NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • November 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • 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 • 2004 • 2003

More GM news is available on our news feed and www.gmwatch.eu

30 November 2008

Britain tries to block vital GM safeguard

Independent on Sunday, 30 November 2008. By Geoffrey Lean.

Britain is this week single-handedly setting out to sabotage a vital safeguard against farmers unwittingly growing GM crops, a secret document seen by The Independent on Sunday reveals.

The document -- the final version of a negotiating text to be finalised by ministers from across Europe on Thursday -- shows that the UK government is alone in opposing a provision that would keep GM contamination of seed to the "lowest possible" levels.

Without the safeguard, European farmers could sow billions of GM seeds every year without realising it, causing the modified crops to spread throughout the continent, which is at present almost entirely free of them.

The provision has been inserted into the text, which has been drawn up by France to lay down guidelines for using the technology, because conventional seeds are often mixed with small amounts of GM ones. One study found that two-thirds of US conventional crops are "contaminated" in this way.

Four years ago the EU drew up rules that would allow 0.5 per cent contamination of beet seeds, and 0.3 per cent of maize and oilseed rape ones. These would have allowed the unwitting growing of up to 4.5 billion GM oilseed rape plants, and 2.3 billion GM beet plants, across Europe every year, but they were dropped after protests.

Now every European government except Britain wants to reduce the permitted level to the lowest level that can be scientifically detected. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says it is being "pragmatic and proportionate" in opposing this, but Clare Oxborrow of Friends of the Earth says its position is "an indefensible threat to GM-free farming".

Obama's team includes dangerous biotech "Yes Men"

Huffington Post, Nov 30 2008. By Jeffrey Smith.

Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.

Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:

"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"

When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."

By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.

•

The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.

•

We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.

•

George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.

•

Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.

Food Safety Lies

Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:

"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."

The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.

Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Stephen Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.

"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."

Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs

Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.

At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.

Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.

Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.

Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk

Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.

As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.

But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.

Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.

Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.

Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"

For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."

One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.

Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.

Change, Truth, Hope

I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.

His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."

On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."

There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.

President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.

(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)

Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/TakeAction/MandatoryLabelingPetitiontoObama/index.cfm

29 November 2008

Amazon deforestation up almost 4.0 percent

AFP, 29 November 2008

RIO DE JANEIRO – Brazil's Amazon jungles, known as the lungs of the world, lost almost 12,000 square kilometres (4,800 sq. miles) in just 12 months, a rise of almost 4.0 percent, new figures showed Friday.

The National Institute for Space Research (INPE) said the deforestation of the vast jungles due to encroaching farm exploitation, was 3.8 percent higher from August 2007 to July 2008 than in the previous 12 months.

The areas most affected were in northern Para and in the central Mato Grosso region, which is a huge producer of soya beans.

Over the past three years, the Brazilian authorities have succeeded in sharply reducing the loss of the Amazon rainforests, the biggest zone of tropical woodland on the planet.

Brazil is fighting to preserve its five million square kilometers of Amazon forest, a battle which it wants to be recognized as a service against global warming.

It argues that its efforts should be rewarded with financial input from other countries which would go to helping poor Amazon populations that might otherwise turn to cutting down trees.

But the results from 2007-2008 show that a surface equivalent to Solvenia or Israel was lost compared with the previous year.

The government had warned that the figures were likely to rise and has brought in new measures to combat the problem, including a system of fines.

It has also passed a series of agreements with soya, meat, wood and mineral producers that they will not buy illegal products.

Environment Minister Carlos Minc has said that without these measures the deforestation would have been twice as large.

28 November 2008

EFSA lies and incompetence

From Dr. Brian John
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:16:53 +0100
To: Stavros Dimas [European Commissioner for the Environment]
C.c: Jill Evans MEP, Kathy Sinnot MEP, Caroline Lucas MEP
Subject: EFSA lies and incompetence

Commissioner Stavros Dimas
European Commission

Dear Mr Dimas

We have now come to the view that EFSA [the European Food Safety Authority] is no longer capable of looking after the best interests of European consumers, following the revelations that several of the GM varieties which were passed as "entirely safe" by the GMO Panel are in fact responsible for organic and health harm to animals fed on these varieties in feeding trials. We have written to our Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, to ask him not to support any moves for the "streamlining" and "simplification" of the GM approvals procedure in Europe. This letter is copied below. Mr Benn will not pay any attention to us, of course, but we hope that you will support moves for the assessment procedure to be STRENGTHENED and for EFSA to be stripped of its dominant role in the approval of any future GM varieties that come to its attention.

We also ask for a freeze on all GM approvals pending a full research programme designed to examine (and if necessary to replicate or falsify) the shocking results coming into the public domain from recent feeding trials. We are amazed that the EU, with its massive research budget, has not done this already.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
___________

Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State for the Environment
DEFRA
UK

28th November 2008

Dear Mr Benn,

EFSA LIES AND INCOMPETENCE

Please will you bear this letter in mind when determining the position of the UK delegation involved in the EU discussions on the GM approvals procedure on 4th December.

Our petition, copied below, which is highly critical of EFSA, has now been accepted by the European Parliament Petitions Committee and has been forwarded to the EC for investigation and comment. The Commission's response is awaited ......... and obviously the "citizens' rights" angle must come into the frame when the GM assessment procedure is considered on 4th December. We trust that you will agree with us on that point.

With respect to this section:

As an independent risk assessor, EFSA should not base its assessments of GM foods and crops on "advocacy science" submitted by applicants, which is by definition partial, selective and biased. Yet it continues to do so, despite the fact that some such science may also be fraudulent, since the application dossiers from GM corporations and patent owners cannot be examined in full by members of the public and by independent scientists and thus cannot be subjected to a proper process of peer review. Thus when dossiers are assembled, companies can simply omit "inconvenient" findings; they can also "manufacture" favourable results by the aggregation of data with a view to masking effects, by the use of insensitive testing techniques, by statistical manipulation, and by careful experimental design. Such practices are fraudulent, and they place Europeans at risk since GM crops and foods cleared as "safe" on the basis of dossier evidence may in fact be dangerous.

