeutics, an American company.

GTC purifies a protein with anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory properties, which is secreted into the milk of 240 GM goats - a potentially safer alternative to proteins extracted from human blood products.

Australia: GM grain test stopped, Government blamed

TheWest.com.au, 18 March 2008. By Jodie Thomson.

WA's first broadacre trial of genetically modified canola has been abandoned, with project proponents blaming the State Government's hardline stance against commercial use of the technology for its failure. İİ

The South-East Premium Wheat Growers Association and research provider Kalyx Agriculture announced the 2.5ha trial of Roundup Ready canola, which had been given approval to go ahead this year at an Esperance research station, would not proceed after they were unable to get access to seed for the trial.

Read the article: http://greatsouthern.thewest.com.au/regionals.aspx?MenuID=329&ContentID=63439

17 March 2008

Portugal: The Madeira Islands have been declared as GM-free

17 March 2008, posted by Margarida Silca, Quercus, Portugal

The Madeira islands have been officially declared GM-free. It is a first in Portugal that an autonomous region comes out against GMOs with such strong worded language: all GM cultivation is absolutely forbidden. The Madeira government has been investing in organic farming and obviously doesn't want to see the effort go to waste.

EU: Nanoparticles already on EU shelves warn green groups

EU Observer, 17 March 2008. By Leigh Phillips.

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Environmental groups are warning that advances in the science of nanotechnology are racing ahead of public policy with neither consumers, regulators nor scientists fully aware of the toxicity of so-called nanoparticles.

They are further calling on the European Union to introduce mandatory labelling on all products that contain them and develop strict safety laws on the basis of health and environmental risk assessment.

A new report from Friends of the Earth groups in Brussels, Germany, the US and Australia has identified at least 104 food and agricultural products containing manufactured nanomaterials, or produced using nanotechnology, which are already on sale in the European Union, and warns that consumers are unknowingly ingesting them, despite concerns about the toxicity risks of nanomaterials.

Helen Holder, coordinator of the Food and Farming campaign at Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Europeans should not be exposed to potentially toxic materials in their food and food packaging until proper regulations are in place to ensure their safety."

"In the absence of proper safety regulations or mandatory labelling, consumers are being left in the dark about the products they are consuming and are unknowingly putting their health and the environment at risk," she added.

The report, Out of the laboratory and on to our plates, which comes out a few weeks in advance of an expected European Commission proposal on the regulation of nanotechnology, argues that the current regulations are insufficient and that a more precautionary approach is required.

Although not opposed to nanotechnology in principle, the groups are calling on European policy-makers to adopt precautionary legislation to manage potential risks caused by the use of the new materials.

Currently in Europe, there is as yet no nantechnology-specific regulation or safety testing required before nanomaterials can be used in food, packaging or agriculture. However, a forthcoming communication from the commission will offer a review of European legislation in relation to nanotechnologies.

Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter at a scale of 100 nanometres or smaller ‚ the levels of atoms and molecules, is already used in the manufacture of products such as nutritional supplements, cling wrap and containers, antibacterial kitchenware, processed meats, chocolate drinks, baby food and chemicals used in agriculture.

Nanotechnology engineers say that a new era of food free of the negative effects of fatty or sugary foods is upon us, enthusing that future generations of humanity will be able to eat any kind of food no matter how rich or salty or high in cholesterol, thanks to the new science of the very small.

In response to the report, the commission said that it is striving to increase the awareness to food business operators of their legal obligations, in regards to nanotechnologies. However, the commission does feel that new legislation is necessary.

"The existing regulatory framework is already adequate to cover potential risks of nanotechnology based products," said Nina Papadoulaki, the spokesperson for health commissioner Androula Vassiliou. Instead, "the European Commission is focusing its efforts on the effective implementation of existing legislation [such as] risk assessment, data and test requirements, and specific guidance."

The commission has also requested a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority on the risk arising from nanoscience and nanotechnologies on food and feed safety.

In 2004, the UK's Royal Society ‚ the UK's academy of sciences ‚ issued a report commissioned by the British government on the subject recommending that while nanotechnology may offer many benefits both now and in the future, there was an immediate need for research to address uncertainties about the health and environmental effects of nanoparticles. It also recommended the introduction of regulation to control exposure to nanoparticles.

A spokesperson for the Royal Society said: "A chemical in its nano form can have different properties to the same chemical in its larger form. It's these properties that make nanomaterials so exciting and are what manufacturers are exploiting for their products.

"However, to ensure that we properly protect people from any negative effects, it is crucial that all relevant regulatory bodies keep existing regulations under review. This is particularly important as there are already many products containing nanomaterials on the shelves, and many more expected in the future."

Africa: Benin renews moratorium on GMOs

Panapress, 17 March 2008.

Cotonou, Benin - Benin has decided to renew for period of five years, the moratorium on the import, marketing and use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and GMO by-products on its territory, official sources told the PANA here Monday.

The renewal of the moratorium, introduced in 2002, was based on the lack of a legal, technical and scientific framework on the threat of transgenic products from some member states of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) invading the sub-regional market.

In keeping with the precautionary principle, Benin adopted on 2 March 2002, a five-year moratorium on the import, marketing and use of GMOs or GMO by-products on its territory.

There is no act of law in Benin governing the sector and the country lacks scientific skills and equipment for the detection, monitoring and control of GMOs.

Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible for Protection
New evidence may pull the plug on GMOs.

UN Observer, 17 March 2008. By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.

Transgenes unstable in more ways than one

Transgene instability has been known at least since 1994 [1] (reviewed in Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, p.140), though it is seldom, if ever, reported in the popular media. Transgenes (the synthetic foreign genes transferred into the genetically modified organism (GMO)) can become silent or inactive during growth and development of the GMO, or in its progeny. This has been attributed to defence mechanisms that silence genome invaders such as viruses. But transgenes can also stop working on account of structural factors intrinsic to the transgenic DNA inserted into the genome of the GMO [2] (reviewed in Living with the Fluid Genome, pp. 128-135). Transgenic DNA has been artificially constructed by stitching together synthetic copies of DNA from different sources, and often contain additional weak points that tend to break and rejoin (recombination hotspots). The most widely used cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter is associated with such a recombination hotspot [3], as we have warned [4-6]. Transgenic constructs are also designed with ends that can break into genomes such as the repeated sequences of viral vectors, and the left and right borders of the T-DNA of Agrobacterium, widely used as a vector. These ends too, are recombination sequences, and facilitate movement of the transgenic DNA within as well as between genomes. For more details see [7] (Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 38)

Transgene instability makes transgenic varieties illegal and ineligible for patent protection

MORE http://www.i-sis.org.uk/transgenicLinesUnstable2.php

Switzerland: Protesters resist genetic crops
Hundreds in Vaud and Zurich protest against open air experiments involving the cultivation of genetically modified wheat.

Tribune de Genève, 17 March 2008.

Plans to grow genetically modified wheat for research purposes in Vaud and Zurich sparked demonstrations that drew hundreds of protestors over the weekend. About 320 participants in Crissier, near Lausanne, rallied Sunday against the planned introduction of genetically modified crops under research programs.The programs, overseen by scientists at the University of Zurich and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has been approved by the federal government.

In Crissier, the Greenpeace environmental group organized a "Sow the future!" protest. Participants were given organic wheat to throw on a field in the rural community. The group believes that OGM is potentially harmful and that crops can be grown without using harmful chemicals. Researchers have won approval to plant and study genetically modified wheat in a small field in Pully. A similar action attracted 450 people Saturday in Zurich, where tests are also planned.

Swiss voters in 2005 backed an initiative calling for a five-year ban on genetically modified organisms (GMO) in Swiss farm production, although an exception was made for research. As a result Switzerland has tougher legislation on GMOs than in the European Union, where a six-year moratorium on genetically modified food ended in May 2004. Individual countries in the EU, such as Germany and France, have maintained GMO restrictions.

On the trail of rogue genetically modified pathogens

eurekalert.org / Biomed Cental, 17 March 2008.

Bacteria can be used to engineer genetic modifications, thereby providing scientists with a tool to combat many challenges in areas from food production to drug discovery. However, this sophisticated technology can also be used maliciously, raising the threat of engineered pathogens. New research published in the online open access journal Genome Biology shows that computational tools could become a vital resource for detecting rogue genetically engineered bacteria in environmental samples.

Jonathan Allen, Shea Gardner and Tom Slezak of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, US, designed new computational tools that identify a set of DNA markers that can distinguish between artificial vector sequences and natural DNA sequences. Natural plasmids and artificial vector sequences have much in common, but these new tools show the potential to achieve high sensitivity and specificity, even when detecting previously unsequenced vectors in microarray-based bioassays.

A new computational genomics tool was developed to compare all available sequenced artificial vectors with available natural sequences, including plasmids and chromosomes, from bacteria and viruses. The tool clusters the artificial vector sequences into different subgroups based on shared sequence; these shared sequences were then compared with the natural plasmid and chromosomal sequence information so as to find regions that are unique to the artificial vectors. Nearly all the artificial vector sequences had one or more unique regions. Short stretches of these unique regions are termed Îcandidate DNA signaturesÌ and can be used as probes for detecting an artificial vector sequence in the presence of natural sequences using a microarray. Further tests showed that subgroups of candidate DNA signatures are far more likely to match unseen artificial than natural sequences.

The authors say that the next step is to see whether a bioassay design using DNA signatures on microarrays can spot genetically modified DNA in a sample containing a mixture of natural and modified bacteria. The scientific community will need to cooperate with computational experts to sequence and track available vector sequences if DNA signatures are to be used successfully to support detection and deterrence against malicious genetic engineering applications. Scientists would be able to maintain an expanding database of DNA signatures to track all sequenced vectors. "As with any attempt to counter malicious use of technology, detecting genetic engineering in microbes will be an immense challenge that requires many different tools and continual effort," says Allen.

Contact:

Charlotte Webber
charlotte.webber@biomedcentral.com
44-020-763-19980
BioMed Central

Notes to Editors

1. DNA signatures for detecting genetic engineering in bacteria
Jonathan E Allen, Shea N Gardner and Tom R Slezak
Genome Biology (in press)

During embargo, article available here:
http://genomebiology.com/imedia/1534720787156665_article.pdf?random=277103
After the embargo, article available at the journal website: http://genomebiology.com/

Please name the journal in any story you write. If you are writing for the web, please link to the article. All articles are available free of charge, according to BioMed CentralÌs open access policy.

Article citation and URL available on request at press@biomedcentral.com on the day of publication

2. Genome Biology publishes articles from the full spectrum of biology. Subjects covered include any aspect of molecular, cellular, organismal or population biology studied from a genomic perspective, as well as genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, genomic methods (including structure prediction), computational biology, sequence analysis (including large-scale and cross-genome analyses), comparative biology and evolution. Genome Biology has an impact factor of 7.12.

3. BioMed Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com/) is an independent online publishing house committed to providing immediate access without charge to the peer-reviewed biological and medical research it publishes. This commitment is based on the view that open access to research is essential to the rapid and efficient communication of science.

German parliament rejects proposal to ban MON810

Food and Water Watch, 17 March 2008.

The German Bundestag (Parliament) has rejected a proposal submitted by the Greens to ban the import of GM maize MON810 and the selling of seeds. The Coaliton and the FDP voted against the proposal. For further info in German, including the Greens' proposal and the parliamentary debate:

http://www.transgen.de/aktuell/906.doku.html
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/078/1607835.pdf
http://db.zs-intern.de/uploads/1205503809-08_03_14_MON810_protokoll.pdf

Quatar: Trusting others' expertise on GM foods 'dangerous'

Gulf Times (Quatar), 17 March 2008. By Arvind Nair.

A GERMAN academic, who has been waging a war against genetically modified (GM) foods, yesterday urged the public not to use them.

Talking to Gulf Times, Benedikt Haerlin, of the Berlin-based Foundation on Future Farming, said such genetically engineered organisms carried health risks which were hitherto unknown to humans.

Not enough studies had been conducted on the effects on using GM organisms directly or indirectly. The consequences might show up may be after an entire generation, he said.

Quoting the so-called Murphy's theory, he said, what could go wrong would go wrong. It was only a matter of when.

Haerlin, who was in Qatar to speak at a workshop on "GMOs and bio-safety", organised by the Supreme Council for Environment and Natural Reserves (SCENR), said, "It is important for people to know what is important and what is not needed and be able to detect them."

The official said all the countries, including Qatar should have the capability to test and control GMOs. Setting up own laboratories was only a technical matter and people could be trained to work there, he said.

Depending on the expertise of other countries could even pose a national security threat to country, he cautioned.

His foundation supports pioneering, ecologically and socially sustainable agricultural projects. It is also active in the public debate, with the goal of promoting and developing the role of organic farming as the model for future agricultural policies.

Its aim is to develop a lively and forward-looking economy and culture in which cities and the countryside have a stimulating effect on each other.

Talking at the workshop, Haerlin said GMO had only been discovered 35 years ago and industrial investment started just 20 years ago. The first release of GMOs was done 15 years ago. So far only two types of GMOs were commercially available - Roundup, a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide produced by the US company Monsanto, and Bacillus thuringiensis, an insecticide with properties that make it useful for pest control in certain situations.

These were mostly used in farming soybeans and maize, mainly in the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina. Using these had led to several adverse effects, including increased use of pesticides.

No study had been conducted on human beings about the consequences of consuming these foods directly or indirectly, Haerlin said.

Genetic engineering meant interfering with the evolutionary process of 3bn years. This could definitely have an effect on human beings, he asserted. No risk assessment had been done.

However, there had been some lethal effects of genetic engineering. In 1989-90, an over-the-counter drug produced in Japan had led to the death of 37 people while 3,000 were injured.

Another experiment conducted in Brazil wherein genetically modified potato was fed to rats which developed kidney and liver problems.

Not many cases of adverse effects of genetic intervention were known because companies did not publish their results, Haerlin said.

Use of Roundup and BT had a number of environmental and social consequences too, he said.

The official strongly urged Qatar to have a legislation regulating the use of GMOs, akin to what the European Union had. He suggested prohibiting everything that was not approved.

The consumer should have the right to know and to choose. All the food articles must be clearly labelled to indicate whether they contained any GMOs.

In countries, where the food articles were labelled, all GM foods totally vanished from the shop shelves, he said. This clearly showed that people did not like to use them, he pointed out.

Director of the Department of Wildlife, Ghanem Abdullah said in the GCC, Saudi Arabia was the only country where GMO labelling was compulsory. Now that the Common Gulf Market was becoming a reality, it would be a good opportunity for all the countries to discuss the issue and have a common policy, he said.

Agricultural Apocalypse

Associated Content, 17 March 2008. By Frank Viola.

From what is known, human beings are the only species on this planet that consume another animal's milk. This is a small fact and probably one of the reasons why we will eventually face extinction. We fight nature in every way possible and assume we will get away with it, but instead; overpopulation, starvation and many of the cancers we see today are a direct result of humans trying to be the superior creature. We tinker with our food supply using chemicals that we don't understand, trying to make more food and not realizing we are only making the problem worse. Overpopulation will increase because of the abundant food supply thus affecting every aspect of our planet.

In the United States of America exists a large corporation called The Monsanto Company. Most Americans probably don't realize it but this organization affects every one of our lives. Anything we put in our mouth and call food, they are probably responsible for it being there. They are the largest manufacturer of genetically modified seed and also the inventors of that great tasting chemical known as Roundup. Some other timeless products they've brought us are Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, and they even had a hand in the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. Unless one is a farmer they would not even know that this company exists. In the farming community Monsanto is like God, they control profits and rule with an iron fist. One of the main reasons they have such control over the industry is the seed technology known as "Terminator". This is basically a seed that produces an extremely high yield crop but also produces sterile offspring. Therefore, farmers are forced to buy new seed every year from none other than Monsanto. This results in a cycle of profits for them and new expenses for the farmers. Is it possible to create a seed with such high yields and not have it sterile? Of course it is, but there's no money in that.

What has really drawn a lot of attention to Monsanto is the use of BGH, or Bovine Growth Hormone. This is a hormone that is injected into the udders of cows to make them create more milk. Sometimes these animals become so engorged with milk that they are not even able to walk or function. Their udders become the size of large watermelons and become infected and this infection is passed on to the milk they are producing. Of course the answer to this dilemma by Monsanto was to give the cows antibiotics, and surprisingly enough they just so happened to make this, so the farmers would also have to buy this, adding more costs to their wallet. The only reason we are able to drink the finished product is because of the rigorous pasteurization it goes through. If not for pasteurization we would be drinking glasses of blood and pus with our cookies.

UK: Survey shows attitudes towards GM crops are softening

Farmers Guardian, 17 March 2008.

CONSUMER attitudes towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are gradually softening, according to a new EU-wide survey.

The European Commission has published a new Eurobarometer survey about the attitudes of European citizens towards the environment, including GMOs. The results showed:

•

20 per cent of Europeans are worried about GMOs, compared with 24 per cent in 2004

•

80 per cent are not concerned about the use of GMOs in farming.

•

26 per cent consider there is a lack of information relating to use of GMOs in farming, down from 40 per cent in 2004.

GMOs are classified as an 'issue of great lack of information and medium level of concern'. Respondents were also asked to rank the main environmental issues they are most worried about:

•

Climate change was ranked first, up from 47 per cent in 2004 to 57 per cent.

•

Water pollution was second, down from 47 per cent to 42 per cent.

•

Air pollution was third, down to 40 per cent from 45 per cent.

Commenting on the survey, Dr Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (abc) said the industry was 'pleased to see that concern about the use of GMOs in farming has reduced'.

"It is important to continue to ensure that people have access to appropriate information about GM but these relatively low levels of concern demonstrate that hysteria around the use of GM in farming is misguided.

"Interestingly, the report suggests that at least part of the concern regarding GM can be correlated with a perceived lack of information. abc is committed to improving the communication of the use of this technology in the UK."

UK: Expensive tastes: Rising costs force food up the political agenda

Financial Times, 17 March 2008. By Javier Blas and Jenny Wiggins.

John Beddington, Britain's chief scientific adviser, had been in his job for just two months when he outlined an unnerving scenario for his new employers. The world, he argued earlier this month, faced an enormous problem ‚ one on a par with climate change ‚ that policymakers were nonetheless ignoring: food security.

As prices for agricultural commodities, from wheat to milk, have surged globally with unprecedented speed, social unrest and hunger have emerged in different parts of the world, challenging rich and poor countries alike and forcing governments to consider a variety of measures to bring prices down. Long subject only to the disciplines of the market, producers now increasingly find themselves contending with higher import tariffs, export bans and price freezes.

Rising food costs have also called into question government support for biofuels projects that divert needed arable land from food production, while putting pressure on many sceptical governments to review their opposition to genetically modified crops, which increase yields and drive down food prices. "This is a key political issue that is about every country," says Lennart BÂge, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the United Nations organisation set up to finance agricultural development projects.

While Mr BÂge says that a common view on the solution has yet to emerge, many governments agree that support for biofuels and opposition to GM crops must be tempered by the reality that food prices have reached crisis levels. He points to a consensus that investment in agronomics, largely forgotten in the past two decades, would need to rise if the world wants to see a repetition of the "green revolution" of the 1960s, when crop yields jumped thanks to the spread of irrigation, fertiliser and better seeds, depressing prices and freeing millions from hunger.

The danger, experts argue, is that many policymakers have a short-term view of the crisis and are pursuing short-term solutions that could prove harmful in the long run. In spite of dramatic warnings from institutions such as the World Food Programme ‚ which is running out of money to feed the world's poorest ‚ many governments, particularly those facing elections, have so far merely attempted to buy time.

Food-importing countries such as Russia and China have imposed retail price freezes on staples including milk, bread and eggs. Meanwhile, France and Australia have launched national inquiries into rising food prices, pressuring their largest supermarkets and food producers into absorbing cost jumps. Exporters of food such as Argentina and Kazakhstan are also taking action, imposing onerous foreign sales taxes or outright export bans to keep their local markets well supplied.

The worry is that measures such as banning exports could eventually do more harm than good, because by depressing prices artificially they make agriculture investments less profitable and thus lower future production. Investors in new farms, for example, may be losing confidence as a result of the increasingly unpredictable politics, says Gilles Mettetal, director of agribusiness at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Most governments now agree that the astounding surge in food prices last year ‚ the cost of food rose almost 40 per cent globally, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation, and has continued to rise this year ‚ is structural, meaning that prices will not retreat to former levels. This is because newly wealthy consumers in countries such as China and India, who can increasingly afford to improve their diets, as well as the biofuels industry, are expected to maintain a rapacious demand for basic food commodities such as wheat, corn and soyabeans.

Joachim von Braun, director-general of the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute, says the current food price crisis is already more severe than that of the early 1970s, when prices rose on the back of an oil shock and poor global harvests. "[The crisis] will be worse and more long-lasting than [in] 1974," Mr von Braun says.

Jacques Diouf, director-general at the FAO in Rome, has taken a leading role in raising awareness among governments that a long-term solution is needed, warning that without action the world will witness social unrest and a rise in global hunger.

The FAO hopes to encourage a co-ordinated policy response in the second half of the year, at least as regards the impact of biofuels and climate change. It has convened a high-level conference in Rome in June, which would bring together policymakers in the area. "Agriculture is back into the political agenda," says Alexander Mueller, assistant director-general at the FAO in Rome. "We want to take the triangle of food security, biofuel and climate together because they are closely linked," he says.

Ahead of the meeting, there are signs that a new consensus among policymakers is beginning to emerge. Mr BÂge says, for example: "There is a much more sceptical [view] about biofuels than six months or a year ago." He adds that, even if GM crops still face opposition, "there is a growing realisation that we need to use science in agriculture."

While the debate about GM is just starting, with proponents of the technology timid in the face of strong public opposition, the political backlash against biofuels is gaining momentum, particularly in Europe. Mr Båge says: "There is a gradual realisation that [biofuels] are not the panacea previously thought."

Even in Washington ‚ until now a strong backer of using biofuels such as ethanol to cut its dependence on Middle East imported crude oil ‚ there is a growing recognition of the problem. After corn prices last month reached an all-time high above $5.70 a bushel, President George W. Bush said: "If you look what is happening in corn, you're beginning to see the food issue and the energy issue collide."

Although Mr Bush stopped well short of a policy U-turn, analysts say his comments suggest Washington is close to cutting the 51-cents tax credits for domestic ethanol or lowering the 54-cents tariff against Brazilian ethanol. Both moves could slow the rapid expansion of the US biofuel industry.

Mr Bush's comments came after the US Department of Agriculture warned that the ethanol industry would this year consume almost a third of the country's corn crop, up from 25 per cent in 2007. Joseph Glauber, chief economist at the USDA, has warned that "unprecedented expansion" of the biofuels industry would keep the agricultural market tight: "Prices will remain high for the next two to three years."

Policymakers said the backlash would not put an end to the biofuel industry but could slow its expansion in the US and Europe, while concentrating production in developing countries such as Brazil, where it is more efficient. In Germany, for example, biodiesel production is already down after the government started raising taxes on the sector in late 2006 and imposed a second round of higher taxes last January.

Economists and food industry executives also believe governments will have to temper some of their suspicion of GM crops if they want to keep food prices low. Using GM crops to make food has traditionally been viewed with suspicion by consumers in most western European and some Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea.

Hardi Vieira, a development economist at the Amsterdam-based Common Fund for Commodities, a branch of the United Nations, says GM crops could be a solution to the shortages of agricultural raw materials created by rising global demand for food. "Governments have to respond [to rising food prices] by allowing the import and production of GM crops."

Last year, 23 countries planted biotechnology crops, including 12 developing countries, while global plantings rose 12 per cent from the 2006 level to hit 114.3m hectares. That is a 10-fold increase in the past decade. The US has been planting GM varieties of corn and soyabeans for the past decade, and these have raised crop yields by 15 per cent.

Meanwhile, countries that long resisted GM crops are accepting them. Last month, a group of leading South Korean food companies agreed to import GM corn for use in food products for the first time, breaking a social taboo in the Asian country.

Marie-Christine Ribera, senior policy adviser with Cogeca, the European farmers' group, says farmers in the European Union want to be "on the same playing field" as farmers elsewhere and have the freedom to choose whether they plant GM or not. "We are highly dependent on imports for feeding our animals ... the immediate and urgent problem is how to make sure we can secure the availability of foodstuffs."

Iain Ferguson, chief executive of Tate & Lyle, the sugar and corn refiner, and the president of Britain's Food and Drink Federation, an industry group, says European consumers are likely to suffer financially if they continue to shun GM crops. "An individual market that seeks to isolate itself from the world market is likely to end up paying more ... The advantage [of GM crops] may turn out to be one of lower prices and better availability."

Governments, particularly in the developing world, are also coming under pressure to invest more money in agriculture to ease their reliance on food imports. Donald Mitchell, an economist at the World Bank, says rising food prices reinforce the desire of countries to secure their own domestic supplies. "If you are a country that relies on large food imports, then low world stocks and the increasingly frequent use of export bans would be a concern."

Peter Kendall, the president of Britain's National Farmers' Union, told the group's annual conference last month that he could think of "no greater challenge" than finding ways for the world to feed itself, and that global food production would need to double or treble over the next 40 years to meet global needs. He called on the British government to create "a new vision for agriculture" as a high-tech, science-based industry.

Whether that "new vision for agriculture" will provide policymakers with the wherewithal to face up to this problem is unclear, but analysts and industry executives agree that it could be the start of a political solution to the rise in food prices.

16 March 2008

The Power to Feed the World?
A Tale of Sustainable Development, BioEngineering, and Citizen Activism

Afroarticles.com, 16 March 2008.

Even set against the standards established by today's behemoths of international trade and commerce, The Monsanto Company is a veritable giant. Since its founding in 1901, Monsanto has advanced through various embodiments, most often as a producer and purveyor of chemicals. Its many mergers and acquisitions have often dramatically altered the scope of its operations, and as the twentieth century came to a close Monsanto began a transition of its principal role from that of a chemicals company into a formidable biotechnologies operation where she remains today. Following this transformation Monsanto has sought to portray itself as a soldier of the sustainability cause; on its homepage a brief description asserts that "We apply innovation... while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment." Monsanto maintains 17,500 employees around the globe, and recorded revenues of US$7.344 billion in 2006. And yet all is not well in the corridors at Monsanto headquarters in Saint Louis.

Monsanto continues to carry the baggage of some dubious legacies which predate its biotechnologies reincarnation. Amongst them is the Texas City Disaster, a 1947 explosion during loading of its fertilizers at Galveston Bay which is considered the largest industrial accident in American history. In the years of the Vietnam War Monsanto supplied the defoliant Agent Orange to the United States Armed Forces for use in its herbicidal warfare program. In a 2002 report Monsanto was identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being a "potentially responsible party" to the contamination of 56 industrial sites. Its popular "Roundup" glyphosate herbicides are cited in a number of studies as causes of cancer (though a number of countervailing studies refute these claims). Monsanto has been accused or implicated in a litany of cases of adverse health effects on both employees at its plants and users of its products. And Monsanto's enthusiastic use and promotion of genetically modified seeds has provoked the ire of many in Europe and beyond, where a deep public mistrust of these organisms remains widespread.

Enter Marie-Monique Robin. The veteran French investigative journalist has never earned a reputation as a scourge of corporate interests in the spirit of such crusaders as Ralph Nader; her interests and works in the past have been mostly political in nature. She was widely recognized for a book and accompanying documentary film which exposed the role of French secret services in endearing certain unsavory techniques to their Argentine and Chilean counterparts during South America's troubled 1970s and 1980s. But with a new book and documentary film entitled Le monde selon Monsanto (The World according to Monsanto), she has executed a full frontal assault on Monsanto itself, and the corporate world may never be the same again.

I have neither read the book nor viewed the documentary, but to judge from reviews and from the author's own comments in interviews it seems that her premise is as follows. Following her extensive three-year investigation which exposes the depth of Monsanto's vices past and present, Robin feels that we must ask the question: "Can we believe [Monsanto] when they tell us that biotechnologies are going to solve the problems of hunger and environmental contamination?" (My own translation from the French) (source: Arte TV) In essence Robin questions the ethic, given the ignominy of its past, of allowing Monsanto to feed the world today.

The overwhelming evidence shows that Monsanto is indeed guilty of grave misconduct on many counts. Robin's work is a product of an age in which we now expect our corporations to behave as responsible members of society, and its form and tone give teeth to this approach. Not only are these expectations legitimate and real, but the citizenry is willing to act, and act decisively, to ensure corporate compliance. The forceful way in which Robin transmits this message is welcomed, and Monsanto (and indeed any and all corporations that have committed environmental and other transgressions) is to make reparations accordingly.

However I would make the point that it is important in this particular case to divorce the instances of Monsanto's wrongdoing from the bio-engineering industry wholesale. I am not delusional and I acknowledge that it is the profit motive and not a spontaneous and overwhelming altruism which guides firms such as Monsanto. However if the entire system is properly monitored, there are many poster illustrations of how the interests of global capitalism and the underprivileged need not be mutually exclusive. It is a fact that high-yield seeds and other varieties, readily proffered by Monsanto and others, have allowed for intensifications of agricultural cultivation. This is of particular importance in densely populated poor rural regions where the land available for agriculture would otherwise simply not be sufficient to carry the population. The consequent reductions of malnutrition have saved many lives and have improved countless others. A New York Times article dated October 2007 gives a a sense of the enormous transformative potential at hand if only a comprehensive implementation can be achieved. In this article, Celia W. Dugger shows that seed programs in Africa have fallen short not owing to deficiencies of the seeds themselves, but rather to inadequate farm economy infrastructure and local know-how. She highlights the pockets of success, and makes reference to India's "Green Revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s that enabled the feeding of hundreds of millions of people. India's success, she says, is attributable to the stronger farm-economy foundation with which it was endowed.

These truths serve as a telling example of the dangers that are inherent if we allow cases of corporate negligence and neglect to necessarily sink the entire ship. We can and must showcase specific outrages and demand redress, but it would be a mistake to paint an entire industry with the toxic brush. As with pharmaceuticals, the bio-engineering industry must be allowed and encouraged to continue its work with aid and input from philanthropic and other organizations, and under the oversight of national and international bodies of governance.

We must demand accountability where accountability is often refused. But in the spirit of equity, we must also give credit where credit is well due.

15 March 2008

Australia: Petition aims to override GM legislation

AAP, 15 March 2008.

Australia's public health body has backed a petition calling on the federal government to put an urgent stop to the farming of genetically modified crops.

NSW Primary Industries Minister Ian MacDonald has granted approval for genetically modified (GM) canola crops to be commercially grown in the state.

The Victorian government also has decided not to extend a moratorium on growing GM canola that expired last month.

The Public Health Association of Australia has joined a 700-strong petition calling on the federal government to override state legislation.

The petition calls for a review of the safety of GM food and emphasises Labor's election promise to only approve GM crops if safety is assured.

Adelaide businessman Peter Fenwik, who organised the petition and accompanying letter, is hoping it will lead to action before GM crops are sowed.

"The letter offers to facilitate a meeting with 20 distinguished international experts, mostly scientists, who can comprehensively advise ministers on the risks of genetic engineering, GM crops and GM foods," Mr Fenwick said in a statement.

Mr Fenwick said the safety of GM crops and food had not been established beyond reasonable doubt and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should take note.

"There is significant scientific evidence for health risks from GM foods and the matter requires Mr Rudd's urgent attention if he is to fulfil his undertaking to the Australian people," Mr Fenwick said. The letter says the previous Howard government had set up a bias regulatory regime for GM products.

"The Labour government has inherited this system and must put a stop to it immediately," Mr Fenwick said.

14 March 2008

USA: Superweeds on the march

GRIST, 14 March 2008. By Tom Philpott.

In Arkansas, state ag officials turn to Syngenta to solve problems caused by Monsanto

In the late 1990s, farmers in the Southeast began planting Roundup Ready cotton -- genetically engineered by Monsanto to withstand heavy doses of Roundup, the seed giant's own blockbuster herbicide. As a result, use of Roundup exploded -- and the farmers enjoyed "clean" (i.e., weedless) fields of monocropped cotton. But after a point, something funny happened -- certain weeds began to survive the Roundup dousings.

These "superweeds" had somehow gained Roundup resistance themselves, much to the vexation of the farmers. Things have gotten so grim that the Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service called in a scientist from the U.K. to study the matter, according to Delta Farm Press. He brought grave tidings: "We may expect the current weed resistance problems could be the tip of the iceberg," he declared.

The problem stems from planting the same crops year after year in the same field, and dousing those fields several times each year with the same herbicide. As Delta Farm Press reports:

In the state -- and across much of the South -- most of the cotton is monoculture with producers growing cotton in the same fields year after year.

Maddeningly, rather than helping farmers diversify fields and move to more creative weed-control strategy, the Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service is teaming up with one of Monsanto's rivals, Syngenta, to push farmers to add the latter company's herbicide, Reflex, to their arsenal. They raise the possibility that by bombing their fields with Reflex before planting their cotton, farmers have a chance to avert a possible "explosion" of superweeds this summer.

Chillingly, the U.K. scientist seemed to suggest that such broad-spectrum herbicides might need to be applied year-round to avoid a resistance outbreak -- even when fields are resting between plantings: "We need almost a season-long program of controlling [superweeds]. Any gap in the season could increase the likelihood of resistance evolution."

Brilliant. Rather than diversify crops, we get a push to diversify agrichemicals -- and increase their application rates. Maybe the Arkansas Agriculture Extension Service should consider consulting "experts" besides those associated with agribusiness giants?

Comment:

Weed resistance sounds like a win-win for Monsanto. You have to admire how big agribusiness manages to turn environmental degradation into profit. The only thing it misses is how good this is for Syngenta too.

EU: The 'war' on biofuels comes to Brussels

EU Observer, 14 March 2008. By Leigh Phillips.

BRUSSELS ‚ EU leaders have just agreed to try and get legislation on the bloc's ambitious green targets approved by early next year but criticism about the role of biofuels as part of the pollution-reducing measures has been growing.

The increasing debate about whether EU support for the production of biofuels ‚ it wants them to account for 10 percent of fuel for transport by 2020 - would actually contribute to environmental damage as well as pushing up world food prices is being conducted globally.

What was once seen as the saviour of the world's energy needs and a replacement for climate-destructive fossil fuels, biofuels ‚ fuels developed from plant sources rather than oil - have in the last few months come under open assault from environmental groups, the United Nations, development NGOS, human rights groups and even third-world peasant organisations.

The United Nations World Food Programme and development NGOs worry that the act of combining markets for fuel and for food will cause ‚ or is already causing ‚ the prices of staple food items to skyrocket, opening up a new era of world hunger.

Last week, the head of the UN's World Food Programme, Josette Sheeran, said that high oil prices, low food stocks and the push for biofuels was creating a "perfect storm" that will cause "new hunger" around the world and called on the EU to "give more thought to its biofuels policy and targets."

Critics warn that this creates additional anticipated demand atop the already substantial existing demand for biofuels, pushing up the price of crops grown for both food and fuel such as corn and soy and encouraging deforestation and the ripping up of peat bogs as agribusinesses seek more land to grow such plants.

On Thursday (6 March), the UK government's chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, warned that the rush towards biofuels is threatening world food production and the lives of billions around the planet.

Meanwhile, peasant organisations such as Movimiento Sim Terra, the Brazilian landless workers' movement complain that the profits from biofuels are accruing to large landowners rather than small-scale farmers.

Human rights groups in Indonesia recently warned that the ripping up of rainforest and peat bogs in the country is not only massively expanding the country's greenhouse gas emissions, but also leading to human rights abuses.

'Why no sustainable criteria for oil?'

Brazil, one of the biggest producers of the controversial fuels in the world, is mounting a public relations offensive in Brussels in defense of their sugar-cane based bioethanol, concerned that Europe is getting cold feet over it biofuel target.

"There are huge, immense resources being put into the war against biofuels by those who are producing other kinds of fuels," Brazilian ambassador to the European Communities Maria Celina de Azevedo Rodrigues told EUobserver.

"All the studies and research are being financed by these people who don't want change because they have a lot to lose."

"Why is the EU getting cold feet?" asked the ambassador. "Because the opposition is better organised."

Brazil is particularly worried about what euro-deputies may do to the pending legislation.

"The [European] parliament is very susceptible to public opinion," she said. "I think it can be more easily convinced by public opinion, more than the member states."

Sugar cane today takes up 0.4 percent of Brazil's territory, while the Amazon rainforest covers some 40 percent of the country. So even if all the sugar cane for ethanol was planted in the Amazon, points out the ambassador, this would still amount to just one percent of the Amazon.

"It does bother me quite a lot when people talk about social and environmental consequences of biofuels. Nobody has ever worried about social and environmental problems of oil production. Why are there double standards?

"I would like to see people look at the social and environmental criteria for the expoitation of oil. if they're going to have them for us, they should have them for everybody."

The embassy is backed up in its Brussels campaign by Unica, the Brazilian sugar cane industry association, which is opening an office in Brussels in April to promote ethanol as a clean, renewable fuel.

Unica also announced in January a two-year partnership with the Brazilian government's trade and investment agency, hoping to turn the biofuel debate in the European capital back in a direction more favourable to Brazil.

The sugar association concedes that there are bad biofuels being produced but says this is not the case for Brazilian ethanol.

"European green groups are treating biofuels as a single product, but there are different feedstocks, differences in where they are produced and how they are produced," she points out. "Their performance should be measured biofuel by biofuel."

Not everybody in Brazil however supports the rush for biofuels. The Movimiento Sim Terra (MST), the landless workers' movement, a peasants' rights organisation, argues that biofuel production in Brazil for the most part consists of monoculture plantations and results in a concentration of land in the hands of agribusiness ‚ land once used by subsistance farmers who have been violently expelled.

The group points out that sugar cane is not the only biofuel and bio-energy crop cultivated in the country. Sugar cane covers some 6.2 million hectares, but there are an additional 22.2 million hectares used in soy production, and another 3 million for eucalyptus.

Low harvests, export restrictions

The commission's energy and agriculture departments remain robust in their support for biofuels.

"We don't share the UK advisor's view or those of the UN," countered Ferran Tarradellas, the energy commissioner's spokesperson.