Our concerns are now shown to have been absolutely justified. Recent research papers in the peer-reviewed and government-sponsored literature show that maize NK603xMON810, maize MON810, and Monsanto Roundup-ready soy cause actual harm (directly attributable to the GM "events" concerned) to animals which consume these materials in feeding trials (1)-(5). These harmful effects have occurred in spite of the fact that EFSA has examined all of these GM varieties on more than one occasion, and has declared them to be safe in all respects.

EFSA has also reaffirmed its confidence in the safety on MON863 and NK603, in spite of the recognition of statistically significant physiological changes in animals fed on those varieties, and in spite of the attempts by the owners of these varieties to "mask" these effects in their application dossiers (6)(7). This means that EFSA is incompetent or corrupt, and that it is not effectively protecting the European consumer.

We should also like to draw your attention to the heavy criticism attracted by EFSA, following its refusal to cite, let alone take account of, two papers showing that transgenic sequences have been detected in animal tissues (8) (9) (10). Mazza et al. (2005) detected fragements of the cry1A(b) genes in the blood, liver, spleen, kidney and muscle of pigs fed with GM maize. Sharma et al (2006) detected transgene fragments in the large intestine tissue of sheep and in the cecal tissues of pigs. On 19 July 2007, EFSA lied to the Commission when it stated that : ...."a large number of experimental studies with livestock have shown that recombinant DNA fragments or proteins derived from GM plants have not been detected in tissues, fluids or edible products of farm animals" and "to date no recombinant DNA sequences have been found in any organ or tissue sample from animals fed GM plants". These words have been very carefully crafted, and were designed to mislead the Commission. That constitutes serious professional misconduct (11).

We therefore call for the disbanding of EFSA's GMO Panel and the fundamental reform of EFSA itself. Since it is obvious that harmful materials have already passed through the EFSA assessment procedure, leading to unreliable and dangerous advice to the Commission, it follows that there must now be a freeze on all future GM approvals and a reassessment of all of the past science relating to approved GM varieties.

The health of the European consumer must be protected at all costs.

Many thanks for your help on these matters. We will appreciate confirmation of receipt of this letter and confirmation that you are personally aware of its contents.

Yours sincerely

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru

(1) Velimirov A, Binter C and Zentek J. (2008) Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3. Institut f¸r Ern”hrung, and Forschungsinttitut f¸r biologischen Landbau, Vienna, Austria, November 2008.

(2) Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A and Mengheri E. (2008). Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem, http://pubs.ac.org, 16 November 2008

(3) Kilic, A. and M. T. Akay (2008). A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 46(3): 1164-1170.

(4) Manuela Malatesta, Federica Boraldi, Giulia Annovi, Beatrice Baldelli, Serafina Battistelli, Marco Biggiogera, Daniela Quaglino. (2008) A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008 Jul 22; : 18648843 (P,S,G,E,B,D)

(5) M Malatesta, F Perdoni, G Santin, S Battistelli, S Muller, M Biggiogera (2008) Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and function. Toxicol In Vitro. 2008 Sep 18; : 18835430 (P,S,G,E,B,D)

(6) Séralini, G-E, Cellier, D. & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology DOI: 10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5.

(7) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/monsanto2.htm

(8) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/efsa_misleads.htm

(9) Sharma R, Damgaard D, Alexander TW, Dugan ME, Aalhus JL, Stanford K, McAllister TA.2006 Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in digesta and tissues of sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready canola meal.J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Mar 8;54(5):1699-709.

(10) Mazza R, Soave M, Morlacchini M, Piva G, Marocco A.(2005) Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Transgenic Res. 2005 Oct;14(5):775-84.

(11) EFSA 2007a: Letter to Robert Madelin regarding the EFSA statement on the fate of recombinant DNA or proteins in the meat, milk or eggs of animals fed with GM feed. http://efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/ Non_Scientific_Document/

Petition to the European Parliament

Name: Brian John
Postal Address: Trefelin, Cilgwyn, Newport, Pembrokeshire SA42 0QN, Wales, UK
Nationality: Welsh
Hosting MEP: Kathy Sinnott, MEP Ireland South
Title of Petition: The importance of impartiality within EFSA & the food safety rights of EU citizens

Text of Petition (No. 0813/2008):

The European Food and Safety Agency (EFSA) was designed to improve food safety in the EU, to restore the faith of EU citizens in EU food and guarantee consumer protection. As such, EFSA claims to provide "independent scientific advice [which] underpins the European food safety system"[1]. As citizens who should be served by this remit of EFSA we petition the European Parliament today because we see that the modus operandi of EFSA means it cannot be neutral or independent and thus violates the rights of all EU consumers to clean, safe and healthy food.

It is our assertion that EFSA does not operate according to EU law, namely Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. In addition principles of European Consumer Law are being disregarded, and priorities laid down in the Sixth Framework Programme (2000-2006): food quality and safety (2002/835/EC).

As an independent risk assessor, EFSA should not base its assessments of GM foods and crops on "advocacy science" submitted by applicants, which is by definition partial, selective and biased. Yet it continues to do so, despite the fact that some such science may also be fraudulent, since the application dossiers from GM corporations and patent owners cannot be examined in full by members of the public and by independent scientists and thus cannot be subjected to a proper process of peer review. Thus when dossiers are assembled, companies can simply omit "inconvenient" findings; they can also "manufacture" favourable results by the aggregation of data with a view to masking effects, by the use of insensitive testing techniques, by statistical manipulation, and by careful experimental design. Such practices are fraudulent, and they place Europeans at risk since GM crops and foods cleared as "safe" on the basis of dossier evidence may in fact be dangerous.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the science which is assessed by EFSA is for the most part non-replicable science which should never be admitted as valid, let alone considered in detail and acted upon. It is a fundamental principle of science that all experiments must be replicable if scientific fraud is to be avoided -- and yet EFSA never asks for replicability. (It has occasionally asked for supplementary evidence, but never for full independent replication of experiments.) Those who apply for approvals for GM crops and foods systematically block research by refusing to supply GM seeds, reference materials and chow for animal feeding experiments by independent scientists or institutions; this means that the dossier experiments cannot be replicated or improved, and that results cannot be verified or questioned. In Hungary, for example, Monsanto refused to supply MON810 seed to Professor Darvas and colleagues as soon as their research started to throw up negative environmental effects.