"High food prices right now are instead a product of low harvests, growing demand in Asia and export restrictions in Ukraine and Russia, who are two of the main suppliers of grain to the EU."

"Moreover, our target is quite a low one ‚ only 10 percent," he said. "In any case, transport costs make up a significant part of the price of food items. If we can lower the cost of transport by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels, then our targets could actually bring food prices down.

Agriculture spokesperson Michael Mann felt that Washington bore the main responsibility: "It's clear that the US move towards ethanol is having a marked effect on commodity prices, as a lot of maize is being moved into bioethanol production.

"Whereas any effect the EU may be having is utterly exaggerated," he said. "We're not going to follow their example."

"In Europe, we use less than two percent of our cereals for the production of biofuels, so this can't contribute to higher food prices, let alone food shortages," he added, pointing out that the commission proposals aim to move away from those biofuels that compete with food as fast as possible and move to second generation biofuels ‚ such as those made from wood chips, slurry waste, grass and straw.

However, following this week's summit of European leaders, Prime Minister Janez Jansa of Solvenia, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, said Europe may reconsider its strategy: "We're not excluding the possibility that we'll have to amend or revise our goals," he said, adding: "We have to address these concerns by the relevant analysis."

What is certain is that the commission has opened a can of worms with its biofuels target ‚ a battle set to intensify now that the legislation is to pass into the hands of the European Parliament and member states before its final approval.

Brazil: Expansion of Biotechnology in Brazil Brings Violence

Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP), 14 March 2008. By Isabella Kenfield.

On March 7thóInternational Women's Dayódozens of Brazilian women occupied a research site of the U.S.-based agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, destroying the greenhouse and experimental plots of genetically-modified (GM) corn. Participants, members of the international farmers' organization La Vía Campesina, stated in a note that the act was to protest the Brazilian government's decision in February to legalize Monsanto's GM Guardian® corn, just weeks after the French government prohibited the corn due to environment and human health risks.

La Vía Campesina also held passive protests in several Brazilian cities against the Swiss corporation Syngenta Seeds for its ongoing impunity for the murder of Valmir Mota de Oliveira. Mota was a member of the Movement of the Landless Rural Workers (MST)óthe largest of the seven Brazilian movements in La Vía Campesinaówho was assassinated last October in the state of Paraná during these organizations' third occupation of the company's illegal experimental site for GM soybeans. While Brazil already has a high number of land activist murders, Mota's was significant because it was the first to occur during an occupation organized by La Vía Campesina, and the first assassination in Brazil to occur on the property of a multinational agribusiness.

The expansion of agricultural biotechnology into Brazil is leading to increasing agrarian conflicts and exacerbating historic tensions over land. The movements in La Vía Campesina reject seed patenting, claiming the practice traps poor farmers in a cycle of debt to corporations that own the seed patents, and undermines small farmers' autonomy to save and share seeds. They claim that GM technology threatens biodiversity and native seed varieties, and violates the rights of consumers and small farmers by contaminating conventional and organic crops. In the United States, where more than half of the world's GM crop acreage is grown, widespread contamination of conventional and organic crops by GM varieties is threatening the organic foods industry, which is finding it increasingly difficult to certify products. According to Greenpeace International, there were 39 cases of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007, and more than 200 in 57 countries over the last 10 years.1

These claims threaten a multi-billion dollar industry. In the midst of global economic downturn, Monsanto and Syngenta are realizing unprecedented profitsóthanks largely to the agrofuels boom. In January, results showed Monsanto's stock appreciated 137% in 2007,2 hitting a record on the New York Stock Exchange.3 In February, Syngentaóthe world's largest producer of herbicides and pesticides with control of one-third of the global commercial seed marketóannounced its 2007 sales amounted to $9.2 billion. Latin America was Syngenta's "star performer" in 2007, where sales of herbicides, pesticides, and seeds increased by 37% respectively, and sales in Brazil increased for all product lines.4

An agricultural superpower, Brazil is the world's largest exporter of ethanol, the largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, the second largest producer of soybeans (the country produced almost a fourth of the world's soy crop in 2007), and the third largest producer of corn. The country holds particular strategic importance to the biotechnology industry's expansion. As global demandóand financial speculationófor Brazil's agricultural commodities ramps up due to agrofuels and increasing food scarcity, Monsanto and Syngenta are determined to expand sales and market control of GM seeds, herbicides, and pesticides in Brazilóat whatever cost.

Monsanto's Illegal Expansion into Brazil

Hours before the decision by the Brazilian government to legalize commercialization of Guardian® corn on February 12th, Brett Begemann, executive vice president of global commercial business, told investors at Goldman Sachs in New York that the company's 40% share of the Brazilian corn seed market "serves as a foundation" for the introduction of the corn , "once approved by Brazilian officials." Begemann also highlighted that Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready® soybean seeds account for 55% of total soybean acres planted in Brazil this season, and that the company expects 90% penetration of the country's soybean seed market by the end of the decade.5

Begemann did not, however, mention that the expansion of Monsanto's GM crops into Brazil has been accomplished illegally. In January, the Brazilian minister of science and technology acknowledged that GM soybeans and cotton were legalized only after they had already been smuggled into and planted in the country by large farmers.6 Various civil society organizations and social movements claim that Monsanto participated in this process illegally through fait accompli.7 Monsanto began legally selling and collecting royalties for Roundup Ready® soybean seeds in the country in the 2003-04 growing season.

Roundup Ready® soybean seeds are genetically engineered to resist glyphosate, the world's most commonly used herbicide and the primary ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup®. Glyphosate has been shown to cause reproductive problems in rats, including spontaneous abortions, and liver damage.8 Begemann boasted that Roundup® could deliver up to $1.4 billion in profits for Monsanto in 2008, due to higher acreage planted to Roundup Ready® soybeans.

Not surprisingly, Begemann did not mention that Brazilian federal deputy Abelardo Lupion is currently under federal investigation as to why Monsanto sold him a farm for two-thirds of its market value. In May 2006, journalist Solano Nascimento published an article in the Correio Braziliense with evidence that in return for subsidized purchase of the farm from Monsanto, Lupion used his political clout to legalize glyphosate in 2003.9

After glyphosate was legalized in Brazil, Monsanto's global sales of Roundup increased by more than 30%. In early 2004, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that despite a loss of $97 million for Monsanto that quarter, Brazil was "blossoming" and "becoming a bright spot" for the corporation, due to "improved overall performance" in the country. A report from the non-governmental organization Assistance and Service for Projects in Alternative Agriculture (AS-PTA), based in Rio de Janeiro , reports that Monsanto presently controls 80% of the Brazilian market for glyphosate, and has elevated the price by 50% since its commercialization five years ago.10

A recent study on the environmental impacts of GM soybeans in Brazil by researchers at the Brazilian Department of Agriculture Research Service, found 13 weed species that have developed resistance to glyphosate, representing what could become a "large problem." Glyphosate is creating weeds that are harder to control, and require increased amounts of chemicals. Instead of reducing the need for agrochemicalsóas proponents once claimedóGM technology has increased their use. The secretary for agriculture in Paraná reports that between 2003 and 2006, glyphosate residue in soybeans harvested in the state increased by 97%. The Brazilian Institute for the Environment (IBAMA) reports that in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, for every kilogram of non-glyphosate herbicide reduced during the period of expansion of Roundup Ready®, the use of glyphosate increased by 7.5 kilograms. To accommodate the increase of glyphosate residue in Brazilians' diet, Monsanto has solicited the Brazilian government to revise and increase the acceptable daily amount of the chemical.11

Because Guardian® poses similar risks to human health and the environment, and will increase the use of glyphosate, several Brazilian federal agencies, civil society organizations, and social movements were strongly opposed to its legalization. The National Agency for Sanitary Vigilance claimed that the information presented by Monsanto did not exhibit that the corn is safe for human consumption, citing the inexistence of studies on toxicity and the insufficiency of tests on allergens. IBAMA advised against the commercialization of GM corn due to the absence of environmental studies and risk of contamination of native seed varieties and organic crops. In response to the Brazilian government's decision, La Vía Campesina declared, "The political decision by the Lula government to place agribusiness over the health of the population, the environment, and agro-biodiversity is a huge irresponsibility that will mark his mandate."

Increasing Violence and Impunity

The decision to commercialize Guardian® came just four months after Vía Campesina and MST member Valmir Mota de Oliveira was assassinated by an armed militia last October, during the movements' third occupation of Syngenta Seeds' experimental research station in the state of Paraná. The movements first occupied Syngenta's site in March 2006, after they discovered that the company was illegally growing and testing GM soybeans within the federal boundary zone of the IguaÁu National Park (IBAMA fined Syngenta about half a million dollars for the crime, which Syngenta continues to refuse to pay, even though a federal judge upheld the fine in December).

La Vía Campesina's occupation of Syngenta gained international support, and in November 2006, Roberto Requião, governor of Paraná, signed a decree of intent to expropriate the site from the multinational in the public interest, to convert it into a research and educational center for agroecology. Requião's decreeóunprecedented in Latin Americaówas a huge political win for the social movements and a blow to agribusiness.

Yet Syngenta, thanks partly to its alliance with Deputy Lupion12 and a good lawyer (the same lawyer as for Monsanto), was able to overturn Requião's decree in the state and federal courts. In July 2007, after the MST was forced to leave the site for the second time, Syngenta hired the NF Security company to guard the site from further occupations. While Syngenta claims that its contract with NF Security stipulates that the guards could not be armed, months before the killing, lawyers for the social movements had registered complaints with the local authorities that the guards were harassing residents on a nearby MST settlement with gunfire.

The MST reoccupied the site at dawn on October 21st when Mota was assassinated with two shots in the chest at point blank range. There is little doubt that Mota's killing was planned: in the months preceding his murder, he had received several death threats due to his cooperation with federal and state police investigations into NF Security for illegal munitions trafficking and formation of armed militias. Before his death, Mota's lawyers had requested protection from the national witness protection program.

Another client of NF Security was Alessandro Meneghel, president of the Rural Society of Western Paraná (SRO), an organization representing the interests of large landowners in the region. Requião's decree to expropriate Syngenta's site had infuriated Meneghel, who declared, "For every invasion of land that occurs in the region, there will be a similar action by the [SRO]. We are not going to permit the rural producers to be insulted by ideological political movements of any kind."13 At the time of Mota's murder, Menegheló who admits that some members of the SRO are clients of Syngenta'só was hiring NF Security guards to undertake illegal and violent evictions of land occupations in the region.

While Meneghel and the owner of NF Security have been charged for Mota's murder, Syngenta remains unscathed. Yet by the time Mota was murdered, the occupation of Syngenta's site had cost the corporation tens of millions of dollars, and had all but halted the company's operations in its most strategic market. Mota's murder highlights the increase of violent conflicts as Brazil's organized rural social movements come up against multinational agribusinesses allied with the landowning elite and protected by a state-sanctioned veil of impunityóa deadly combination.

Full Steam Ahead with the Agrofuels Boom

With Brazil's agrofuels boom just revving up, the Brazilian government shows no sign of holding Syngenta or Monsanto accountable, or reigning in agribusiness. With the passing of the 2007 U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act in Decemberóin which the U.S. government mandated a fivefold increase of agrofuels consumption by 2020óthe Brazilian government is poised to further industrialize Brazilian agriculture in order to meet U.S. demand for ethanol. The United States is already Brazil's largest market for ethanol exports. In 2005, the United States imported 31 million gallons of ethanol from Brazil; in 2006, this number jumped to 434 million gallons.14 Monsanto's push to legalize GM corn in Brazil was no doubt in anticipation of the agrofuels boom; because the infrastructure for ethanol in the United States is designed for corn, agribusiness is banking on ramping up Brazil's corn exports to the United States. Syngenta and Pioneer are currently awaiting legalization of their GM corn varieties in Brazil.

La Vía Campesina vows that it will continue to struggle: " We will resist! Our struggle is in defense of peoples' life and environment."

End Notes

1. Gillam, Carey, " U.S. Organic Food Industry Fears GMO Contamination," Reuters, March 12, 2008, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/12/7643/.

2. GRAIN, "Corporate Power: Agrofuels and the expansion of agribusiness," Seedling, July 2007.

3. De Falco, Neil, "Monsanto: Seed of Profit in a World of Drought," Investopedia, http://research.investopedia.com/news/IA/2008/
Monsanto_Seed_Of_Profit_In_A_World_Of_Drought_MON.aspx?partner=aol, Jan. 31, 2008.

4. Syngenta full year results 2007, Feb 7, 2008, http://www.syngenta.com/en/media/media_events_pres_fyr2007.aspx.

5. Monsanto Increases Full-Year 2008 Ongoing Earnings per Share Guidance Based on Strong Demand for Seeds and Traits, Roundup and Other Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=572.

6. http://noticias.correioweb.com.br/materias.php?id=2731835&sub=Pol%C3%ADtica.

7. Kenfield, Isabella, "Monsanto's Seeds of Corruption in Brazil," http://news.nacla.org/2006/10/16/monsantos-seeds-of-corruption-in-brazil/, October 16, 2006.

8. http://www.aspta.org.br/por-um-brasil-livre-de-transgenicos/
boletim/boletim-383-07-de-marco-de-2008.

9. Nascimento, Solano, DNA de um mandato, http://clipping.planejamento.gov.br/Noticias.asp?NOTCod=265213, May 8, 2006.

10. http://www.aspta.org.br/por-um-brasil-livre-de-transgenicos/boletim/
boletim-379-08-de-fevereiro-de-2008/?searchterm=glifosato.

11. http://www.aspta.org.br/por-um-brasil-livre-de-transgenicos/
boletim/boletim-383-07-de-marco-de-2008.

12. Lee, Rennie, "Allied with Brazilian Agribusiness, Syngenta Resists Governor's decree to Expropriate site," May 17, 2007, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4239. 13. Personal communication, Dec. 9.

14. Renewable Fuels Association, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#F. İ

Isabella Kenfield is an analyst with the CIP Americas Program www.americaspolicy.org. She is currently an associate at the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA, (www.globalalternatives.org) in Berkeley, California and consultant with Food First / Institute for Food & Development Policy (www.foodfirst.org) in Oakland. isabella.kenfield(a)gmail.com.

Ireland: Invasion of the killer tomatoes
Nicole Matthews looks at the debate surrounding the safety and legality of GM crops

Business and Finance magazine (Ireland), 14 March 2008.

Genetically modified (GM) food continues to be a divisive issue across Europe and when the subject arises the only certainty is that diametrically opposed views will emerge.

In Ireland, there have been calls for a more open debate on genetically modified crops and agricultural biotechnology. Farmers' lobby groups have warned that the rising cost of feed could wipe out Europe's livestock industry unless bans on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are lifted.

Opponents to GMOs argue that if Ireland lifts the ban for GMOs it could lose its hard-earned reputation abroad for producing high-quality beef and natural produce and leave itself open for cross contamination in crops.

There are essentially three different types of approval for GMOs in Europe: something can be approved for importation for animal feed, for food or for cultivation. Currently in Ireland, GMOs and derived products are regulated by a number of Government Departments and agencies. These include the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (food), Department of Health and Children (food), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (feed and seed), Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (viable GMOs), the Environmental Protection Agency (viable GMOs) and the Irish Medicines Board (drugs).

Critics have argued that the sheer number of Government bodies dealing with GMOs leads to a lack of coherence and coordination. Among the departments themselves, there can often be contradictory goals as for example the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursues the dual goals of examining GMO opportunities and organic farming, both generally seen as "mutually contradictory".

Coexistence guidelines, however, have been put in place which will allow organic and GM farmers to grow crops alongside each other, according to Prof Jimmy Burke, head of Teagasc Crops Research.

"We are doing a lot of research into organic farming at the moment, it currently accounts for approximately between 1-2% of total farming in Ireland. While we aspire to increase this figure up to between 7% and 8% in the future, it will remain a niche market and the remaining 90% or so will still be produced from conventional farming. It simply would not be feasible for the whole country to turn organic as it would not be sustainable and the price would collapse," he says.

If more than 0.9% of a food or ingredient is derived from a GM source it must be labelled GM

The most recent position of the Government, according to a spokesperson from the Department of Agriculture, states that Ireland will be a GM-free zone.

"The Government will seek to negotiate the establishment of an All-Ireland GM-free zone. While consideration is ongoing in the relevant departments as to how to give full effect to this commitment, it is generally considered to be more about seeking to negotiate the establishment of an all-Ireland GM-free zone so that we can avoid the release of live GMOs into the Irish environment rather than banning imported feed."

This means that while the Government seeks to avoid the cultivation of seeds in the short-term in Ireland, importing GM animal feed for cattle, pigs and poultry will still be allowed as has been current practice. However, if Ireland declares itself a GM-free zone, it will be in direct violation of EU law.

"This is just a political aspiration of the Government to be a GM-free zone. Ireland is trying to declare itself as a GM-free zone and there are even counties within Ireland declaring themselves GM-free but this is simply political optics as it is essentially illegal under EU law and cannot be enforced. Also Ireland is a hub of biotechnology and has some of the largest biotech companies in the world operating here so if the country were to declare itself GM-free this would have a direct impact on the pharmaceutical industry using GM technology here, so this is a wider and more complex issue than just agriculture," says Burke.

Furthermore, under new labelling guidelines in Europe, Ireland could find it difficult to import GM animal feed and still call itself a GM-free zone. The German government recently agreed to a new label that will declare foods that contain no GMOs "GM-free". Under the new legislation, only dairy, meat or poultry produce not fed on GM animal feed will be labelled as GM-free.

This could be significant for Ireland, the largest exporter of beef in Europe, with export sales in 2006 valued at €1.5bn. Irish beef has achieved significant diversification across the EU marketplace, which now accounts for 97% of exports, up from 50% in 2000. The industry has made significant progress in particular over the last five years, increasing its sales to continental EU markets by 70%. Irish beef is also listed in more supermarket groups (62, up from 27 in 2001) in more markets than beef of any other country of origin, according to figures from Bord Bia.

The German decision has already hit the shelves in German supermarkets allowing consumers to choose between GM and GMfree milk and meat. Further, the biggest association of German food retailers ‚ which includes Aldi and Lidl ‚ is working to finalise an industry-wide ban on meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM feed. That is generally expected to happen in May.

Under current EU legislation, if more than 0.9% of a food or ingredient is derived from a GM source then it must be labelled accordingly. Labelling of GM foods in the EU is required regardless of whether DNA or protein from the original GMO is detectable. In Ireland, a food labelled to indicate that no GM ingredients are present must not contain any level of GM ingredients.

GM crops and GM foods have proved to be one of the most contentious public issues in European society. Technical and economic benefits are offset by perceptions of risk to human health, environmental impact, increase in economic power of multinational corporations, deterioration in food quality, threat to traditional farming and rural society and general moral acceptability.

In a 2005 Eurobarometer poll, opposition to GM food in Ireland was 45% with supporters outnumbering opponents in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Czech Republic, Lithuania and Ireland. Also 60% of Irish farmers said they would consider GM. Overall, a majority of Europeans think that GM food should not be encouraged. GM food is seen by them as not being useful, as morally unacceptable and as a risk for society. Looking at a section of the Europeans who have a view on four key questions about GM food, 58% oppose and 42% support.

While attitudes vary significantly across member states in the EU, almost all consumers wanted explicit labelling on food produce which would give them the right to choose between GM and GM-free. This led to retailers in Europe taking action, according to Michael O'Callaghan, GM Free Ireland.

"There was a unanimous decision taken by the 60 biggest food brands and retailers in Europe to exclude any food containing GM ingredients from their own brand products. Tesco brands for example do not allow their label on dairy, meat and poultry produce containing GM and have control of their own brand food chain. This has since been extended to meat, dairy and poultry which has been fed GM animal feed," he says. Looking at the largely haphazard and ad hoc progress of the GM debate in Ireland and Europe, it is worth examining the industry as a whole and some of the proposed advantages and disadvantages with each camp.

Global seed industry

The global seed industry is big business and is dominated by a handful of large corporations. Based on 2006 revenues, the top 10 seed corporations account for 55% of the commercial seed market worldwide.

However, the top three companies ‚ Monsanto (US), Dupont (US) and Syngenta (Switzerland) ‚ account for $8,552m or 44% of the total proprietary seed market. According to estimates provided by industry analysts, Context Network, the value of the overall commercial seed market was $22,900m in 2006.

The US giant Monsanto is the most powerful of these, accounting for more than one-fifth of the global proprietary seed market with 2006 seed sales at $4,028m compared to Dupont in second place at $2,781m.

Currently there are no GM crops grown in Ireland, but it does import GM animal feed. Whether critics like it or not, genetically engineered agriculture is spreading at a very fast rate. According to a report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA), the US continued to dominate in biotech agriculture in 2007 with 142 million acres of engineered crops, predominantly soy.

The report highlights that the fastest developers of biotech crops in 2007 were Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China. The next most likely countries to approve biotech crops are Egypt, Burkina Faso and Vietnam. Countries are exploring these options in a bid to increase self-sufficiency, especially India, and for Latin American countries the export potential is high ‚ especially for protein crops.

Other figures released by consultants Cropnosis show that agricultural biotechnology doubled from $3bn in 2001 to over $6bn in 2006. It is expected to pass $8bn by 2011.

Ireland is currently 52% dependent on imported feed materials which is significantly higher than the UK at 37% and Germany at 27%. The EU as a whole is 35% deficient in proteins for animal feed importing up to 38 million tonnes. Much of these imports come from the major exporters of GM being the US, Brazil, Canada and Argentina.

Burke says that as supplies of GM-free maize byproducts are not available elsewhere, the Irish feed industry could be forced to source 800,000 tonnes of replacement products at an additional cost of up to €40m. This will have a serious effect on animal feed prices and on the competitiveness of livestock products on our major export markets.

There is now 100 million acres of GM crops grown worldwide and this has expanded at double-digit growth rates every year since 1996. As cultivation and production grow, the European Commission, in recognising the diversity of farm patterns across Europe, have placed the responsibility on each member state to draw up their own national strategies to ensure the effective coexistence of conventional, organic and GM crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling thresholds.

"Ireland, like the majority of member states, are in the process of deciding on what strategies should be employed should the farming community decide to commence the cultivation of GM crops in this country," says a spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture.

The advantages generally outlined for doing GM are that countries can secure supply, the crops can be altered, the crops can be altered to add health benefits or overcome food allergies and they can be disease-resistant. Proponents of GM argue that there are no health risks associated, that food poisoning on a global level is more common that GM poisoning and that science and biotechnology can exert greater control over produce.

Critics of GM argue that there are many varied risks involved. O'Callaghan says that on top of health, economic and legal risks, there are issues of cross-contamination and GM "superweeds" which cannot be destroyed by conventional weedkiller.

"There is an international treaty called the Biosafety Protocol which is attached to the Convention on Biodiversity. Most of the countries in the world are members of it, including Ireland, but not the US and, under that protocol, they have set up an official register of contamination incidents around the world. The latest report which came out last week showed that there were 317 contamination incidents in 57 countries where GM crops have contaminated ordinary crops through pollen drift and seed dispersal of up to 26km. Basically, once you release them you will never get them out again for crops like maize and oilseed rape. The issue then is that neighbouring farmers whose crops have been contaminated could be faced with either patent infringement lawsuits by the company who sells the seeds or may have to pay patent royalties every year," says O'Callaghan.

The EU has its own approval system for GM crops before permitting them into its jurisdiction, according to Tom McLoughliln, senior inspector, office of climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "A number of GM crops have been approved for use in the EU and some of these crops could be cultivated by Irish farmers provided they are in compliance with the national or EU seed legislation and that national guidelines on co-existence," he says.

In 2005 a genetically modified maize, MON863, produced by US biotechnology firm Monsanto for use as animal feed was approved by the European Commission in spite of opposition from more than half of the EU's 25 governments.

In Europe, the European Food Safety Authority conducts separate risk assessments based on any GM crops. O'Callaghan says the secrecy of these reports does not allow for open and transparent public debate or independent scientific assessment.

"MON 863 maize was approved by the European Commission a few years ago and approval was given based on the risk assessment provided to the European Food Safety Authority provided by Monsanto. The big problem is these companies typically refuse to make the original data on which the risk assessment claims are made public and refuse to provide samples of the pure seed so independent scientists can do their own evaluations. So based on this 'secret study' provided by Monsanto, the EC legalised MON863. Greenpeace got a court order in Germany forcing Monsanto to reveal the original data and the Committee for Independent Research in Genetic Engineering in France re-analysed the Monsanto data and found that there was organ damage and toxic effects in laboratory animals. This was released last year and the information was passed on to the Commission but they said the findings were not significant and it was still safe," says O'Callaghan.

McLoughlin says that, based on the evidence presented, there were no concerns for the safety of MON863.

"At the request of the European Commission, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority has reviewed an evaluation report concerning GM maize MON 863. The GMO panel has given careful consideration to the arguments set out in the report. Following its investigation of the report, and of the retrospective evaluation of renal tissues and data derived from the 13-week rat feeding study performed by independent peer reviewers, the GMO panel concludes that there is no evidence presented in the report that changes the conclusions already reached by the GMO panel earlier this year in its opinions on the safety of the insect-protected genetically modified maize MON 863 (EFSA 2004a, b). These opinions state that the results of the rodent toxicity study with MON 863 maize did not indicate concerns a bout its safety for human and animal consumption," he says.

Future of GM

The emergence of biotechnology has raised many questions of huge public interest, a key issue being the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production. While the debate in Europe around the risks and benefits of biotechnology is quite polarised, it is widely accepted by critics and advocates that the debate should be opened up to the public and information made more transparent.

As the Government decides the future of Ireland in GM, the area will remain politically, socially and culturally divisive.

O'Callaghan says that the American, Canadian and Argentinean governments are threatening massive retaliation against European countries that don't vote in favour of fast-tracking the legalisation of more GM crops.

"I see this situation as being like a World War Three that isn't being fought with guns or weapons but fought by crop patents to take over the global food supply. If you think of all the trouble and strife over the control of oil, how much of the world is reliant on oil? Everyone on the planet eats food three times a day so the profits at stake are colossal."

Burke on the other hand sees GM as a means to combat food shortages worldwide.

"We need to double food production by 2050 to deal with an increase in global population and the way to do this is through new science and technology. GM has a significant part to play in this as scientists have the ability to alter food and crops to make them healthier and more disease-resistant."

Global area of biotech crops in 2007 (by country)

Rank - Country - Area (million hectares) - Biotech crops

1* USA* - 57.7 Soybean, maize, cotton, canola, squash, papaya, alfalfa
2* Argentina* - 19.1 Soybean, maize, cotton
3* Brazil* -15.0 Soybean, cotton
4* Canada* - 7.0 Canola, maize, soybean
5* India* - 6.2 Cotton
6* China* - 3.8 Cotton, tomato, poplar, petunia, papaya, sweet pepper
7* Paraguay* - 2.6 Soybean
8* South Africa* - 1.8 Maize, soybean, cotton
9* Uruguay* - 0.5 Soybean, maize
10* Philippines* - 0.3 Maize
11* Australia* - 0.1 Cotton
12* Spain* - 0.1 Maize
13* Mexico* - 0.1 Cotton, soybean
14 Colombia - less than 0.1 Cotton, carnation
15 Chile - less than 0.1 Maize, soybean, canola
16 France - less than 0.1 Maize
17 Honduras - less than 0.1 Maize
18 Czech Republic - less than 0.1 Maize
19 Portugal - less than 0.1 Maize
20 Germany - less than 0.1 Maize
21 Slovakia - less than 0.1 Maize
22 Romania - less than 0.1 Maize
23 Poland - less than 0.1 Maize

* 13 biotech mega-countries growing 50,000 hectares or more of biotech crops
Source: Clive James, 2007.

Agriculture: Dueling Visions for a Hungry World

Science magazine, 14 March 2008. By Erik Stokstad.

Sparks began to fly when scientists and activists against genetically modified crops came together to assess agricultural knowledge and the role of biotech in development.

Read the full text [requires subscription]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5869/1474

Northern Ireland: NI task force calls for level playing field

MeatInfo.co.uk, 14 March 2008.

The Northern Meat Task Force called on politicians for a level playing field with its competitors yesterday.

Speaking after the Red Meat Seminar, organised by the Northern Ireland Assembly Agricultural Committee, David Rutledge, chief executive of the Livestock and Meat Commission for NI, said: "One of the most prominent issues that came out of today was that our Task force believes we do not have a level playing field with our competitors."

He cited the example of failing to get approval from the European Commission for Herculex (a GMO maize variety), which the NI agriculture industry estimated had cost it £50m in one year. "The question we put to politicians is what purpose has this delay served when the product is freely available on the market allowing our competitors who use it to undercut us."

Rutledge added that the NI industry had also noted that politicians were calling for more exacting standards from the home meat industry than its competitors and cited the short-term ban on Brazilian beef. "Brazil had 11 reports in five years requiring action by Brazilian authorities and for five years they did nothing. I asked the question whether a NI or GB processor in a similar situation would have been allowed to ignore regulatory requirements for five years."

He continued: "This not an issue on whether the standards should be there or not but about the need for equal standards whether it be on GMO, environment or animal health."

The question about whether the market was right in rewarding suckler beef the same as dairy beef was also posed. "Unless there is a significant differential between dairy and suckler beef then the market is favouring dairy beef. We want the market to explore implications of that. Would those producers producing for the suckler market be better at applying their resources, land, labour and capital to other activities as under decoupling they do have other options," said Rutledge.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

David Rutledge's call for a "level playing field" for Northern Irish farmers is welcome. But his strategy for doing so - by lowering the EU standards for GMO approvals to those of the USA - would erode Northern Ireland's share of the lucrative EU beef export markets. Instead of advocating surrender through a race to the bottom for lowest safety standards, the Northern Ireland Assembly should support the powerful American Consumers Union campaign for the US to conduct scientific risk assessments, and for US farmers to grow the GM-free maize which European farmers and consumers want. The best way to achieve a "level playing field" is for the EU to use its considerable trading clout to insist that the USA raise its standard to the EU level, not the other way around!

•

Herculex maize is contaminated by another illegal GM variety:

Rutledge's complaint about the "delay" in the EU's legalisation of Herculex ignores the fact that this GM maize has since been found to contain another illegal GM variety called "Event 32" which contaminated farms in Iowa via wind-blown pollen in 2006 and 2007. Animal feed importers, feed compounders, and farming organisations in Northern Ireland and the Republic who continue to use Herculex may thus be introducing yet another illegal GM ingredient into the European food chain for the second time in the past year, in violation of EU law.

•

Difference in US and EU approvals process for GM food and feed:

Rutledge's demand for "equal standards" fails to appreciate the difference between the GM food and feed approvals process in the USA (which relies only on safety claims made by the applicant biotech companies themselves) and in Europe (where the European Food Safety Authority must conduct scientific risk assessments to protect farmers and consumers before it recommends approval of GM food and feed).

The USA is not a signatory to the United Nations Biosafety Protocol (which regulates international trade in live GMOs), and the US process for authorising GMOs does not meet the international requirements of the United Nations' Codex Alimentarius (which are considered as the standard by the World Trade Organisation's trade dispute body). As Dr. Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists said last week, the USA has "a very weak regulatory framework [for GMOs] that should not be relied upon or emulated by anyone".

If the EU were to "synchronise" its approvals of GM products with the USA by dispensing with EFSA's scientific risk assessment process, the result would further erode Ireland's hard-earned reputation for traceability, food safety, and quality production.

•

Irish farmers compete on quality, not price, in our European export market:

Rutledge also fails to discriminate between the drivers for Irish beef in the domestic market (where it competes on price against cheap imports from Brazil), and in our main European export market (where it competes on quality, as more and more retailers respond to consumer food safety concerns by excluding meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients.

70 to 80% of Northern Irish beef (along with 90% of Irish beef) is exported mostly to the European market, where our competitive advantage lies in quality, not price! This island's reputation for quality food rests on a number of factors that influence consumer choice. These include Ireland's famous "green" image, Bord Bía's 'Ireland - the food island' branding campaign, our unpolluted topsoil (said to have the lowest levels of dioxins in Europe), and the superior flavour of our beef, lamb and dairy produce resulting from their mostly free-range grass-based diet.

In 2005 Consumers International ‚ representing more than 250 organisations in 110 countries ‚ called for a ban on GM food, and the EU's 60 largest food brands and food retailers banned food containing GM ingredients from their own-brand products. Many of these retailers are now extending their bans to exclude meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed (see below).

Increasing the use of GM animal feed in the production of meat and dairy produce will render Irish farmers less competitive in both the export and domestic markets - not more!

•

EU retailers banning meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients:

The European market with quality labels for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed a certified GM-free diet now includes the UK (Tesco, Sainsburys, Marks & Spencer and Budgen Stores), France (Carrefour, Cora, Auchan and Monoprix), Italy (Coop Italia), Switzerland (where Migros and Coop ban all GM animal feed in their supermarket brands, and Germany (where the parliament introduced a GM-free label for meat and dairy produce, and where the country's largest retail consortium including Lidl, Aldi and Tegut is expected to announce an industry-wide ban on GM-fed meat and dairy produce in May of this year. Several Italian and French PDOs for cheese are sourcing GM-free animal feed. The same approach is being taken for beef and milk In Austria and the Netherlands. In the UK, standard poultry sold in supermarkets has a label certifying GM-free feed. Poland has imported certified GM-free soya since September 2006 for its pork rearing activities bound for the German market, and intends to ban the use of GM feed from August 2008. Ireland should produce the GM free meat and dairy which the European market demands!

•

Irish farmers can phase out GM animal feed more easily than our competitors:

Irish cattle and sheep farmers can phase out the use of GM animal feed more easily than their EU competitors because our mostly grass-fed livestock consume less GM animal feed per capita than they do. The only question is how to secure certified GM feed at a cost-effective price.

•

Building the Irish market for certified non-GMO animal feed:

In December 2007, the EU Committee of the Regions and the European Network of GMO-free Regions co-hosted the European Conference on GM-free Animal feed: Quality production and European regional agricultural strategy, in Brussels. Regional Governments, farmers organisations, animal feed importers, feed compounders, food retailers and consumer groups representing 43 European Regions and key players from Switzerland, Brazil, the USA, Canada, India and China met to co-ordinate agreed Quality Agriculture strategies for the production of meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified Non-GMO soya products, including, marketing, supplies, certification, eco-social considerations, retail strategies, and related aspects of CAP reform.

Non-GMO soya meal

The conference found that Europe can meet its requirement for certified GM-free soya feed from global markets for a premium of around € 0.01 or 0.02 (1 or 2 cent) per kilo, but that security of supply requires regional coordination and forward planning. Participants called for CAP reform to include an EC label to support the market for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified non-GMO feedstuffs. See conference report by GM-free Ireland: www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/GMFI-GM-free-Soya-conf.pdf (3.2MB pdf download).

Non-GMO maize gluten and distillers grains

The conference also found that European farmers produce a surplus of GM-free maize, but a shortage of domestic maize gluten is causing an unnecessary dependence on imports from the USA.

The EU should use its considerable trading clout to demand GM-free maize gluten from the US, and/or set up a European system to produce it here.

•

Mandatory GM labelling for meat, poultry and dairy produce:

In 2007, a million citizens of EU member states signed a petition demanding a mandatory EU label for meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients, based on the consumers' right to know. Along with mandatory country-of-origin labelling for retailers and restaurants, a GM food label for produce from GM-fed livestock would encourage consumers to buy locally produced food. With an informed public awareness campaign, Irish consumers will surely choose GM-free meat from Ireland over the lower quality GM-fed produce from Brazil.

•

Cheap GM animal feed imports are not sustainable:

US GM maize imports remain artificially cheap because of (a) the collapsing dollar, (b) trade-distorting subsidies which violate the WTO "free trade agreement", and (c) the current lack of indigenous maize gluten production in Europe. The cost of US maize gluten is certain to rise because its production and transportation relies on dwindling fossil fuel inputs which are not sustainable, and the bankrupt US government will no longer be able to subsidise American maize farmers. This, in turn, will push European players to develop our indigenous production of maize gluten.

Instead of trying to "level the playing field" by attempting to lower our EU food safety standards to those of the USA, the Northern Ireland Assembly should support the Irish Government's policy goal to ban GM crops, encourage a voluntary phase-out of GM animal feed, and set up certification / quality assurance system with a GM-free label for meat, poultry and dairy produce from the island of Ireland. This would provide a competitive advantage for farmers and food producers in our domestic and European markets, where a growing majority of consumers and retailers clearly demand safe GM-free food that is ethically produced and ecologically sustainable.

EU will not decide on BASF's genetically modified potato until Summer - report

CNBC, 14 March 2008.

FRANKFURT - The European Commission has postponed its decision on approving BASF SE's genetically modified (GM) potato Amflora until Summer, while the debate over how to deal with GM food in the bloc continues, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported, citing Brussels sources.

Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas wants to allow for a debate over basic principles of EU policy on GM organism - to be mediated by EU Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso - before deciding over the bellwether Amflora case, the sources told the paper.

A spokesman for Barroso, however, said decisions on GM organisms have not been put on hold because they run parallel to a debate over basic principles, according to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

BASF in February said that EU agricultural ministers passed the chemical company's application for use of Amflora in animal feed on to the Commission.

Amflora, which has a higher starch yield than conventional potatoes, is mainly designed for industrial uses. An approval for animal feed is needed for use of the by-products from the industrial process by livestock farmers.

13 March 2008

Europeans put the environment centre stage

EU press release, 13 March 2008.

Europeans put the environment centre stage

Over two-thirds of Europeans prefer policy decisions on the environment to be made at European Union level, according to a Eurobarometer survey published today. The report also shows that Europeans are increasingly aware of the role played by the environment in their daily lives. More than 95% of European citizens feel that it is important to protect the environment. Some 80% also feel it influences their quality of life and consider that they have a role to play in protecting it. Climate change tops the list of Europeans' environmental concerns, followed by pollution and man-made disasters.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "Most Europeans say that the European Union should do more for the environment and that decisions on the environment are best made at European level. An overwhelming majority of Europeans see harmonised European environmental legislation as necessary, and believe that the EU should help other countries improve their environmental standards."