Another example is in France, where Monsanto refused to supply MON863 materials for experiments designed to replicate or test the results reported in the MON863 dossier. Both examples clearly violate the terms under which EFSA operates namely Article 38 (concerning Transparency) of Regulation 178/2002 Section 4.

These concerns lead us to ask that the Parliament instruct EFSA to enforce the highest standards of scientific ethics in its own GMO Panel and in the dossiers of GM applicants, thereby safeguarding the health of citizens as per its original remit. We ask that EFSA be instructed to insist on full and early release of all scientific data contained in dossiers, and to insist on signed declarations from applicants relating to replicability, so as to enable a full and independent verification (or falsification) of apparent findings.

As EU citizens with rights we are being discriminated against by EFSA who, rather than protecting us, are supporting the commercial ambitions of the GM companies and "enabling" their approvals. We wish to emphasize the fact that there are no benefits to consumers in terms of taste, quality, shelf-life, price, and nutritional value of GM crops and foods -- the only benefits are to farmers wishing to reduce labour costs and spend less by using chemicals, and to the companies that own the seed and sell the herbicides / pesticides. It is valid for certain EU institutions, such as those involved in trade and agriculture, to support these corporate ambitions but EFSA should represent citizens and not business interests. EFSA exists to provide a service to EU citizens and the European institutions, and it must therefore treat consumers as its number one priority. It is our view that the current modus operandi of EFSA fails to do this, implying that EFSA has breached its responsibility to European consumers and to Regulation 178/2002 Section 4: Article 37-40 on Independence, Transparency, Confidentiality and Communication.

Kathy Sinnott MEP will be the hosting MEP for this petition.

[1] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_home.htm

Lawlessness and loopholes for transgenics
• Peru awaits final legislation for biosafety regulation, but many worry that norm is insufficient.

Latinamerica Press, 28 November 2008. By Leslie Josephs.

Julio Evaristo is literally one with his roots. The 42-year-old is the third in a line of intrepid farmers who save the seeds of their Andean crops, securing a food supply for their families for several years.

But Peru is now poised to finalize a nearly decade-old biosecurity law, and experts, including the newly-inaugurated Environment Ministry, say that the country is not institutionally prepared to ensure agricultural and consumer safety when it goes into effect.

Evaristo's crops – 2-foot plants of chocho (a white bean), colorful tubers like potato, oca and olluco; wheat and carrots – are dwarfed by the ice-covered peaks of Peru's Cordillera Blanca.

The land is inhospitable here in the Callejon de Huaylas, a valley high in the Andes, but Evaristo has healthy crops. Evaristo, who has lectured on his seed saving at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, holds a special importance to his seeds, and says the unpredictability of transgenic seeds could threaten his family's food supply.

"You don't know which ones will come with defects, which ones won't produce," he says of the possibility of genetically-modified seeds.

But Peru's government, months from implementing a free trade agreement with the United States, is not focused on small-scale farmers like Evaristo.

Eager to expand is agricultural sector, the norms necessary to regulate genetically-modified organisms in the country – their entry, cultivation and sale – is expected before the end of the year.

Peru's biosafety law dates back to 1999, but supplemental legislation was required to give authorities the power to supervise transgenic products in the country.

So, for nearly a decade in Peru, a signatory of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, has had a law in place without empowering officials, particularly health and agricultural authorities, to enforce measures.

"The Parties shall ensure that the development, handling, transport, use, transfer and release of any living modified organisms are undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health," reads the Cartagena agreement of 2000.

But the law has been at a standstill for nine years, and even now, some experts, citing contamination of genetically-modified corn seeds in other nations like Mexico, say it would fall short of its aim: to protect farmers and consumers.

Dr. Antonietta Gutiérrez, a professor at the National Agrarian University of La Molina in Lima, has studied biosafety and the affects of genetically-modified organisms for nearly 15 years.

Although one proposal is a Peru free of transgenic products, Gutiérrez, who worked on the Cartagena Protocol, has resigned to the fact that the supplementary legislations will pass, and she instead urges the government to implement a five-year ban on genetically-modified organisms – seeds and products – starting after the law is implemented.

"There is no national capacity" to monitor transgenic products' entry, use and risks," says Gutiérrez, who adds that Peru has more than 50 corn varieties, and while the country – the birthplace of the potato with thousands of varieties – is not a major corn producer, it could change if the norm allows an influx of transgenic seeds from giant agricultural companies, mainly from the United States thanks to the free trade pact. "There is complete ignorance."

A legal void

Currently, Peru has a legal void regarding biosafety. A top official at Peru's Agriculture Ministry admits that the country already receives imports of oils made with genetically-modified soy from Brazil and that transgenic products are neither restricted nor permitted in the country.

For some, the lack of research and solid proof of the risks of genetically-modified organisms should open, not close the door for their use.

On Nov. 19, the Peruvian Engineers Board, the Peruvian Biologists Board, and the Peruvian Association for the Development of Biotechnology, published a half-page letter in Peru's largest newspaper, El Comercio, advocating transgenic farming as pro-development, and stating that this lack of research shows it is "not reasonable" to think that genetically-modified organisms cause health problems.

The letter was published ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC summit, which Peru hosted this year, during which it made an aggressive push to court new free trade deals with several Pacific Rim economies.

"Genetically-modified crops are technological open with a great positive effect for farmers, and they can co-exist with organic and conventional crops without environmental problems," read the letter. "Peruvian farmers should not be impeded from free access to this new technology because of prejudice or with arguments that lack a real scientific basis."

The letter by the two scientific boards, which groups 114,000 professionals, went on to say that organic farming is not the best option because it does not have a high yield.

Gutiérrez dismissed the letter and other efforts by scientists, calling their efforts thinly veiled lobbying for the pro-free-market government's causes.

She says the lack of information on the risks of transgenic products could be detrimental, and for that very reason a ban is needed so it can be better researched and tested.