Europeans concerned about GMOs

While the Eurobarometer survey shows that the top five environmental issues Europeans are most concerned about are climate change, water and air pollution, man-made disasters, and the use of chemicals in everyday products, a majority are also uneasy about the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. Some 58% of European citizens say they are apprehensive about the use of GMOs and 21% they are in favour.

Europeans willing to buy green products

Europe's citizens demonstrate a remarkable willingness to buy environmentally-friendly products. About three quarters of Europeans declare they are ready to do so, even if this means paying a bit more. On average only 17% of Europeans said they had bought environmentally-friendly products within the previous month. This means that nearly 60% of Europeans say they are willing to switch to consuming green products, but have not yet done so. The majority of Europeans (52%) say they would be able to recognise a genuinely environmentally friendly product by its label.

Environmental protection not an obstacle to economic performance

As to whether environmental protection is an obstacle to favourable economic performance or a motivation to innovate, nearly two-thirds of Europeans feel that protecting the environment is more of an incentive to innovate (63%) than an obstacle to economic performance (16%). Almost as many Europeans (64%) feel that protecting the environment must be given priority over economic competitiveness and 18% feel that competitiveness is more important.

More than two-thirds of European citizens are also convinced that the progress of individual countries should be measured using social, environmental and economic indicators while a minority (15%) believe that progress should be mostly based on monetary and economic indicators.

Global responses to global problems

About two-thirds of European citizens prefer to see decisions on the environment made jointly within the European Union rather than at national level. A large proportion of Europeans also say that they see harmonised European environmental legislation as necessary (82%), that the EU should help non-EU countries improve their environmental standards (80%) and that the EU should allocate more money to the protection of the environment (78%).

Some 78% of Europeans also consider useful the creation of a European civil protection force to deal with natural disasters in their country.

For more information:

Eurobarometer: Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

Individual Member State fact sheet
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

Eurobarometer Report can be downloaded from Commissioner Dimas' home page:
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/dimas/index_en.htm

European Commission environment website
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

Ireland: Food scarcity 'may force EU into accepting GM commodities'

IRish Examiner (farm supplement), 13 March 2008.

THE EU may be forced by food scarcity into accepting supply-boosting GM commodities, according to a world-leading institute for the debate and analysis of international issues.

However, Europe may escape the worst effects of global food production shortages, according to the independent Chatham House research organisation. Their preliminary report warns that food and drink companies might "need to change their mind-set to focus on longer-term supply relationships and more sustainable behaviours - implying a move away from short-term, exclusively profit-led goals".

The authors canvassed the opinions of 22 professionals in the wheat and dairy supply industries and other experts. They found a consensus that commodity prices will remain high over the medium term, partly because of demand-supply imbalance. The area of land cultivated globally is not expected to increase much in the shorter term, and water shortages, particularly in Asia, also hinder agricultural production.

Meanwhile, rising oil prices impacted on fertiliser production, because the rate of new oil discoveries has not kept pace with growth in demand since 1980

Farm bonanza fails to save India's dying farmers

The New York Times, March 13, 2008. By Krittivas Mukherjee.

PIMPARKHUTI, India (Reuters) - Just before India's finance minister was announcing a massive farm bonanza last month, Narendra Totaram Chauhan quietly slipped into his cotton fields, opened a bottle of pesticide and drank it.

By the time the minister finished announcing a $15 billion loan waiver to give a new lease of life to millions of indebted farmers, the poison had snuffed the life out of Chauhan.

Over the next few days, while experts debated the efficacy of the staggering relief package, 60 farmers killed themselves, adding to a morbid official statistic: more than 150,000 Indian farmers committed suicide since 1997 unable to repay crop loans.

Though the crisis has been building for years, it presents a grave challenge for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ahead of national polls next year. Farm distress and soaring prices helped turf out the previous government in 2004 and put Singh in power.

So, Singh's government came up with a plan in the 2008-09 budget: cancel debts of small farmers with loans overdue on December 31, 2007, and which remained unpaid up to February 29.

The write-off came with riders. Beneficiaries can own up to two hectares (five acres) and only bank loans will be cancelled.

This has meant nearly a quarter of 40 million targeted farmers will not benefit because most borrowed from rapacious moneylenders or they own larger tracts of land.

"It's a lose-lose proposition. This will not relieve farmers' distress," said Kishor Tiwari, who leads a campaign against farmers' suicides across the arid plateaus of central India.

A map of the region, known as Vidarbha, hangs on Tiwari's office wall. Its most prominent markings are a profusion of black skulls, forming a grim diagram of death.

Here, across the black cotton-bearing soil of Vidarbha, far from the gleaming malls that symbolize India's economic boom, three million desperately poor farmers are fighting for survival.

SUICIDE EPICENTRE

More than 30,000 farmers have killed themselves in the region alone since 1997, making it the epicenter of India's grimmest agrarian crisis in recent memory.

But relief is still a distant dream for a majority of farmers here because their average holding is just above two hectares. And small and marginal farmers will not benefit because most of them borrowed from moneylenders and relatives.

Its the same story in the northern Punjab state, considered India's food bowl where rising cultivation costs are distressing farmers and leading many to commit suicide or to abandon farming.

As in Vidarbha, the southern states of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, which have reported thousands of farmers' suicides, have dry croplands where large holdings are unviable for a farmer with limited access to irrigation and loans.

The National Sample Survey Organisation says almost half of India's 100 million farming families are in debt.

India's stunning urban-centric economic growth has bypassed the farm sector where growth is estimated to have slowed to 2.6 percent in the year ending March 2008, from 3.8 percent the year before.

Even though farming supports 60 percent of India's 1.1 billion people, it contributes only a fifth of gross domestic product and accounts for only around 15 percent of bank credit.

Economic liberalization since 1991 has not helped either, with duties being gradually phased out and farmers facing tough competition from heavily subsidized European or American growers.

In the past, farmers used to sell to the government at a price fixed in advance, but that safety net was removed for cotton growers in 2005, leaving them at the mercy of middlemen who often browbeat them into unprofitable sales.

DEBT CYCLE

Bad weather and falling prices only compound debts.

Farmers are often underfinanced by banks, forcing them to turn to private lenders whose usurious interest rates bind them to a never-ending cycle of debt. Many also borrow unwisely to fund lavish spending or to pay for weddings.

Unable to get credit, Kisan Vithalrao Rahate used a plastic rope to hang himself from a tree at the threshold of his mud house in this Vidarbha village this month.

Rahate lost two batches of seed to a bad monsoon. Last year the crop was good, but still not good enough to pay off his debts and then subsist with his family of six until the next harvest.

"We fought over money but he never threatened to kill himself," Kunda Kisanrao, his widow, told Reuters, squatting on a mud courtyard fenced with twigs and thorny shrubs.

Rahate carried two debts at the time of his death: a $350 bank loan and $1,250 borrowed privately to buy expensive genetically modified seeds and fertilizers to stay competitive.

A 2006 study by the Mumbai-based Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, found that 86.5 percent of farmers who took their own lives were indebted -- their average debt was about $835 -- and 40 percent had suffered a crop failure.

But Prime Minister Singh is defending his scheme.

"It will allow the fresh flow of institutional credit to farmers, it will clean up bankers' balance sheets, it will stimulate economic activity in rural areas, and I don't make any apologies on this," he told the parliament this month.

The scheme will benefit farmers in the states of West Bengal in the east and Kerala in the south where sweeping land reforms left farmers with smaller holdings.

Agricultural scientists say state support for agriculture is imperative, calling for help with soil and water management, timely credit and subsidized seeds and fertilizers.

"In the name of liberalization state support was withdrawn completely and the vacant space has been occupied by the private sector in an unregulated manner," said K. Nagaraj of the Madras Institute of Development studies.

In Pimparkhuti village, Rahate's wife cares little for the hair-splitting debates. For her, it's a struggle to survive with her two daughters and a 2-year-old son.

"My mind is blank, I don't know what to do," she said, staring at the tree her husband hanged himself from.

"He escaped his misery. Now what do we do?"

(Editing by Simon Denyer)

GMO documentary on YouTube

GM-free-World media advisory, 13 March 2008.

Please take a few minutes to watch this important, short documentary broadcast on a German TV station (available in English on Youtube). And circulate widely!

Prof. Séralini of CRIIGEN interviewed in the documentary is a member of our network.

The Genetic Conspiracy (1/3) - about Monsanto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joweZ6uM5iY

The Genetic Conspiracy (2/3) - about Monsanto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHobGDHtq4E

The Genetic Conspiracy (3/3) - about Monsanto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SBH88lvlos

UK: ESRC is criticised for 'biased' study

The Times, higher education, 13 March 2008. By Zoe Corbin.

Anti-GM scientist says survey of farmers is 'market research for biotech industry'. Zoe Corbyn reports

The Economic and Social Research Council has come under fire over its handling of a research project on farmers' attitudes to genetically modified food that critics say is biased in favour of the biotechnology industry.

The ESRC publicised the results of the project by issuing a media release that begins: "Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research."

After the media release, the findings were reported by a number of newspapers, including one prominent Sunday paper whose report on the study was headlined: "UK farmers want to grow GM crops".

The press release detailed the results of a £131,000 ESRC-funded study led by Andy Lane at The Open University, entitled "Farmers' understandings of GM crops as new technology".

One of the four "key findings" listed in the researchers' "project findings leaflet" was that farmers "believed that GM crops offer clear economic and environmental benefits to themselves and the wider public".

But critics have pointed out that the results were based on interviews with 30 selected large-scale commodity farmers, half of whom had been participants in farm-scale evaluations of GM crops and could therefore be assumed to be favourably disposed towards GM.

The project was also advised by the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, which describes itself as "a grouping of industry organisations ... to support the carefully managed introduction of GM crops in the UK".

"The researchers make statement after statement about what 'farmers' think ... but this cannot be justified on the basis of the research that was carried out," said Peter Saunders, a professor of mathematics at King's College London and the co-founder of the Institute of Science in Society, a group that says it is dedicated to "promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science".

Professor Saunders said that the researchers were "wrong" to extrapolate their work to represent the opinions of UK farmers, and that the ESRC was "even more wrong" to issue the press release it did.

He questioned why the ESRC had funded the study, which he believed was, in effect, "a piece of market research for the biotech industry". He asked: "Why did they accept ... a final report in which the researchers claim to have shown something they obviously have not?"

Carlo Leifert, a professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University, said: "It is a very small sample size, and by selecting half (of the survey participants from among) farmers who made money from GM trial sites ... it is a bit of a biased approach."

A letter issued by the ESRC to its critics, including an anti-GM pressure group, accepts that the "phrasing of the opening line of the press release could have been more precise" but defends the work.

The ESRC told Times Higher Education that the research "was never intended to be, nor presented as, a poll of the opinions of the UK farming community as a whole and it had a particular focus on the experiences of those who had participated in GM trials. The ESRC press release makes this very clear ... ".

It added: "We are satisfied that no one funded or employed by the ESRC has misrepresented this research or acted in a way that could be described as deliberately misleading or dishonest."

Both the initial research proposal and the final report had been subject to peer review, it added.

Professor Lane, the lead researcher, said it was necessary to get help from the Supply Chain Initiative to gain access to farmers.

Another of the researchers, Sue Oreszczyn, said: "We have never claimed our research is representative of all farmers but that we researched a specific group (those with experience of growing GM crops and those likely to grow them if they become available) ... It is not unexpected that the anti-GM lobby have chosen to ignore this."

USA: House Hearing on USDA failure on GE contamination

Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering media advisory, 13 March 2008.

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE CONDUCTS HEARINGS ON FAILURE OF USDA TO CONSIDER BILLIONS IN COSTS TO AMERICA'S FARMERS CAUSED BY CONTAMINATION BY GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS

What: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Chair of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, will conduct a hearing focused on the USDA's failure to comply with NEPA requirements regarding the assessment of economic impacts in regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Where: 2247 Rayburn Office Building

When: Thursday - March 13, 2008 @ 2:00 pm EDT

Who: Those giving testimony include a panel of farmers, consisting of:

•

Harvey Howington - a rice farmer, US Rice Producers Association board member, and Vice President of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association, who will comment on USDA mismanagement of Bayer LL601 field trials, which resulted in a major contamination event costing rice producers $1.2 billion.

•

Todd Leake - a wheat farmer and member of Dakota Resource Council, he will focus on the USDA's failure to consider significant potential for market loss posed by deregulation of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Wheat, which is opposed by 82% of wheat buyers and would have resulted in a 32 to 35% decrease in the price paid to wheat growers.

•

Fred Kirschenmann - an organic farmer and manager of a 3,500 acre family farm in North Dakota and a distinguished Fellow at the Leopold Center (IA State University), he will focus on USDA failure to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement prior to deregulation of Roundup Ready canola despite the high potential for widespread contamination in the US and Canada, which ultimately resulted. He will also discuss the economic impacts on organic producers caused by GE crops.

Also speaking:

•

Ray Clark, for NEPA Director and Council on Environmental Quality member
Colin Carter, UC Davis Agricultural Economist

For more information, please contact:

Bill Wenzel, Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering, cell (608) 444-0292.
John Bianchi, Goodman Media - (212) 576-2700
Harvey Howington - cell (870) 375-4278
Fred Kirschenmann - cell (515) 450-2330
Todd Leake - cell (218) 289-3947

Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering
A project of the National Family Farm Coalition
PO Box 272: Stoughton, WI 53589, USA
877-968-3276; bwenzel2@aol.com

12 March 2008

The Monstrous Monsanto Universe

Le Monde, 12 March 2008. By Dominique Dhombres.

The charge sheet is horrifying, inexorable and convincing. The multinational firm Monsanto, which sells 90 percent of genetically modified organisms (GMO), massively lies to many people and even the whole planet with great success - the power that money and the - apparently unlimited - support of the United States government bestows. You already know all that if you watched Marie-Monique Robin's extraordinary documentary, "Le Monde selon Monsanto" ["The World According to Monsanto"], March 11 on the Arte channel.

The case is conducted as a personal investigation, and the director has herself filmed as she plays her computer keys to research, most often through Google, the information accessible to everyone, as long as one is willing to try to separate the wheat from the chaff in the mass of available documents. And there's an abundance of chaff, given how the company has proliferated effective advertising (intended for farmers in every country and in every language) and dubious scientific studies over the years. "On its Internet site, Monsanto presents itself as an agricultural company the mission of which is to help small farmers produce healthier food, while reducing agriculture's impact on the environment," the director explains. Neither assertion is true. Some of these foodstuffs are dangerous and their effect on nature is catastrophic in the long term. Founded in 1901 in Saint Louis (Missouri), the firm is a dangerous recidivist. It began as an industrial company manufacturing chemical products.

It has, notably, concocted impressive quantities of dioxin, the hyper-concentrated poison contained in the Agent Orange American airplanes dispersed over forests to destroy vegetation during the Vietnam War. Its consequences are still being felt today, with the births of deformed children and after-effects on a goodly number of American war veterans exposed to this frightening product. Is that nightmare in the process of resuming under a new form right under our eyes? There's this hormone injected into milk cows to increase their yield that invariably transforms them into Frankenstein animals.

We are now very familiar with - because Jose Bove has so often "prematurely" reaped it - the surprising corn that yields a bigger ear than the others. At the moment, no one knows whether it also has death-dealing properties. But we are certain that it is in the process of eliminating, little by little, all other corn species, even from the plant's original birthplace, Mexico.

Obviously, we should have liked to have Monsanto's response to these accusations. The firm declined that offer. That's too bad.

Comment from GM Watch:

The above is a translation of an article in Le Monde (French original) inspired by the new film about Monsanto that was broadcast on the Franco-German TV channel ARTE last Tuesday.

The broadcast was apparently watched by an audience of millions. In fact, it had the biggest audience ever for an ARTE production. And still more people have seen it since via ARTE's '+7' service which allows it to be viewed again up till the 18th March.

Don't forget you can order a DVD of the movie (in English, French and Spanish) here:
http://www.arte-boutique.fr/detailProduct.action?product.id=245754

This page tells English speaking customers that, "An easy way to order from this webstore for english speaking customers, will be on line the 18th of March."

EU seen authorising GMO animal feed maize in March

Reuters, 12 March 2008. BRUSSELS, March 12 (Reuters) - EU regulators are likely to approve imports of a genetically modified (GM) maize type this month that should help livestock farmers secure extra supply of raw material to feed their animals, officials said on Wednesday.

The maize, known by its codename GA21, is marketed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta (SYNN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research) and intended for use in food and animal feed, not for growing in Europe's fields.

The expected EU approval comes after farm ministers fell short of a consensus agreement at a meeting in February to allow imports of five separate GM products, one of which was GA21 maize, paving the way for default approval by legal rubberstamp.

EU law allows for rubberstamp GM authorisations when ministers cannot agree after a certain time. Since 2004, the European Commission, the EU executive, has approved a string of GMs -- nearly all maize -- in this way, outraging green groups. "GA21 maize is at its final stage of adoption by the Commission. It is expected to be adopted by the end of March," a Commission official said. No date has yet been set for EU approval of the other GMs discussed at the February meeting.

EU approval of insect-resistant GA21 maize is of particular interest to grain traders in Spain and Portugal, since the modified strain may only now be imported in processed form.

The request for EU approval by Syngenta, one of the world's largest producers of GMO seeds, would allow GA21 imports as grain. When authorised, those imports are expected to come into EU markets mainly from Argentina, a major GMO crop grower.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel told farm ministers at their meeting that she was surprised at their lack of decision on approving GA21 maize since it would have helped the livestock sector, especially pig farmers, to secure import of feed material at reasonable prices from South America. Animal feed makers and livestock farmers say they have been unable to pass on soaring costs of grain over the past year to retail consumers. Costs of imported grain, on which Spain and Portugal depend heavily, have also been heightened by freight charges that have risen with oil prices.

(Reporting by Jeremy Smith; editing by Chris Johnson)

EU: Commission seeks to improve governance of EU agenciesİ

EurActiv, 12 March 2008.

numerous regulatory agencies, charged with advisingİthe EUİinstitutions and taking technical decisions in fieldsİranging from foodİsafety to theİbloc's police and judicial missions, by establishing common rules for all three institutions to boost their "transparency and effectiveness".

Theİcommunication from the EU executive to Parliament and the Council calls for an inter-institutional working group to set out "ground rules to apply to all" and to "develop a clear and coherent vision on the place of agencies in European governance".İ

EU regulatory agencies are independent bodies created by the Commission to provide technical expertise in specific areas, such as GMO regulation.İThey cover the whole spectrum of EU policy. Although they cannot adopt general regulatory measures, they can take decisions applying previously agreed EU standards. They also provide the Commission with the expertise it needs to make its own decisions.

Examples include the European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Authority. There are currently 29 such agencies in operation.İFrom aİtotal budget of §1.1bn, §559m is funded by the EU.İ

The Commission believes "these agencies have been set up in an uncoordinated manner" and their potential as a vehicle for closer cooperation between the EU and its member states is being "held back by the lack of a common vision" of their role and functions.

Its decision means that a previous attempt to develop a common approach, which stalled in 2005 after failing to attract the support of the Council, has been withdrawn. At the time, ministers concluded that there was no legal basis in the treaties for an inter-institutional agreement on agencies, despite claims to the contrary from the other institutions.İ Commission President JosÈ Manuel Barroso said the "outstanding governance issues" regarding regulatory agencies could only be addressed "by our three institutions together". "With a consistent political approach [Ö] we can promote [their] transparency and effectiveness," Barroso added.İ

Key issues to be discussed by the working group include the basic structure and working practices of regulatory agencies and their relationship with the EU institutions, as well as accountability and procedures for their establishment and dissolution.İ

Although it stressed the importance of working with the other institutions, the Commission nevertheless outlined a number of steps that it intends to take itself. These include an evaluation of the work and structure of regulatory agencies, to be completed by 2009. In the meantime, it will not propose new regulatory agencies until this is complete. Moreover, it intends to conduct an internal review of its own relations with such bodies and the way it assesses their work.İ

U.S. organic food industry fears GMO contamination

Reuters, March 12 2008. By Carey Gillam.

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Widespread contamination of U.S. corn, soybeans and other crops by genetically engineered varieties is threatening the purity of organic and natural food products and driving purveyors of such specialty products to new efforts to protect their markets, industry leaders said this week.

A range of players, from dairy farmers to natural food retailers, are behind an effort to introduce testing requirements and standards for certification aimed at keeping contamination at bay. That goal is rapidly becoming harder, however, as planting of biotech corn, soybeans, and other crops expands across the United States.

"Now there is a real shortage of organic grain for animal husbandry and dairy operations," said Organic Consumers Association national director Ronnie Cummins. "People are having to be real careful."

Proponents of the plan are rolling it out this week at an industry meeting in Anaheim, California, seeking to get the entire organic and natural foods industry to agree on testing and standard certifications. Companies that get certified will be allowed to use a seal designating as much on their products.

"We think we can keep the contamination from getting worse by putting safeguards in place so people who want to choose to eat organic products free of genetic contamination can do so," said Michael Funk, CEO of United Natural Foods, which is backing the initiative. "The longer we delay ... the more challenging it is going to be."

Biotech crops, primarily corn, soybeans, cotton and canola, have genes that have been manipulated to express specific traits, most commonly a resistance to herbicide, which helps farmers. Biotech developers such as Monsanto Co patent the crop technology and tightly control use of the seed.

But mixing of biotech crops and conventional crops can occur during many phases of harvest, storage and shipment of grain, and drifting pollen and other natural forces can also contaminate crops while they are still in the fields.

Indeed, contamination of conventional crops by biotech crops has been reported around the world. There were 39 cases of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007, and more than 200 in 57 countries over the last 10 years, according to biotech critic Greenpeace International.

Contamination of corn is the biggest concern for those trying to sell biotech-free food. Corn is not only used in human food but is also used to feed livestock, meaning organic beef and dairy farmers must ensure their animals are fed corn that is free of contamination.

That has become more difficult as biotech corn acres have expanded in the United States. In 2007, an estimated 73 percent of the 92.9 million acres of U.S. corn planted were biotech, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The USDA has a set of national standards for foods labeled "organic" as part of its marketing service, but the industry players seeking independent testing said the USDA has not gone far enough to require organic and natural foods are free from biotech contamination.

Organic dairy farmer Albert Straus, who started testing corn fed to his 300-head dairy herd more than a year ago, and found about one-third had been contaminated, now tests every lot of grain he buys.

"I started to test our products to see if there was an issue or not. It turned out there was an issue," said Straus. He is now adding a label to his dairy products to alert consumers to the extra level of caution. "There is so much contamination," he said.

(Editing by John Picinich)

Canada: Outbreak!
Why is our resistance to antibiotics escalating? The villains may be different than we think. Some scientists say the cause could be the genetically modified E. coli casually used in industrial labsó and high-school classrooms

This Magazine (Canada), March - April 2008. By Alex Roslin.

Four high-school students from the tony Ridley College boarding school walked among the science teachers, offering pointers. Decked out in lab coats, the teens were helping attendees of the Science Teachers Association of Ontario's conference in Toronto to create a new life form.

Students and teachers started with familiar bacteria, Escherichia coli, the same bug that killed seven people in Walkerton, Ontario, in 2000 and made 2,000 sick, genetically modifying it by inserting a green fluorescent protein from a jellyfish. They were using a strain of E. coli rendered harmlessó although how harmless it would remain after the experiment is another question.

The reason for the role reversal at this conference was the pGLO kit, which kids at Ridley have been employing for six years to learn about genetics with their biology teacher Bob Malyk. Ridley, located in St. Catharines, Ontario, is just one of dozens of high schools and colleges where Canadian adolescents are being encouraged to try their hand at genetic engineering. "Any biology teacher who doesn't get involved with this stuff is behind the times," Malyk says.

Sales of educational kits that allow students to work with genetically modifi ed E. coli are hot. Made by Bio-Rad Canada, a subsidiary of Hercules, California-based biotech giant Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., whose revenues last year were $2.4-billion, 110 of the kits were sold in Canada in 2006. Each one is good for a classroom of 36 or more students, says Bio-Rad Canada's marketing manager Avi Wener. That means potentially 4,000 Canadian youngsters have used the kits. Sales in 2006 were up 32 percent from the previous year. "The teachers like it," says Wener. "It's pretty engaging for the students."

Malyk is a convert to the pGLO kit, and enthusiastically proselytizes on its behalf. He volunteered to lead the workshop in Toronto, and led four other presentations for teachers on Bio- Rad's kits in Toronto, Ottawa and Winnipeg, sometimes bringing his privileged young charges along. "It's great for the teachers to see the students there and see how enthused they get," he says.

It's all good fun and, Bio-Rad says, gives the kids a vivid, hands-on education about genetics. But there's one other thing. The teens are inserting something else into their E. coli: a gene that makes the E. coli resistant to an antibiotic called ampicillin. It's called a "marker gene," and it's used to help mark which of the little guys has taken up the genetic transformation. If doused with the antibiotic, only the engineered bacteria will survive.

Malyk says pGLO is "100 percent safe" for his studentsó so safe, in fact, that he's never asked students' parents for approval for the experiments. "I can't see why parental consent would be needed. There's no way it causes disease. It's totally non-pathogenic."

Bio-Rad's Tumay Basar, who has a Ph.D. in microbiology, agrees. "There are no major safety issues," she says. "If you are in a classroom, it's good to use gloves, but it's not necessary."

This all leaves Joe Cummins stunned. A professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, Cummins is one of Canada's most prominent geneticists. He thinks letting teens create drug-resistant bacteria is a very bad idea. "It just makes my skin crawl," he says from his home in London, Ontario. "Regardless of even the best controls you have on kids, there are still bound to be problems."

Cummins says it's not the strain of E. coli used in the kit that is the problemóthe risk comes from making the E. coli antibiotic-resistant. If students come into contact with the ampicillin-resistant gene, there is a possibility the resistance trait could be transferred to them as well, he says. Additionally, if a student inadvertently carried the drug-resistant bacteria out of the classroom, it's possible the trait could be passed to bacteria in the environment.

And it's not just the kids we have to worry about. Grown-up scientists make mistakes in labs, too. Cummins cites a landmark Dutch study from 1991 that surprised the scientific ccommunity by discovering lab coats were routinely contaminated by genetically modified bacteria, often penetrating to the clothes underneath. The idea that drug resistance could be carried into the environment is troubling, as the antibiotic ampicillin is commonly used to treat bacterial infections and as a last-resort drug against bacterial meningitis and the deadly strain of E. coli that struck Walkerton. If you are resistant to ampicillin, the antibiotic won't help you.

Cummins says high-school biotech experiments also point to a much wider problem of lax attitudes toward trillions of genetically modified bacteria and viruses being engineered with little outside scrutiny in labs around the world: "They tend to be wildly careless."

So far in the debate about genetic engineering, teeny-tiny germs have gone pretty much ignored. The focus has been on big, visible stuff like GM-food labels and the ethics of designer babies or cloned pets. Yet the single most frequently genetically transformed organism isn't canola, sheep or GloFish. It is the minuscule E. coli bacterium, which lives by the billions in every person's guts.

E. coli and other GM microbes have completely transformed the pharmaceutical industry and other microbiological research, including the fast-expanding field of biowarfare experimentation. E. coli is the love machine of the living world. It multiplies so fast that a single organism's offspring could weigh as much as the earth in two days if they didn't run out of food or space. Researchers in corporate, academic and military labs harness this awesome sexual power to study everything from new drugs to biological warfare agents.

New species of E. coli are created every day after being chopped up or reshuffled with genes from people, pigs, jellyfish and even viruses such as HIV. The E. coli is so prolific at passing on its genes, in fact, that it can do so even after it is dead.

So, how do labs make sure the engineered microbes don't escape into the environment and pass on their traits in an unpredicted way? Surprisingly, both Canada and the United States have very few special legal or regulatory requirements for the safety of labs that work with GM bacteria and viruses.

The main confinement and disposal guidelines are voluntary. The hundreds of Canadian and U.S. labs that make GM microbes are for the most part on the honour system. Regulators in neither country know how many such labs exist or what they are creating. And neither country requires labs to report any but the most serious GM lab accidents.

All but the most secure labs that deal with pathogenic microbes are essentially self-policing. What monitoring there is falls to a hodgepodge of agencies and departments that don't seem to communicate with each other, much less exercise any special monitoring for genetically engineered bugs. In Canada, those bodies include the Public Health Agency of Canada, which issues guidelines on lab safety and monitors importation of microbiological material to Canadian labs and Human Resources and Social Development Canada, which monitors worker safety at the labs. Provincially, environment ministries are supposed to monitor discharges from labs, and occupational health and safety bureaus keep tabs on lab work conditions for staff.

Retired in January 2008, Suzanne Wuerthele was a veteran risk-assessment expert at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the EPA's regional toxicologist for six western states. She is also one of a handful of experts worldwide who studies contamination involving genetically engineered microbes.

"There has been a lot of hype about GM plants and salmon," she says, speaking from her office at the agency's regional headquarters in Denver, Colorado. "But microorganisms have much more potential to do things we would not be happy with and to do it without us even knowing about it. There are no [government] inspections, to my knowledge, of the facilities that do this, and we don't even know who they are."

She is especially concerned about how GM microbes are disposed of. It is typical, she says, for labs to flush them down the drain or toss them in the trash after they are autoclaved or sterilized. The goal is, typically, to kill 99.9999 percent of microbes. But Wuerthele says that still means survivors are common because of the huge numbers of germs created. "If you make 50 tonnes of something, you may still wind up with a fairly large number of organisms still alive."

Canadian universities confirm much of the GM microbiological material generated at their labs winds up in municipal landfills. Biology professor Margo Moore, head of the biosafety committee at Simon Fraser University, says Biosafety Level 1 microbesóthose that are considered non-pathogenic, like the E. coli in the pGLO kitóare first autoclaved, "then it goes into the regular garbage. It poses no risk to individuals and the community." She says SFU has 82 active permits for work with GM microbes.

What would happen if GM drug-resistant microbes were released into the environment? Cummins believes this has already happened, thanks to the lack of government oversight. As for the effects, he believes the escapes that have already occurred to be one reason for the rise of drug-resistant supergerms around the world over the past 30 years. Supergerms are the monster bugs that are frightening the lab coats off doctors and scientists because they are resistant to most medicines of last resort, and the numbers of such germs are increasing fast.

Cummins' claim is controversial and runs counter to orthodox scientific opinion. Although no one really knows for sure why superviruses are proliferating, the common explanation holds that the main culprit is the overuse of antibiotics in hospitals and cattle feed. But Cummins says antibiotics have been widespread since World War II, while supergerms started appearing in huge numbers only in the 1970sóthree decades after the mass use of antibiotics began, but coinciding neatly with the rise of genetic engineering.

This alternative theory was first comprehensively spelled out in a seminal study in the journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease back in 1998. The paper was co-authored by several European scientists, including geneticist Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institute of Science in Society, based in London, England. (Cummins sits on the institute's advisory council.)

Ho's study called for an independent public inquiry into how biotechnology has contributed to the rise of supergerms, and said government regulations on GM bugs were "grossly inadequate" worldwide.

The notion that GM food or microorganisms can pass their traits on to other creatures was flatly rejected for years by biotech proponents. But in 2002, British scientists confirmed that resistance genes present in many GM foods do, indeed, pass their traits on to human gut bacteria. The researchers, commissioned by the British Food Standards Agency, found that DNA genetically modified to be resistant to a herbicide had survived passage to the small intestine, where the herbicide-resistant trait was adopted by existing bacteria in the gut.

"Everyone used to deny that this was possible," British geneticist Michael Antonio told the Guardian newspaper at the time. "It suggests that you can get antibiotic marker genes spreading around the stomach which would compromise antibiotic resistance. They have shown that this can happen even at very low levels after just one meal." This logic also applies to genetically modified bacteria, Cummins says. They, too, can pass on their resistance traits to other germs living hitherto benignly in our bowels or the environment. The same is true, he says, for the vast masses of GM microbiological material being dumped into landfills; they, too, could pass on their traits.

The stakes behind all this are pretty high. The first major study of one of the fastest-spreading drug-resistant microbes, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), found it causes over 94,000 serious infections and nearly 19,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. In the study published last October, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said also that African Americans had two times more chance of catching the bug than the average person, while those older than 65 are four times more at risk. In February, the Canadian government launched a national campaign to reduce MRSA after estimates the superbug now hits 6,400 Canadians each yearóan infection rate six times the 1995 level.

Perhaps not surprisingly, no inquiry followed Mae-Wan Ho's 1998 study. In fact, while biotech products have become ubiquitous in the decade since, the last regulatory debate about the safety of GM research took place more than 30 years ago.

The setting was the rustic Asilomar Conference Center at the tip of California's scenic Monterey Peninsula. Here, 140 biologists and regulators gathered in 1975 amid grazing deer and barking seals to debate the safety of the fledgling technology of genetic engineering.

Asilomar was provoked by worries that Frankenstein-type genetic monsters would wreak havoc if they got into nature. The participants formulated strict guidelines that were adopted in 1976 by the National Institutes of Health. They required tight physical confinement of many biotech experiments and forbade genetic research with cancer viruses.

Just a few years later, however, scientists bristling at the controls and eyeing the lucrative new technology started lobbying the NIH to loosen its guidelines. In the early 1980s, under the Reagan administration, the NIH finally gave in to pressure from industry and the scientific community, agreeing to gut its rules and allow genetic engineering to be performed under loose voluntary safety guidelines. The ban was dropped on research on cancer viruses.

Canada adopted similar voluntary guidelines at the same time. Then in 1998 the federal auditor general's office expressed concerns about Canada's lax biosafety standards. It called on federal authorities to do a review of every lab in the country to verify if the safety guidelines were being respected. The review has yet to be done 10 years later.

The lack of controls has remained essentially unchanged worldwide since the 1980s, and the lackadaisical attitude is so pervasive that GM bugs with antibiotic resistance are now actually entering the environment with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's stamp of approval.

In the mid-'90s, Becker Underwood, an Iowa-based agrifood giant, wanted approval for a genetically modified soil bacteria called Rhizobium meliloti. Rhizobium is a naturally occurring soil bacterium that lives on the roots of legumes. The company had engineered it to allow farmers to increase alfalfa yields. The bacteria were also engineered with marker genes that made them resistant to two antibiotics used against tuberculosis, tularemia and the plague. Wuerthele was asked to look at her agency's risk assessment of the new product.

She was flabbergasted when she saw the EPA's risk assessment. "It was a jokeóthree or four pagesóand it didn't ask any questions," she says. Wuerthele discovered that 2,000 species of legumes growing in North America also have Rhizobium on their roots. No one had studied how the product might affect them. To make matters worse, it wasn't even clear the bacteria actually helped increase alfalfa yieldsóthe product's main purpose.

The product was referred to an outside advisory panel, and only one of its six scientist members gave it the thumbs-up. When it became clear the EPA would move to approve the bacteria anyway, one member, Conrad Istock, resigned in protest. "It's just good practice not to leave antibiotic resistance in organisms that you are going to release," Istock said in an interview. "According to risk-benefit analysis, if it has no benefit why take the risk?"

The EPA approved the Rhizobium for sale in 1997. "Nobody's followed up on it or even asked the farmers to see if it improved yields," Wuerthele says. "The EPA has no idea whatsoever what has happened as a result. It was completely irresponsible." While the effects of the first planned release of GM bacteria may not ever be known, a series of lab accidents has made it impossible for the dangers of poor containment of microbes to go unnoticed.

One of the worst cases came in 1977, when lab contamination in Russia is believed by many to have led to the reemergence of the Spanish influenza virus, which killed 20 to 50 million people in 1918 and 1919. In 1979, an accidental release of anthrax at a Soviet military lab in the Ural Mountains killed 64. In 2003 and 2004, SARS escaped high-security labs in Singapore, Taiwan and China, prompting a World Health Organization probe that found few countries have adequate biosafety practices.

And since 9/11, concerns about lab biosafety have heightened, thanks, ironically, to over $45 billion in U.S. and Canadian funding for biowarfare research, much of it involving genetically engineered bugs. As an example of the risks, the Sunshine Project, an Austin, Texas-based watchdog group, reported in 2002 that the U.S. Special Forces had invited scientists to propose ways to create GM bacteria that could be placed on an enemy building and later activated to destroy it through corrosion or to illuminate it for attack planes. The research is part of a U.S. program of studying so-called Genetically Engineered Anti-Material Agents, which have been under study since the early 1990s. The research has continued even though the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General has ruled it violates the 1972 multilateral Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which prohibits biological weapons that deteriorate enemy equipment and supplies.

Even the top-security labs doing much of this research have sloppy practices, and the chances of an accident have shot up with all the new research, says the Sunshine Project's Edward Hammond. "The most likely source of some sort of horrible biological incident in the U.S. is not a terrorist, but our own labs," he says.

In 2004, Hammond's group released a troubling survey of 400 high-security GM labs at U.S. universities, private companies and government institutions that received grants for biowar research. Only four percent had fully complied with government guidelines.

"Disregard for federal recommendations is rampant," the study said. "The root of the problem lies in the fact that the United States does not have comprehensive laboratory safety law. The system does not even have comprehensive reporting requirements for accidental releases."

In a follow-up study in 2005, the group found only three percent of scientists studying biowar germs had received a grant to work with such bugs before. "Too many scientists with too little training are handling agents that are too dangerous for their experience," the study noted. The Canadian story is all too similar. The federal government's top-security virology lab in Winnipeg is a veritable Three Stooges performance of what can go wrong at even the safest facilities. The lab was built to study the world's most lethal diseases, like Ebola and SARS. Three weeks after it opened in 1999, the $172-million federal complex, one of only 15 Biosafety Level 4 labs in the world, equipped to handle the deadliest microbes known, accidentally spilled 2,000 litres of unsterilized waste water into the Winnipeg sewer system. The lab didn't disclose the accident for two weeks, prompting angry Winnipeggers to hold a meeting to demand independent oversight of the sprawling complex, which is located in a mixed residential-industrial neighbourhood in the city centre.