"The issue isn't if they approve or don't approve" the legislation, says Gutiérrez. "The ban is key."

In a 2006-2007 study, although the government denies that transgenic seeds are already being used in Peru, Gutiérrez said she and her team had detected genetically modified corn contamination in crops in the valleys in Barranca, near Peru's north-central coast, calling it a worrying sign.

"I would like to see a Peru ... valuing what it has," she says.

ERMA Approves GM Onion Trial

Fencepost.com (New Zealand), 28 November 2008.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority has approved with conditions an application from Crop and Food Research to field test genetically modified plants of the allium family, including onions, spring onions, leeks and garlic.

The application is to assess the performance of the plants in field conditions over a ten year period.

The approval is for a field trial site of a maximum 2.5 hectares and within that a small number of onion plants would be allowed to flower.

Chair of the Authority's decision making committee, Helen Atkins, said that among the many controls on the trial is a requirement that all flowering onions must be contained within cages. These comprise a rigid framework covered with a double layer of fine-mesh material.

Laboratory-bred fly pupae would be introduced into the cages to carry out pollination. Because alliums are insect pollinated, the cages will prevent flies from transporting pollen to other plants.

All flies in the pollination cages must be killed before the cages are opened to prevent the possibility of escape.

ERMA says all GM material no longer required must be killed on-site by composting or be removed to a containment facility for further research or destruction.

During the course of the trial Crop and Food Research staff are required to check the field test regularly e.g. the pollination cages must be inspected daily for damage or dislodgment which could result in the escape of insects carrying pollen.

In addition there will on-going surveillance and inspection by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to ensure that no GM plants escape from the site. There will also be two years' monitoring of the site once the field trial is concluded to check that no 'volunteer' alliums emerge.

It is the first GM field trial approval since 2007, and the fourth since 2001 when the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification said New Zealand should proceed with caution on biotechnology research.

The Authority's decision document can be found on the ERMA New Zealand website at http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/gmalliums/index.html

U.S. eyes fuel-boosting 'Franken-corn'

Greenbang, 28 November 2008.

A global seed company has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to deregulate a genetically engineered (GE) variety of corn that shows an edge for ethanol production.

Syngenta Seeds Inc. says the GE corn produces high levels of the alpha-amylase enzyme that converts corn starches into sugars, a first step in the ethanol production process. Normally, ethanol producers must add a microbial source of alpha-amylase to jump-start the digestion of corn starches.

Using the GE corn could result in a 10 percent reduction in ethanol production costs, according to Syngenta.

APHIS has regulated the GE corn since 2002. It will gather public comments on the proposed deregulation through Jan. 20, 2009, after which it will issue a decision on the Syngenta petition.

Unlike other varieties of GE corn, the Syngenta corn doesn't produce pesticides or herbicides, so it's not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. So all APHIS must determine to deregulate the corn is whether the variety doesn't pose a risk to crops or other plants.

And would the extra boost of alpha-amylase cause digestive upset in the event someone ate the GE corn? Not surprisingly, Syngenta says no ... and APHIS appears inclined to agree: "The scientific evidence indicates that there are unlikely to be any environmental, human health or food safety concerns associated with the GE corn."

How much GM is really in our food?

Farmers Guardian (UK), 28 November 2008

SUPERMARKETS have banned genetically engineered ingredients from their own brand goods and make much of this fact, but dairy products and meat from animals fed on GM animal feed do not legally have to be labelled as such. In other words, the public do not know what they are buying.

A recent Soil Association survey has uncovered the fact the UK imports about 146,000 tonnes of GM soya each year and 290,000 tonnes of GM maize.

And, as GM grain is mixed with non-GM grain the total amount of animal feed containing GM is huge. Unless we buy organic then the chances are we have been unknowingly eating genetically engineered food.

This hidden use of GM animal feed has been widely exploited by the biotechnology companies (the only ones to benefit from this) as a way of introducing GM crops through the back door.

We don't know what we are eating and this loophole must be closed so that we can make an informed choice not to eat GM food if we so wish.

Genetic engineering is not like hybridisation because this technology crosses species boundaries, eg the fish gene in a tomato to give it a longer shelf life. We all know this does not happen in nature.

We are all being used as guinea pigs - there are no long-term, independent, peer-reviewed research papers on the effects on humans, animals or the environment.

We can write and demand that any food coming from animals fed on GM animal feed must be labelled as such - everyone can change this, it just needs a little effort to pursue the supermarkets and other food suppliers.

Biddy Garstang
Yaspis Cottage
Lowton, Wigan, UK

Note from GM Watch:

Stop these stealth GMOs in the food supply. Go to: http://www.bangmfood.org/take-action

New research reveals European land grab in developing countries
• Factory farming and agrofuels blamed for rise in EU's 'footprint'

Friends of the Earth Europe, European Coordination Via Campesina press release, 28 November 2008.

Brussels -- New research published today reveals that the increasing demand for animal feed and agrofuels in the European Union is resulting in the loss of unique forests, serious climate emissions and rural conflict in developing countries [1]. The EU now uses over 16 million hectares of farmland every year to feed its livestock and increasingly to fuel its cars - an area equivalent to the combined arable farmland in Germany and Hungary. Most of the land needed is in South America.

The research reveals that the largest user of land is soy - imported to Europe primarily as animal feed but increasingly used to produce agrofuels (also known as biofuels). Soy production is one of the biggest drivers of deforestation in South America and is associated with widespread environmental degradation, increased pesticide use, violence and human rights abuses of local communities and farmers. European consumers are kept in the dark about the fact that much of this soy is genetically modified (GM) as current labelling laws do not apply to products from animals fed with GM crops.

The findings of the research also highlight that:

•

People living in Cyprus, Spain and Denmark eat the most animal products. They permanently use 340, 253, 243 square metres abroad per person respectively just for the production of the soy which is fed to their farm animals. [Note by GM-free Ireland: Irish people are the EU's fourth biggest consumers of animal products, but each of us uses an astonishing 560 square metres of foreign land per capita to produce the soy meal to feed our country's livestock! See our comment below for explanation.]

•

Germany, France and the UK together need 4.5 million hectares to grow soy to maintain their current diets.

•

The main crop used for biodiesel in Europe is oilseed rape (56 per cent) which needs over two million hectares of agricultural land, followed by soy oil (17 per cent) and palm oil (7 per cent). Germany uses 3,800 million litres of biodiesel, almost the equivalent to the rest of the EU put together.

Friends of the Earth and the European Coordination Via Campesina believe that if the EU is serious about addressing climate change, the global loss of biodiversity, human rights, and dealing with the food crisis it must urgently reduce its dependence on imports of soy and halt the use of crops to produce industrial agrofuels.

Adrian Bebb, from the Friends of the Earth Europe's food and biodiversity programme said: "Europe's appetite for meat, milk and eggs, together with the growing demand for agrofuels, is having a massive impact in developing countries. Agriculture in these countries is expanding to meet European markets at the expense of forests, rural communities and the climate."

Gérard Choplin, from the European Coordination Via Campesina said: "Animal factory farming in Europe is unsustainable and cannot survive without cheap imports of soy grown in the South. Agriculture and trade policies in Europe should be changed to allow European farmers to grow more animal feed themselves and to support environmentally friendly family farms."

For more information please contact:

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel: +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile), adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Gérard Choplin, European Coordination Via Campesina
Tel: +32 2 2173112, gerard.choplin@eurovia.org

Francesca Gater, Communications Officer, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel: + 32 2 542 61 05 or +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile), francesca.gater@foeeurope.org

Notes

[1] A comprehensive media briefing and also the research can be downloaded from:
http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/FFE/FFE.html

______

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

So how much foreign land is used per Irish inhabitant to feed our country's farm animals? The above-mentioned report does not specify the answer, but provides the means for us make the calculation for soy meal through an estimated conversion ratio of 1 hectare of land to produce of 2.61 tonnes of soy meal. Given Ireland's population (4,156,119 people), and the nation's annual soy meal animal feed imports (607,367 tonnes in 2005), our per capita soy meal footprint amounts to 560 square metres.

This dwarfs the 340, 253 and 243 square metres for Europe's largest consumers of animal produce in Cyprus, Spain and Denmark – without even taking into consideration the additional foreign land Ireland requires to produce all the other imported animal feed (soy husks, maize gluten, oilseed rape etc.) and biofuel included in the footprint figures for those three countries.

Ireland's record-breaking consumption of imported soy meal enables us to be the EU's biggest beef exporter and one of its largest producers of dairy produce, and to have the EU's fourth highest per capita consumption of animal produce. 95% of this imported soya meal and maize gluten animal feed is genetically modified, with devastating eco-social consequences in South America, as detailed in the Friends of the Earth report and media briefing.

Ireland has the world's fifth highest per capita ecological footprint. We are thus responsible for much more than our fair share of the problem that Humanity now uses the equivalent of 1.3 planets to provide the resources we use, and to absorb our greenhouse gases and other waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and four months to regenerate what we use in a year, and – if current population and consumption trends continue – we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us by the mid 2030s! Ireland's inefficient consumption of resources and production of wastes (including those related to our farm and food sectors) are physically unsustainable.

The time has come to completely rethink our food and farming policies. Instead of wasting tens of millions of taxpayers' Euro to research GM crops for which there is no market in Europe, and to support the unsustainable model of industrial agribusiness which depends on inputs of imported feed, fuel and farm chemicals, Teagasc (our Food and Agriculture Authority) should re-direct all of this money to develop locally adapted techniques of sustainable and organic farming.

To find out more:

•

The Great European Land Grab: The costs of Europe's appetite for animal feeds and agrofuels
Media briefing by Friends of the Earth Europe, 28 November 2008. Download (56kb):
http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/FFE/Media%20Briefing%20final.pdf

•

Soy consumption for feed and fuel in the European Union
A research paper prepared by Profundo Economic Research for Millieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), 28 October 2008. Download (716kb):
http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/FFE/Profundo%20report%20final.pdf

•

The transition to GM-free meat and dairy production in Ireland – the food island:
Presentation to the Second International Non-GMO Soy Summit, Brussels, 7-9 October 2008.
By Michael O'Callaghan, Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network. Download (1.9MB):
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/SoySummit2/GMFI-SoySummit2008.pdf

•

Proceedings of the Second International Non-GMO Soy Summit
Strategic alliances for sustainable, responsible, Non-GMO soy. Brussels, 7-9 October 2008:
http://www.nongmosoysummit.com

•

Ecological Footprint Analysis: interview with Dr. Mathis Wackernagel
Global Vision interview by Michael O'Callaghan,
United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 2002:
http://www.global-vision.org/interviews/wackernagel.php

•

Global Footprint Network: http://www.footprintnetwork.org

•

World ecological footprint: Do we fit on the planet?
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.3 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and four months to regenerate what we use in a year.

Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and consumption trends continue, by the mid 2030s we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only have one.

Turning resources into waste faster than waste can be turned back into resources puts us in global ecological overshoot, depleting the very resources on which human life and biodiversity depend.

The result is collapsing fisheries, diminishing forest cover, depletion of fresh water systems, and the build up of pollution and waste, which creates problems like global climate change. These are just a few of the most noticeable effects of overshoot.

Overshoot also contributes to resource conflicts and wars, mass migrations, famine, disease and other human tragedies – and tends to have a disproportionate impact on the poor, who cannot buy their way out of the problem by getting resources from somewhere else.

•

Living planet report 2008:
Download (4.3MB): http://www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=505

Every two years, Global Footprint Network, along with WWF and the Zoological Society of London produce the Living Planet Report, which uses complementary measures to explore the changing state of biodiversity and of human consumption. One of these measures is Ecological Footprint - the amount of productive land and sea area it takes to produce the resources a population consumes and absorb its waste, primarily carbon dioxide.

•

Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008
Download (7.1MB): http://www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=506

The full results of the 2008 National Accounts calculations are presented in The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008. The Atlas presents Ecological Footprint and biocapacity results for 201 countries, including 150 whose populations exceed 1 million.