The outside oversight never happenedóthough a "community liaison committee" was formed to reassure localsóand an audit declared the lab was safe. Just months later, in January 2000, another spill released 100 litres of lab waste inside the facility. Other incidents have come to light since then. In 2005, the lab was in the news when a courier truck crashed in central Winnipeg on the way to the facility while transporting anthrax, influenza and tuberculosis. Several blocks were cordoned off before authorities announced nothing had spilled. And last April, 30 lab employees had to be given antibiotics after yet another contamination incident, this time involving material derived from anthrax. Then, in July, a sterilization unit that is used to treat waste from the lab malfunctioned. And those are only the incidents the lab has made public. A CBC inquiry in 2001 found 25 other mishaps where the lab didn't issue a press release, including two in which staff were injured. Moreover, the lab's liaison committee, which is required to issue a yearly report on its work, hasn't issued such a document since 2005.

It all makes Cummins wonder. If the world's most secure labs can have so many screw-ups, what kind of surprises lurk in less controlled environments? He wonders how the lack of regulation, accountability and public debate on genetic engineering and the patchwork approach of oversight can continue in light of everything we now know. "It is as if workers and the public are really insignificant," he says. "We have grown very careless."

Want to read more? Check out... "That could have been the end of terrestrial plants"

Ireland to Host ABIC 2008 Conference • August 24 - 27th, 2008

AusBiotech - Australia's Biotechnology Organisation.

On behalf of the ABIC [Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference] Foundation, Dr. Ashley O'Sullivan, Chair, is pleased to announce the awarding of the 2008 Conference site. ABIC 2008 will be held in Cork, Ireland, August 24 ‚ 27th, 2008. The Conference host for the 2008 event is the Irish Government semi-state organization Teagasc. Teagasc provides integrated research, advisory and training services for the agriculture and food industry in Ireland and employs over 1,500 staff at over 100 locations throughout Ireland.

The first ABIC conference was held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada in 1996. It was a tremendous success and was followed up with a second conference in 1998. Following the 1998 conference, the ABIC Foundation Inc. was established to secure the continued success of the ABIC series. The Foundation performs advisory, promotional and supportive functions for the conferences. As the Foundation shapes the ABIC concept, it strives to position the Conference at the forefront of agbiotech innovation. Through its various activities, the Foundation raises ABIC's international profile while fostering the ABIC standard of quality. The Foundation's goal is to ensure ongoing opportunities for continuous learning and networking with the agbiotech community through the conference. The conference develops opportunities for collaborations and partnerships by maintaining a vital international network; enhancing access to key research and product development concepts; raising the international profile and public acceptance of agricultural biotechnology and ensuring continued growth of the global agbiotech industry.

The ABIC Conference series is held annually, alternating locations between Asia / Pacific, North America and Europe. ABIC 2007 will be held September 23 ‚ 26, 2007 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The 2007 Conference is co-hosted by BioAlberta and Alberta Agriculture Research Institute.

The ABIC Foundation is managed by Ag-West Bio Inc. Both organizations are located at 101 - 111 Research Drive, Saskatoon SK S7N 3R2 CANADA Email should be addressed to abicfoundation@abic.ca

Comment from Australia:

Having just read of your great moves to have Ireland declared GM free, I thought you would be interested in the link above.

ABIC held a conference here in 2006, and it was instrumental, from what we can work out, in getting the ban on GM canola (rapeseed) lifted here. ABIC is basically a pro-GM Canadian initiative, but it will bring all your pro-GM lobby out of the woodwork, and it would be good to oppose. We had a GM free fiesta outside the 2006 conf in Melbourne, as well as one person who decided to speak at it.

Good luck with fighting for a GM free future !

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Teagasc - an Irish semi-state body - should not be using Irish taxpayer funds to promote Canada's biotech industry, particularly in view of the Irish Government's policy goal to ban the release of GM crops in Ireland!

Teagasc's board of directors is appointed by Ireland's Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. A quick scan of the ABIC (Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference) website at www.abic.ca reveals that ABIC's Board of Directors includes Jimmy Burke (the former head of Teagasc), the conference chair Ashley O'Sullivan (a former Monsanto employee), Roger Kemble (President of Syngenta Biotechnology Inc), Malcolm Devine (a former employee of both Aventis CropScience and Bayer CropScience), etc.

Qatar plans law to check entry of GM products

The Peninsula, 12 March 2008.

Doha -- Qatar is giving final touches to a law to check the entry of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into the country and make labelling of GMOs products mandatory giving consumers the right to pick their choice of GMO or non-GMO products. This means the law will allow people to enjoy the benefits of biotechnology while avoiding its possible risks.

Ghanem Mohammed Al Abdullah, Director, Wildlife Conservation, SCENR, told The Peninsula that the next meeting of the National Committee on Biosafety will discuss the details of introducing a labeling system of GMOs in Qatar. Ahead of the meeting, the committee will also host a workshop that will be addressed by international experts in the field.

Al Abdullah said the proposed Biosafety Law was prepared on the basis of Cartegena Protocol, to which Qatar is a party. "The protocol will enable everyone to enjoy the benefits of biotechnology while avoiding unnecessary risks," he said.

The long-term effects on human health of consuming GM food have not been investigated so far. The Biosafety National Committee believes that through labelling, customers can distinguish GMO products from the rest. Though most of the GCC countries have become the party to the Cartegena Protocol in the rent past, Qatar is the first country to draft a law in check the proliferation of GMOs. Greenpeace has hailed Qatar's initiative.

11 March 2008

EU: Tasting the Consequence of GM Animal Feeds

ThePoultrySite.com, 11 March 2008.

A new report on the use of genetically modified organisms in animal feed has been published in a scientific journal.

This issue has been the subject of much discussion in the GMO evaluation process. EFSA's GMO Panel decided to evaluate existing practice and use of such trials. Following an online public consultation on the draft Report last year, it has made recommendations on their use in the evaluation process.

The safety assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed follows the approach widely accepted by international organisations such as the FAO/WHO, Codex Alimentarius and the OECD.

It is based on comparison with conventional counterparts to identify intended and unintended differences. The Report argues that this remains an appropriate basis for deciding whether animal feeding trial studies are needed for the safety and nutritional assessment of GM food and feed.

Further Reading

You can view the full report by clicking here: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/gmo_report_feedingtrials.pdf

UK: Draft Rice Products From China (Restriction on First Placing on the Market) (Scotland) Regulations 2008

UK Food Standards Agency, 11 March 2008.

The national regulations will implement an, as yet unpublished, Commission Decision on emergency measures regarding the unauthorised genetically modified organism 'Bt63' in rice and rice products originating, or consigned from, China.

All comments and views should be sent to:

Karen McCallum-Smith
Animal Food Chain and Novel Foods Branch
Food Standards Agency Scotland
6th Floor, St. Magnus House,
25 Guild Street
Aberdeen AB11 6NJ
Tel: 01224 285164
Fax: 01224 285168
E-mail: karen.mccallum-smith@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

Responses are requested by: 17 March 2008

Consultation details

The European Community (EC) has adopted an emergency measure that will apply from 15 April 2008. It will require imports of rice and rice products (including composite products) originating or consigned from China to be certified as free of the unauthorised genetically modified organism 'Bt63'.

The emergency measure specifies that, from 15 April, rice and rice products originating in or consigned from China and falling within the Community Number (CN) codes shown in the document at the link below, may only be first placed on the EC market if:

•

they are accompanied by an original analytical report issued by an official or accredited laboratory which demonstrates that the product does not contain Bt63

or

•

satisfactory results of analysis are received by the food authority at the point of entry to the community, following sampling carried out by or under the supervision of that authority

European Union member states will be required to prevent any uncertified consignment from being placed on the market.

Food and feed business operators will be required to notify the Food Standards Agency immediately of any positive results for Bt63 from sampling activity they undertake.

Further information

This consultation has been prepared in accordance with the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice on Consultation. Criterion 6 of the Cabinet Office Code of Practice states that a consultation must follow better regulation best practice, including carrying out a Regulatory Impact Assessment. We are interested in what you thought of this consultation and would therefore welcome your general feedback on both the consultation package and overall consultation process. If you would like to assist us to improve the quality of future consultations, please feel free to share your thoughts with us by using the Consultation Feedback Questionnaire.

Consultation Feedback Questionnaire (Word)

Consultation Feedback Questionnaire (pdf)

Publication of personal data and confidentiality of responses

In accordance with the FSA principle of openness our Information Centre at Aviation House will hold a copy of the completed consultation. Responses will be open to public access upon request. The FSA will also publish a summary of responses, which may include personal data, such as your full name and contact address details. If you do not want this information to be released, please complete and return the Publication of Personal Data Form. Return of this form does not mean that we will treat your response to the consultation as confidential, just your personal data.

Publication of Personal Data Form (Word)

Publication of Personal Data Form (pdf)

In accordance with the provisions of freedom of information legislation, all information contained in your response may be subject to publication or disclosure. If you consider that some of the information provided in your response should not be disclosed, you should indicate the information concerned, request that it is not disclosed and explain what harm you consider would result from disclosure.

Any automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be considered as such a request unless you specifically include a request, with an explanation, in the main text of your response.

Publication of response summary

Within three months of a consultation ending we aim to publish a summary of responses received and provide a link to it from this page. If, after three months, the summary is still not showing, please contact the person who was responsible for the original consultation. Alternatively, you can contact Chris Harvey, the FSA Consultation Co-ordinator, on 020 7276 8630.
Email: chris.harvey@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

Related links

Draft Rice Products From China (Restriction on First Placing on the Market) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. Read the consultation documents İ(pdfİ1MB)

UK: FSA consults with industry on Chinese GM rice rules

Food Production Daily, 11 March 2008. By Neil Merrett.

UK-based processors are being consulted over plans by the country's Food Standards Agency for mandatory testing of Chinese rice imports over fears of contamination from unapproved Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). The consultations centre on a new EU-wide emergency ruling that comes into place on 15 April, requiring certification for rice or rice products produced or consigned in china.İ The certification will be required to clarify that he respective imports are free from the GMO Bt63.

Under the ruling Chinese rice imports entering the EU must now have either an official or accredited analytical lab report, or analysis from relevant member state food authorities at the port of entry, indicating the absence of BT63.

Consultation deadlines

To better asses the impact of these changes on industry, the FSA has set a number of deadlines for food industry representatives across the UK.İ These are:

•

14 March for industry representatives from England

•

17 March for manufacturers and other stakeholders in both Wales and Scotland

•

18 March for representatives in Northern Ireland.

Bt63

Rice contaminated with the Bt63 - which is not authorised either in the EU or in China - was identified in rice products imported from China and on sale in EU member states in September 2006.

The Chinese authorities announced measures to address the problem in 2007, including sampling and testing and an official Chinese Inspection and Quarantine Certificate. Despite this, the presence of some material containing Bt63 was still being reported in some countries late last year.

The Commission's Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health voted in February to introduce the emergency measures as of April 15, only for product consignments that are indicated in a specific Annex of the Decision to enter the EU.

These consignments must be tested by an official or accredited laboratory using a specific testing method.

China, by contrast, has not provided the Commission's Joint Research Centre withİcontrol samples it requested, nor with the protocol of the detection method it was using so that the centre could validate it.

The measures will be introduced from April 15 to allow time for practical arrangements to be made. The situation will be reassessed after six months.

Health commissioner Markos Kyprianou said: "The decision adoptedÖ aims to prevent the unauthorised Bt63 rice from reaching EU consumers, but ensuring that only rice products certified as free from this GMO enter the EU."

He stresses that, under EU safety legislation, only GMOs that have undergone a thorough scientific assessment and authorisation procedure may be placed on the EU market. İ

EU: EFSA says GM oilseed rape unlikely to cause harm

FoodNavigator.com, 11 March 2008.

EFSA has issued its opinion that Bayer's GM oilseed rape is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on human or animal health or the environment when used for food and feed uses.

The GM oilseed rape variety known as T45, which is designed to be tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium, is meant for cultivation in the oilseed-growing areas of the United States.

Bayer Crop Science applied for approval for the variety in 2005. Its application covers food and animal feed uses, including importing and processing, but does not include cultivation.

Rapeseed oil, also known as canola, is one of the healthiest edible oils in a diet, since it has an extremely low level of saturated fatty acids. It also has many other industrial and cosmetic uses, such as in suntan oil.

The positive opinion from EFSA in the context of the GM oilseed rape's intended uses does not mean that the variety will automatically be approved, however. A consultation on the opinion is open for the next month, whereafter the final go-ahead can only be granted by the European Commission.

In the past, this has proved a stickling point as some member states remain staunchly against genetic modification. However the main area of controversy has been over approval for cultivation of GM crops in Europe.

At present only GM maize (Monsanto and Bayer) is authorised for cultivation in Europe, though some states are facing a legal challenge because they have decided not to allow the cultivation.

T45 is genetically modified to express an enzyme called phosphinothricin acetyl-transferase (PAT), which makes the plant tolerant to glucosinate ammonium herbicides.

EFSA said that T45 is compositionally and phenotypically equivalent to non-GM rape, apart from the one introduced trait. Consequently, it said it was "of the opinion that there is no need for a specific labelling."

In addition to the new application on the use of T45 in food and feed products, Bayer also submitted an application for an earlier approval relating to the same crop to be renewed. This covered T45 as existing products - that is food additives and feed materials produced from the GM variety.

EFSA's opinion stands for both applications.

In January EFSA said it is working with member states to update risk assessment guidance for GMOs to bring it in line with scientific progress and provide more in-depth advice.

More than 60 GMO experts from national regulatory risk assessment bodies came together in November to discuss the best scientific approaches for evaluating the safety of GMOs at national and European level.

Although he would not specify the final outcome of the process, Steve Pagani, head of EFSA 's press office, told FoodNavigator.com: "We want to draw together the best scientific minds and look at the different methodologies available to see if there are other ways to do it."

While EFSA's guidelines remain voluntary, all member states showed that they refer to them, and there were no indications that national risk assessment documents differ from internationally accepted guidance.

MON810 Genome Rearranged Again
Stability of All Transgenic Lines in Doubt

Institute of Science in Society press release, 11 March 2008. By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.

[A fully referenced version of this report has been submitted to the EFSA on behalf of ISIS. An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of GB£3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk]

The instability of transgenic lines is not exactly news, but something too seldom reported, being The Best Kept Secret of GM Crops [1], and even we in ISIS have missed this item hidden in the final paragraphs of a technical paper published in 2003, which found new signs of instability in a transgenic maize that has been grown commercially since 1995.

Researchers from the Institute of Molecular Biology in Barcelona, Spain, analysed MON810 maize Certified Reference Material (CRM) obtained from the European Commission's Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) and commercialised by Fluka (Buchs, Switzerland); using the most sophisticated and sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods available [2]. They found that the transgene insert had rearranged and probably moved, yet again, from its whereabouts reported a year ago, when MON810 maize, along with at least 5 other lines were found to have rearranged, and no longer matched the genetic maps provided by the companies [3-5] (Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable, SiS 20; Unstable Transgenic Lines Illegal, SiS 21).

These initial discoveries [3-5] were so serious that on 28 November 2003, I wrote to Dr. William Moens, Head of the Service of Biosafety and Biotechnology (SBB), Scientific Institute of Public Health (IPH), which had reported one of the two different sets of data on transgenic inserts, and I raised two important issues [6]:

"First, there appears to be both major and minor inconsistencies between the results reported by your Institute and those reported by the French laboratories. Could that be due to methodological problems or to different samples of the same transgenic line being analysed? If the latter is the case, it would suggest that the transgenic lines are not only unstable (see below) but also non-uniform. In other words, they do not pass the DUS [Distinct, Uniform and Stable] test, whichİI understand, is required by European law [for a commercial variety].

"Second, the new EU Directive 2001/18/EC specifically requires event-specific molecular data documenting genetic stability (Annex IIIB) as a condition for market approval. In view of the finding that practically every transgenic insert has rearranged from that reported in the company's dossier, it would indicate that the transgenic lines have failed the test of genetic stability, and are no longer the same lines that were risk assessed, and in some cases, placed on the market.

"For either or both those reasons, itİwould seemİillegal, under European law, to grant those transgenic lines commercial approval; and the lines that have been approved should surely now be withdrawn."

The reply from Dr. Moens came two days later. It stated [7]:

"I thank you very much for your email and related data. The experts of the Belgian Biosafety Council are just busy to evaluate in a hurry all these elements. Your email and data have been transmitted for further review.

"No doubt that the outcome of such analysis will be handled on a transparent way within delays that are not yet defined. (sic) I can guarantee you that I'll make you aware about our conclusions when legally possible."

I never heard from Moens or anyone else from SBB again.

In December 2007, I resent my message and Moens' reply to him, to remind him that I was still awaiting his answer, but received nothing so far. The reason seems to be that our regulators have allowed the companies to submit new data, and probably even new certified reference materials, in order to justify continued market approval, which is still illegal.

The Spanish finding highlights how unstable a transgenic line could be. Specifically, the Spanish team characterized the 3' region (tail end) of the transgenic insert, and found it was no longer in the long terminal repeat (LTR) of the alpha Zein gene cluster of the maize genome, as reported a year ago [3-5]. Furthermore, they failed to get any PCR product from the wild type maize genome that corresponds to the site at which the transgenic insert had landed. That is indicative of substantial genome scrambling at the MON810 transgenic insertion site; and there are other signs that further sequences have been deleted from the original insert.

Recently, researchers in the Industrial Toxicology Research Centre in Marg Lucknow, India, have also analysed the MON810 insert using multiple PCR primers, and came to the same conclusion [8]: their finding "confirms the structural instability of MON810 transgene cassettes."İ Contrary to Monsanto's claim that nptII is absent in MON810, they consistently found the presence of nptII as well as Tnos in their sample. This inconsistency has been noted previously [5].

Another research team at the University of Florence, Italy, has just published their characterization of the 3' insertion site of MON810 [9] and identified scrambled sequences belonging to the maize HECT E3 ubiquitin ligase. They found several new mRNAs that are fusion proteins of the truncated Cry1Ab and the uibiquitin ligase sequences, the safety implications of which are totally unknown.

For at least the past ten years, I have been looking for credible evidence that transgenic line is stable and found none. That remains true to-date. The transgenic insert is not the same as a natural piece of DNA. Transgenic DNA has features that make it behave somewhat like a loose cannon even after it has inserted into a genome, it can jump elsewhere in the same genome, scrambling the genome on the way, or it can insert into the genome of another cell [10] (Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 38) to wreak the same unpredictable havoc, and worse, to activate cancer genes with its revved up promoter that makes the transgene over-express out of control.

10 March 2008

Bt176 sheep feeding study -- another case of scientific fraud?

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 10th March 2008

An Italian feeding trial, in which some sheep were fed the controversial maize line Bt176 over a period of 3 years, appears to have been specifically designed and conducted in order to confirm the "no health risk" hypothesis (1).

In 2002-2005 scientists at the University of Perugia, with funding from the Italian Ministry of Health, conducted a "longitudinal" study involving 106 breeding ewes, of which one group was fed on a diet containing Bt176 maize. The full article has crucial information missing, and appears to be systematically biased. The following points emerged in a reading of the text:

1. The preamble states: "There is a lack of long-term studies, performed on a high number of animals over several generations, aimed at evaluating the effects of genetically modified (GM) feeds on livestock species." It is implied that this paper will address this issue, but it does nothing of the sort. Only one generation of ewes was fed on the GM maize, and their lambs were fed no GM at all. The actual size of the test group is not given anywhere in the paper.