The Atlas explains the purpose behind Ecological Footprint Analysis, the research question it addresses, basic concepts and science underlying the Accounts, and the method used for calculating the results. It also describes ways Ecological Footprint Analysis is currently being applied in a variety of domains. For the technical reader, the Atlas includes more detailed notes about calculation of the results, explains recent advances to enhance the consistency, reliability and resolution of the National Footprint Accounts, and reviews the evolution of the National Footprint Accounts methodology.

27 November 2008

Explosive advance of transgenics
• Lula's government promotes genetically-modified organisms despite social opposition.

Latin America Press, 27 November 2008. By José Pedro Martins.

Brazil is home to one of the world's largest areas of genetically-modified seed cultivations with 15 million hectares in 2007. The greatest increase of these crops occurred under the government of President Luiz In·cio Lula da Silva, despite growing opposition from Brazilian farmers and environmentalists. Brazil is expected to surpass its soy-producing neighbor, Argentina in area of cultivated transgenic seeds, to become the world's second largest producer this year, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit organization.

The United States ranks first for genetically-modified seed cultivation with 57.7 million hectares in 2007, half the world's transgenic farmland.

Between 2006 and 2007, the growth of genetically-modified seed cultivation in Brazil was greater than the increase in the United States. Brazil had sown 3.5 million hectares of GMOs, equivalent of 30 percent of its GMO farmland, compared with 3.1 million hectares' increase in the United States.

ISAAA says the expansion of GMO farming in Brazil between 2006 and 2007 was only less than in India, where the GMO area increased from 3.8 million hectares to 6.2 million hectares, or 63 percent.

Transgenic boom

More genetically-modified products have been authorized under Lula's administration than any other government. The first was transgenic soy by agricultural giant Monsanto, which entered the country in 1998 under the 1994-2002 government of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

The other authorizations mostly took place under Lula, when the National Biosafety Technical Commission, or CTNBio, was reorganized. The CNTbio was once the seat of strong opposition to transgenics, but gradually changed its stance, and in 2008 alone, approved seven of 12 licenses approvals since it began working 10 years ago.

"The CTNBio has authorized transgenics in a worrying manner for the health of the population and the Brazilian environment," says Mohamed Habib, head of the Community Affairs Department of the State University of Campinas, and one of Brazil's staunchest critics of GMOs.

The first change within the CTNBio dates back to March 2007, when it lowered the commission's quorum requirements for votes on genetically-modified products.

But it did not come without opposition.

In October 2007, the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency and the Brazilian Environment and Renewable Resources Institute, or IBAMA, a branch of the Environment Ministry, sought to block the approval of transgenic corn MON 810 by Monsanto at the Biosecurity Council, an inter-ministerial body.

They argued that the approval of MON810 for commercial use in Spain, Argentina and the United States, and other countries, had caused the contamination of conventional corn varieties with genetically-modified corn and led to social and economic problems.

"The lack of segregation, identification and effective procedures led to the contamination of conventional varieties with transgenic varieties," they said.

But the Biosecurity Council, voted in favor to authorize this corn in February of this year, regardless.

Biodiversity and health risks

According to the Advisors and Services for Alternative Agriculture organization, or AS-PTA, MON 810 poses a list of 10 problems, including the fact that the Brazilian government did not carry out environmental studies to figure out whether there were any possible risks to the country's ecosystems should the seeds be sold in the country.

Habib says the Brazilian government, and the CTNBio in particular, are not taking precautions that are recommended by scientists and environmentalists around the world.

"The path they are taking is mistaken and dangerous, exactly what happened with the agrotoxins that were presented as the solution for farming, and are today recognizably harmful," Habib says. "The use of agrotoxins has even increased with the use of transgenics, unlike what its defenders' say."

According to IBAMA, between 2000 and 2004, the use of glyphosate, an agrotoxin used widely for transgenic soy, increased by 95 percent in Brazil, as the area of soy grown jumped by over 71 percent. In the state of Rio Grande do Sul, home to the country's largest area of transgenic soy, glyphosate use increased 162 percent and the area grown by 38 percent.

In May, Sen. Marina Silva left the Environment Ministry she headed since 2003, sparking speculations that her departure was related to a series of disputes with Lula, including on the authorization to transgenic seeds.

The same day she left her post, Lula was being denounced in Bonn, Germany, during a meeting of Cartagena Protocol's members, by six civil society organizations from Brazil. A report signed by Greenpeace, AS-PTA, Tierra de Derechos, The Organic Agriculture Association, the Brazilian Consumer Defense Organization and the National Association of Small Farmers said that Lula's government had not implemented measures to avoid threats to biodiversity by failing to demand studies on the impact of transgenic corn on the country's health and environment.

In June, a month after Silva's departure, the Biosecurity Council again met to discuss a new request to ban transgenic corn. The government granted CTNBio the power to rule on whether to allow transgenic products. Shortly afterward, its members approved transgenic LibertyLink cotton from Bayer CropScience and transgenic corn varieties from Syngenta and Monsanto.

Defenders of transgenics are also present in Brazil's legislature.

On Oct. 16, on World Food Day, Dep. Luis Carlos Heinze, of the GMO soy-producer Rio Grande do Sul state, presented a bill in Congress about the labeling of genetically-modified products in Brazil.

The current law states that all products with more than 1 percent genetically-modified components must be labeled. A "T" is printed within a yellow triangle T to indicate "transgenic" ingredients. According to Heinze's project, the symbol would be removed.

Comment by TraceConsult™:

With a delay of several years, prominent critics of President Lula's GMO policy like Prof. Habib, also provost at the University of Campinas in the State of S“o Paulo, can be heard more and more in Brazil, still the world largest producer of GM-free commodities such as soybeans. If European industries want to safeguard the non-GM supply they require so much they should consider supporting voices like Dr. Habib's in countries such as Brazil and in India.

It is probably an ironic coincidence that Dr. Habib attended a Cartagena Protocol-related conference in Bonn, Germany, when former Environmental Minister Marina Silva resigned from her post.

Jimmy's GM Food Fix

The Ecologist, 27 November 2008. By Jonathan Matthews.