2. The quantity of GM feed fed to the test group of ewes was very small, at 5.6% of their diet, except during lactation, when the proportion increased to 19.4%. Overall, the test group was fed 17 times more hay than GM maize.

3. The researchers found important differences in 4 out of 30 investigated blood parameters (ie. 13.33 percent of parameters). Some items were very close to statistical significance (e.g. ALT, P=0.053; Platelet, P=0.060; WBC, P=0.056) and yet these results were effectively disregarded or dismissed.

4. The histological differences picked up between the control group of ewes and the test (GM) group are said to be 'preliminary' -- we suspect because the scientists on this part of the project were not allowed to perform a detailed or extended study on the histological samples.

5. The PCR cited for Bt176 is not reliable, as it does not give the GM maize used, only the genes in plasmids. This is a common method used by the GM industry in the falsification of results (2).

6. It is also useful to recall the following: Bt 176 was one of the GM inserts analysed by both French and Belgian scientists. The company Syngenta claimed the transgene is crylAb. Comparison with the public database revealed that the transgene has only 65% homology with the native crylAb, but 94% homology with a synthetic crylAc (3).

7. Following brief references to "cell nuclear modifications" and "functional modifications" the authors of the paper fail to consider the implications or causes in any detail. In their abstract they say: "No modifications of histological features of tissues were found; however, cytochemical analyses of ruminal epithelium by Ki67 staining provided evidence of proliferative activation of basal cells in all GM maize-fed ewes. Preliminary electron microscopy analyses of the liver and pancreas revealed smaller cell nuclei containing increased amounts of heterochromatin and perichromatin granules in GM maize-fed lambs."

In its investigation of these results GM Free Cymru discovered that the original referees of this paper did express concerns about these physiological changes, and asked for them to be investigated and elucidated, but that the journal accepted the piece in any case for publication.

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "We have been checking on this study from its early days, following the award of grant aid in the year 2000. In the year 2004, no doubt under pressure from Syngenta, and following the discovery of the cellular changes mentioned above, a decision was made to abandon the research and to withhold it from publication. This was a particularly sensitive time for Syngenta, following the revelations that cows that died in Hesse, Germany, had been fed on Bt176 maize (4). Later, the decision was taken to write up the research results and to submit them for publication, possibly because Syngenta had already decided to withdraw Bt176 from the market (5)."

"But from the beginning this study -- like most other feeding studies -- was designed to prove the nutritional equivalence of the GM and non-GM maize lines, and to demonstrate that the "health" and "performance" of animals was not negatively affected by the consumption of GM feed. It has all the signs of a paper carefully manufactured for the promotion of a particular conclusion acceptable to Syngenta. The results of the study were effectively predetermined when the GM component in the feed was made absurdly small. Further, just one small group of breeding ewes was fed on the test diet when the opportunity could have been taken to study three generations. And a request for more detailed studies was refused when evidence of proliferative activation of basal cells was discovered.

"This is a profoundly unsatisfactory study, biased from the beginning towards a "no harm" conclusion, and we see it as yet another example of the insiduous and sinister influence of the GM corporations on the research work of honest scientists in academic institutions."

"The only consolation which we can draw from this piece of work is that the evidence of damage to the pancreas, liver and ruminalepithelium of the ewes fed on GM maize in this study may have helped to convince Syngenta that Bt176 was an unstable and fundamentally dangerous variety à and to speed its demise."

Contact: Brian John GM Free Cymru Tel 01239-820470

Notes:

(1) Trabalza-Marinucci, M., Brandi, G., Rondini, C., Avellini, L., Giammarini, C., Costarelli, S., Acuti, G., Orlandi, C., Filippini, G., Chiaradia, E., Malatesta, M., Crotti, S., Antonini, C., Amagliani, G., Manuali, E., Mastrogiacomo, A., Moscati, L., Haouet, M., Gaiti, A., Magnani, M. 2008. A Three-Year Longitudinal Study on the Effects of a Diet Containing Genetically Modified Bt176 Maize on the Health Status and Performance of Sheep. Livestock Science. 113:178-190. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XNX-4NKB28J-1&_user=10&_coverDate=
02%2F29%2F2008&_alid=703187255&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c
&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d583da462537ddda49f3fa2f9d221812

(2) Monsanto used a similar technique in its submissions in Japan relating to RR soy: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0311/S00113.htm http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/testing112403.cfm http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=2215

(3) "Unstable Transgenic Lines Illegal" by Mae-wan Ho http://www.indsp.org/ISOMSD.php
"Transgenic lines proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 http://www.i-sis.org.uk

(4) Dead cows linked to Bt176 in Hesse, Germany. In 2001-2002 twelve dairy cows died in Hesse, Germany, after being fed Syngenta's Bt176 GM maize and other cows had to be slaughtered due to mysterious illnesses. Bt176 has the worst of features common to practically all commercially approved GM crops. Not only is Bt176 unstable (like all GM varieties analyzed so far), it is also non- uniform, so that different samples of the variety gave different results. The variety is therefore illegal under European law. Syngenta is reputed to have paid the farmer 40,000 Euros in compensation as a "goodwill gesture", while refusing to accept any liability. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1890

(5) Bt176 was withdrawn from the market by Syngenta in 2005. See this:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/614r1-/614r1-en.pdf

Extracts:

"The notifier of SYN-EV176-9 maize, in a letter to the Commission dated 19 September 2005, indicated that it has stopped selling seeds of SYN-EV176-9 maize in the Community after the 2005 planting season."

"The notifier has further indicated to the Commission that it has no intention to submit an application for renewal of the authorisation of SYN-EV176-9 maize under the Regulation in accordance with Article 8(4), Article 11, Article 20(4) and Article 23 respectively. Therefore neither the cultivation nor the placing on the market of SYNEV176-9 maize and its derived products will be authorised in the Community after 18 April 2007."

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=CB02042_4757_FRA.doc

BASF Delays Gene-Modified Potato Crop, Blames EU for Inaction

Bloomberg, March 10 2008. By Stefanie Haxel.

BASF SE, the world's largest chemicals maker, postponed cultivation of the genetically modified Amflora potato to at least next year after the European Commission failed to rule on its approval.

The European Union's executive body "is violating the EU's own rules" by delaying a decision, Hans Kast, head of BASF's Plant Science said today in a statement. The approval was withheld "apparently for political reasons as no factual reason is given," he said.

It is now too late in the year to start planting the crop, altered to enhance its starch content for industrial use, spokeswoman Mette Johansson said. BASF is considering various responses including legal action, she said. Possible locations for cultivation are Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic.

The application to grow Amflora was passed on to the Commission, the 27-nation EU's regulatory arm, in July after individual EU governments failed to reach an agreement. A second application to allow using industrial byproducts for animal feed is also still pending.

To contact the reporter on this story: Stefanie Haxel in Frankfurt at shaxel@bloomberg.net

Comment by GM Watch:

Back in December we were told "BASF expects EU approval of Amflora within weeks". Then in February BASF issued a press release headed, "Amflora: BASF expects green light from EU Commission". Now it's the blame game, but the reality hasn't changed throughout - EU citizens overwhelmingly don't want BASF's GM potatoes or any other GMOs.

UK: 21st century temptations: The real seven (even more deadly) sins

The Mail on Sunday, 10 March 2008. By James Delingpole. (extracts only)

Did you pop down to your nearest GM crop site with a spray gun full of weedkiller this morning?

Have you made absolutely sure that those funny new neighbours of yours aren't conducting secret experiments on humans? And if not, why not?

Because according to the latest ruling from the Vatican you have been committing at least two mortal sins.

"Genetic modification" and "carrying out experiments on humans" really are on a new list of seven modern deadly sins announced this week by one of the Pope's close allies, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti.

The other sins on the list are: polluting the environment; causing social injustice; causing poverty; becoming obscenely wealth; and taking drugs. The reason we need a new list, Monsignor Girotti explained, is that the old list (sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride) - has a "rather individualistic dimension".

Genetic modification joins lust on mortal sins list

Great Beyond (Nature science news blog), March 10 2008. By Daniel Cressey.

A senior member of the Vatican has drawn up a new list of mortal sins, and science features prominently. Not all of science of course, but Catholic researchers might face some tough choices.

In an interview with the Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, senior cleric Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary which is in charge of confession, was asked "What are the new sins in your opinion?" Along with drug use and social injustice he listed genetic manipulation and experiments on humans.

Girotti also gave a speech on the subject and is quoted in the Times as saying, "You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour's wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos."

Here is what the Google translator made of part of Girotti's statement to L'Osservatore:

"There are several areas in which today feel sinful attitudes towards individual rights and social issues. First, the area of bioethics within which we can not fail to denounce violations of certain fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulation, whose outcome is difficult to discern and control."

Some newspapers appear to have done some creative accounting on this article, making it into 'seven new deadly sins'. These are "genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs were all mortal sins" in the Daily Telegraph. Down in Australia they are "polluting, genetic engineering, obscene riches, taking drugs, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice" in the Sydney Morning Herald.

While the Vatican has previously been hostile towards certain aspects of research ‚ such work involving human embryos ‚ Girotti's statement appears to widen the net and up the stakes. Making these mortal sins, rather than just lesser, 'venial sins' which don't necessarily condemn you to Hell, could make things rather more difficult for Catholics working in these areas, or even working with people who are.

Africa Must Resist Terminator Technologies

The Herald (Harare), 10 March 2008. By Sifelani Tsiko.

African countries must resist pressure from powerful agro-business multinationals to introduce terminator technologies in the agricultural sector as this has serious implications on biodiversity, the environment and the livelihoods of farmers on the continent.

Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Africa Region programme co-ordinator Mr Patrick Kasasa told this to participants at a three-day workshop which was held in Maseru, Lesotho, last week to examine the implications of emerging technologies, Economic Partnership Agreements and food aid on smallholder farmers.

"Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS) will have damaging effects on Africa's poor farmers. The technology is very expensive and farmers will become dependent on multinationals," said Mr Kasasa.

"They (multinationals) want to recolonise Africa again using these new technologies, commonly referred to as terminator technologies. Every time farmers want seed, they will have to go to them. We become heavily dependent on multinationals."

He said powerful multinationals were investing heavily in various programmes to promote the use of genetically modified organisms with a view to clearing the way for the eventual introduction of terminator technologies. Terminator or "suicide" seed, for example, refers to new genetically engineered seeds which are engineered to be sterile, forcing poor farmers to repurchase seed each year from multinationals who have patented these genetic use restriction technologies.

The GM seed includes "junkie plants" that are dependent on chemicals sold by multinationals to flower, seed and sprout.

Farmers using GM crops in some parts of Africa are forced to sign contracts with giant GMO companies where they agree not to share their seed, only use chemicals, buy new seed the following year and agree to set aside 25 percent of their land as a "refuge" area to control diseases.

Some of the multinationals include Monsanto, Aventis, DuPont and Syngenta, which dominate the global agro-chemical business as well as genetic engineering technologies.

Participants, made up of agronomists, policymakers, farmer groupings, policy analysts and civil organisations, felt strongly that terminator technologies would increase the dependency and indebtedness of smallholder farmers to multinationals eroding the communal rights, which entitled them to traditional crop varieties which they could share freely without added costs.

"Terminator technologies are a ploy by multinationals to protect technologies from others in order to maximise profits. African farmers are forced to become dependent on them for chemicals, pesticides and other inputs," Mr Kasasa said.

"There is need for intense lobbying against (GURTS) terminator technologies in response to the concerns of developing countries."

Said Mr Genene Gezu, an Ethiopian plant breeder: "Africa is the home of biodiversity. These new technologies are going to displace this huge biodiversity asset base. It will harm Africa's seed security system.

"Multinationals have the power to do anything and we have to remain vigilant and guard Africa's biodiversity. We have to remain strong and work with farmers to protect the continent's biodiversity."

He said resource-poor farmers will never be able to afford technology fees and the chemicals to grow the GM seeds.

Experts say about 1,4 billion people depend on saved seed for their survival. They argue that genetic engineering in its present form and thrust cannot form part of the solution to the food crisis in Africa.

"We need to read more and keep abreast of new trends on emerging technologies. Let's cultivate a reading culture among our people to understand the implications of these new technologies," said Mr Makhathe Moahloli, the director of Katleho Moho Association and CBDC Africa co-ordinator in Lesotho.

"Let's make the farmers aware of these new technologies. Let's be there at international forums. Let's make noise together with farmers. Our challenge now is to take the message to the farmers, raise awareness and resist," said Mr Kasasa.

Mr William Chadza of the Centre for Environmental Policy and Advocacy (Cepa-Malawi) said southern African countries needed robust policy and legal frameworks to help them adopt practical measures to safeguard human health and safety concerns.

"Governments must provide enough resources for skills and manpower to effectively manage GMO issues in the region," he said. "Farmers may abandon traditional farming methods and we need to raise our awareness among them, telling them the pros and cons of GMOs."

Raising awareness on GMO issues is still a challenge for Lesotho and most other countries in southern Africa.

"We are really not well-versed on GMO issues. We are against GMOs, but we still need to learn more from others so that we can fight for the rights of farmers," said Mr Makalo Motsoane of Matshobana Agricultural Development Foundation.

"The threat of GMOs is real, Lesotho is surrounded by South Africa which has embraced GM seeds. We are a market for South Africa and we need to understand the implications of these new technologies on the health of our people as well as our agricultural systems."

More than 65 million tonnes of beef was condemned recently in the United States and retailers were ordered to return the stocks following health concerns raised over the condition of the cattle. This has sparked fresh fears about the risk of GM meats on humans.

"What is really at stake is important to our lives and to future generations. The battle we are fighting is the battle for the ownership of life," said veteran Zimbabwe agronomist Mr Andrew Mushita, adding his voice on the GMO debate.

"We want to make sure that we in Africa are in control of our destiny and even that of the future generations. We need to create a critical mass, a critical mass that will fight for the African agenda on the global arena on an array of issues affecting African farmers."

Modern biotechnology has generated vigorous debate with proponents of biotechnology arguing it has benefits that include the development of vaccines that combat human and animal diseases, increased crop yields, plant resistance to pest diseases, reduction of environmental pollution, more effective use of fertilizer, uniform harvest and product quality.

On the other hand, the GM debate has been met with resistance with anti-GMO activists raising concerns over the issue of safety to human health and the environment.

Fears on GMO foods centre on the potential for allergic reactions, the possible introduction or increase in the production of toxic compounds as a result of GM technology and the use of antibiotic resistance markers in plant transformation.

There are also fears that giant multinationals and research institutes which hold patents and licensing agreements will refuse to share GM technology and restrict the poor farmers from propagating their own crops.

"Cross-contamination in the region is also a possibility. With terminator seed technology this could be devastating for the farmers," Mr Kevin Roussel, an anti-GMO campaigner with the South African Catholic Bishops' Conference, once remarked in 2006.

"The region could lose centuries of practice which will be a major loss of indigenous knowledge systems. We should be wary of making the same mistakes that formed in the Green Revolution (of the 1960s)."

South Africa has embraced genetic engineering and is now producing GM maize, milk, cotton, canola, wheat, apples, potatoes, sugarcane and soya products.

The major actors in the GMO industry are the US, which is pro, and the European Union, which has largely opposed the wholesale spread of the GMOs.

Worldwide hectarage of GM crops grew from 1,7 million in 1996 to an estimated 60,7 million in 2002, showing the growing influence of multinational corporations.

In 2003, six principal countries grew 99 percent of the global transgenic crop area. The US grew 42,8 million ha, followed by Argentina with 13,9 million, Canada 4,4 million, Brazil 3 million, China 2,8 million and South Africa 0,4 million hectares. China and South Africa had the highest year-on-year increase with a 33 percent growth rate, according to AfricaBio.

China increased its Bt cotton area to 2,8 million hectares while South Africa increased its combined area of GM maize, soyabean and cotton to 0,4 million with particularly strong growth in white maize which has increased rapidly from 6 000 hectares in 2001 to 84 000 hectares in 2003.

It is also estimated that 30 000 field trials have been conducted with more than 50 GM crops in 45 countries.

In the wake of these statistics, it is imperative for African countries to strengthen their mechanisms to safeguard human health and agro-biodiversity in the region to maintain Africa's biodiversity base critical to the survival of its farmers.

Political and financial support for biosafety boards that will draw up guidelines and have authority to enforce them in line with the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the African Union Biosafety Model Laws is critical for most African countries.

NGOs warn of poisoned rice in Ghana, Nigeria

Daily Independent, 10 March 2008.

Consumers in Ghana and the entire West African sub region may begin experiencing the health hazards associated with biotech products if the result of a laboratory test of rice samples from the countries are anything to go by, participants at a one-day public awareness forum on "Biosafety Issues and Experience Sharing" in Benin City, have warned.

Of the 47 samples of 17 brands of rice on the market shelf in the three countries that were used for the test, it was confirmed that there was a preponderance of GMO varieties; Liberty Link Rice 62 (LLRICE62) and LLRICE601 in two.

Six of the eight brands of rice samples from Nigeria tested positive to the GM-strain while it was found in one out of three from Ghana.

All the brands tested in Sierra Leone tested negative however, there are fears that the level of illegal rice imports in the sub region may result in an infiltration of the contaminated brands in that country.

LLRICE601 had earlier been confirmed in rice samples from Sierra Leone and Ghana sent to an independent laboratory in the United States for testing in October 2006, following the discovery that the GM product, manufactured by Bayer had contaminated food chains in Europe and Japan that same year.

These facts came to light at the public awareness forum organised by Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) in Benin City on January 22, 2008, in conjunction with several civil society groups, farmers bodies, market women, representatives of community associations, and media practitioners among others.

The event was targeted at raising public awareness and consciousness about biosafety issues and quality of foods and food products in Nigeria.

Among other things, participants held strongly that: GMO, a product driven by profit-driven biotech industries, is not the answer to the food security problem in Africa, but policies to achieve improved farming practices, development of rural infrastructure and effective distribution networks for agricultural products.

They also agreed that local farmers would be at the mercy of transnational seed companies and the potential health and environmental hazards associated with biotech products and non ‚availability of evidence-based science to allay fears.

There was an intensified effort by multinational corporations towards the introduction of GM products in Nigeria despite the lack of an existing legal, administrative and infrastructural framework to regulate the products and the intense pressure and push by biotech industry and donor agencies such as USAID, AGRA, and the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation on African governments.

Nigeria is mandated by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to put in place effective biosafety laws.

Among others, they recommended that the Federal Government to put in place strict biosafety laws using the African Model as the minimum standard to be applied.

Immediate recall from Nigeria all long grain rice imported from the United states unless proven not be contaminated by LLRice601, Suspension of rice importation from the United States unless they are accompanied by a valid GM-free certificate, the Nigeria government must initiate pro-active programmes to promote local rice variety and reduce import dependency, and that Since the problems of Africa is not the availability of food but accessibility, the government and other relevant agencies should develop effective instruments to increase accessibility to food.