Last year [U.K.] celebrity pig farmer Jimmy Doherty kept 1,000 organically reared pigs, while this year apparently he's raised barely 200. But if Jimmy's farm is on the skids, the same cannot be said of his career as a media celeb.

At the end of last month, a glittering star-studded ceremony in London saw Jimmy crowned "National Farmers' Union (NFU) Farming Champion", thanks to his recent TV series: Jimmy Doherty's Farming Heroes. The same series also got cited a couple of weeks later when the star of Jimmy's Farm, picked up an Honorary Doctorate from Anglia Ruskin University.

Farming Heroes took many people by surprise, not least in the mainstream farming community. Farmers Weekly noted, "Half pin-up boy, half boffin, Jimmy Doherty is an unlikely ally of farming... Think agricultural college student meets Essex boy. Son of the soil meets surf dude... A lot of farmers, frankly, hated [Jimmy's Farm] because they reckoned, with its emphasis firmly on drama (basically, he lurched from one crisis to another, many seemingly of his own making), it did nothing to improve the perception of an industry already with a PR problem."

But the first episode of Farming Heroes marked a sea change. Suddenly, the poster boy for rare breeds and sustainable ag was enthusing over mega arable farms and ultra-modern farm machinery, while telling viewers how vital Big Ag was to feed the world. "Big doesn't necessarily mean bad," declared Jimmy. "Acre for acre, we're world beaters and that's something to be proud of." There was no mention of the hidden costs that can accompany this type of intensive farming.

If, at times, the series seemed to resemble a paid advertisement for the National Farmers Union, there was good reason. Farmers Weekly quoted an NFU spokesperson as saying "mainstream TV ads cost millions of pounds and there is no way we are going to do that," but, "One approach the union has been taking is to work with TV and radio researchers and producers to feed into the production process. An example where this worked well is Jimmy Doherty's Farming Heroes."

Exactly when Michael Lachmann had the inspired idea of getting Jimmy to front this week's Horizon programme on GM (BBC2, November 25) is less clear, but it was a stroke of genius by the director. Once again, someone seen by the public as exemplifying an "organic", "back-to-nature", "free-range" approach to farming was to be found gee-whizzing over a radically different style of agriculture. "Wow!", "Unbelievable!", enthused Jimmy in a GM lab, where among other things he got hands on with genetically modifying barley. We were told how "simple" and "natural" GM was and by the end of the programme, Jamie Oliver's mate was telling us that it would be "madness to turn away from this technology." "The science is absolutely amazing," Jimmy told us. "It offers hope."

Other up-beat messages the programme pumped out, as it tracked the GM debate from Argentina to Bavaria, from Norwich to Pennsylvania, before rounding up at a research station in Uganda, were: "modifying" plants is "nothing new", GM is both good for the environment and good for farmers, and there are absolutely no health or ecological problems despite a decade of GM crops. Its most cynically telling message was that the public are prejudiced against GM but can easily be reeducated via a few (misleading!) sound bites delivered by the much-loved Jimmy.

As this indicates, much of the programme's content was straightforward disinformation. It was even claimed that GM crops reduce pesticide use, despite official US data showing the exact opposite. And while, in the climax to the programme, Jimmy claimed genetic modification of Ugandan bananas would prevent serious crop losses for poor farmers, Ugandan researchers recently admitted to the press that these GM bananas are failing. That's no great surprise. There's not a single GM showcase project in Africa that's ever succeeded. But while they last, these supposed silver bullets make for a PR bonanza.

If this all sounds like Jimmy's GM Food Fight was just a one-sided hype fest, then it's important to understand that the production was far more carefully crafted than that. Throughout, Jimmy was used to voice concerns over GM, creating an impression that his approach was not only even-handed but ultra-cautious, while the segments of the programme that followed invariably undercut the very concerns Jimmy had just raised. The concerns expressed by Jimmy were in reality linking devices for each successive sales pitch.

The programme's use of experts was equally sly. On the critical side we got two white males. On the pro-GM side we got diversity: two women GM scientists, a Ugandan scientist, and an American entomologist. The critics were not only outnumbered but got just a fraction of the over-all talking time. Peter Melchett of the Soil Association didn't even get the opportunity to justify his arguments.

The framing of the critics was equally cynical. Doug Gurian-Sherman was not introduced as a molecular biologist and former Environmental Protection Agency biotech specialist, but as "from the Union of Concerned Scientists which campaigns on GM foods". And while the pro-GM scientists were filmed in research settings, Dr Gurian-Sherman's interview took place in an American diner where most of his time was taken up by Jimmy in analysing how many food items in a giant fry-up might contain GM. With his specialist EPA background, he would have been perfect to deal with the environmental issues, but he was never given the chance. Instead we, once again, had vague environmental concerns voiced by Jimmy, then dismissed by a pro-GM scientist.

Finally, there were the many dogs that didn't bark:

•

No mention at all was made of the alternative solutions for tackling food security and intensive agriculture's environmental problems - solutions found to be far more credible than GM in the recent major UN-backed study: the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).

•

No mention either was made of the fact that these innovative low-cost approaches are already proving particularly effective in assisting resource poor farmers in the developing world, sometimes helping them to double or even triple their yields.

•

There was absolutely nothing to indicate that many of those most opposed to GM crops are to be found in the developing world, beyond some cynically misleading information about the Zambian government's refusal of GM food aid that falsely implied that Africans may have starved and it was all thanks to European hysteria.

•

No mention at all was made of the patents and Intellectual Property Rights that encircle GM crops, giving their developers a stranglehold on the food chain.

•

No mention was made of the much less controversial biotechnological approaches to plant breeding, like Marker Assisted Selection, that are already making GM look outdated.

And then there was Monsanto - the invisible ghost at Horizon's GM feast. The M word never once sullied Jimmy's lips. The PR problem created by the toxic legacy and ultra-aggressive behaviour of a giant corporation that controls over 90% of the world's GM crops was simply airbrushed away. Instead, GM was represented by scientists from Uganda and the John Innes Centre (JIC) - an institute described by Jimmy as "independent" even though it's had tens of millions of pounds in funding out of the GM giants it's jumped into bed with.

Jimmy's GM Food Fight played so much to the JIC's agenda that, like the NFU, I'd guess the JIC fully understands how to "feed into the production process" to create a prime time soft-sell advertisement. Perhaps they too will now be lining Jimmy up for an award. "JIC GM Champion" might make an appropriate accolade for such a compliant PR asset.

Jonathan Matthews is an editor at GMWatch.

Check out the real facts on GM at: http://www.banGMfood.org

A report on the science communication activities of the John Innes Centre is available at:
http://ngin.tripod.com/biospin.htm

On the failure of the GM bananas:
http://africasciencenews.org/asns/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487&Itemid=1

Horizon fails to say GM banana not working - BBC warned in advance of broadcast
• Horizon fails to deliver balanced view

GM Freeze, Immediate Release, 27 November 2008

Claims made by BBC 2's Horizon programme [1] that genetic modification of Ugandan cooking bananas would prevent crop losses from a fungal disease are not correct, say GM Freeze, because Ugandan researchers have told the media that they are failing.

GM Freeze sent a letter, based on a preview DVD of the programme, to the Chair of the BBC Trust and the Editor of Horizon last week [2]. GM Freeze pointed out that an Ugandan biotechnologist behind the GM bananas had announced to journalists that genetic modification to protect against the Black Sigatoka fungus was not working in all plants and that the team would have to adopt a new approach:

"Depending on where the gene was inserted, it expressed itself inside the crop in a different manner. Our next target will be to see which crop exhibits stronger resistance when the gene is inserted and then we can conduct more experiments." (GM banana fails to defeat diseases) [3]

The letter to the BBC Trust also pointed out that the programme lacked balance and was misleading in many places:

"Based on this analysis we feel very strongly the Horizon editorial team have produced a programme which is heavily biased to one point of view. Is it intending to produce a second programme looking at alternative solutions? Food security is a complex scientific, socio-economic, political and cultural issue which we feel the current programme has failed to do justice to because of the editorial decision to focus on GM crops. We believe that the interests of the viewer would be best served if the programme is not broadcast".

In the letter GM Freeze sets out a number of factual errors, misleading remarks and omissions, including:

•

Claims that GM herbicide tolerant crops had reduced pesticide usage ignores research [4] to the contrary due to the development of weed resistance.

•

Claims that gene transfer between crops and wild plants were hypothetical when they have already been shown in the field in the UK, Mexico and Canada.

•

Failure to fully examine the environmental, social and economic impacts of GM soya production in Argentina.

•

Omission of any mention of the use of patents to control global seed markets by the biotech corporations and the impact on farmers' rights to save seed and on agricultural biodiversity.

•

Failure to examine the health and sustainability aspects of Ugandan diet based largely on cooking bananas.

•

Failure to look at alternative solutions to tackling food security and environmental problems in clearly set out in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) [5] and UN/UNCTAD report [6] published in 2008.

Commenting for GM Freeze, Pete Riley said:

"We are very disappointed with the quality of the programme the Horizon team has produced on GM. This is a very complex area of policy and Horizon had the opportunity to look at all the issues in a balanced and impartial way. They have failed. The claims made about GM bananas in Uganda were grossly exaggerated as there is a long way to go before this research produces trees that have a durable resistance to the fungus - indeed the fungus may overcome resistance as it mutates. Why were these facts not made clear in the Horizon programme? The GM industry are past masters at hyping up their research and now it seems the BBC is happy to go along with it. The film makers also chose to ignore many important issues and glossed over major uncertainties. Members of the public directly taking part in the programme in Norwich were not given a balanced set of facts about GM crops."

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065

Notes

1. Horizon BBC2 Tuesday 25th November 2008
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fsxq6/Horizon_Jimmys_GM_Food_Fight/

2. Letter from GM Freeze, Friends of the Earth and The Ecologist to the Chair of the BBC Trust - copy available on request.

3. See http://africasciencenews.org/asns/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487&Itemid=1

4. GE [genetically engineered] corn, soybeans and cotton have led to a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996. While Bt crops have reduced insecticide use by about 15.6 million pounds over this period, HT [herbicide tolerant] crops have increased herbicide use 138 million pounds. Bt crops have reduced insecticide use on corn and cotton about 5 percent, while HT technology has increased herbicide use about 5 percent across the three major crops. But since so much more herbicide is used on corn, soybeans and cotton, compared to the volume of insecticide applied to corn and cotton, overall pesticide use has risen about 4.1 percent on acres planted to GE varieties. - Charles M. Benbrook, "Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years." Biotech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.

5. http://www.agassessment.org/

6. http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf

Scandal of secret GM tests

Western Daily Press, Letters (UK), 27 November 2008.

Once more, the question of testing GM crops has risen from the ashes of an overwhelming "no" by the British public.

This time, there is a proposal to carry out tests in secret at Porton Down.

The very admission that secrecy is involved should be ringing many alarm bells in our democratic country.

The old chestnut that growing GM crops will be the answer to world hunger has been proved wrong.

Where GM seeds have been used in Canada and India, the results have been utterly disastrous.

In Canada, a farmer had his land contaminated when pollen blew over on to his land and caused these alien crops to grow.

The GM company tried to sue the farmer for growing their seeds on his land, "without permission." Fortunately for the farmer and his family, he won the case. However, his land had been contaminated - and still is.

In India, where many farmers were persuaded to grow the seeds (on the understanding that the yield would be more than their usual organic crops), the crop failed.

Farmers were unable to feed their families and, because they were unable to afford the expensive sprays needed when GM seed is planted, many committed suicide.

It should be noted that there are hundreds of millions of farmers in India, many just grow enough for their families and some grow enough for local markets. The facts of farming in Asia seems to be lost on GM companies.

The idea that there is a shortage of food, and that GM crops will be an answer is wrong. Food is available, but it is wrongly distributed.

In the United States, 40 per cent of all food purchased is wasted. In the United Kingdom, 30 per cent of all food purchased is wasted. These are official figures, which makes a complete nonsense of the Government taking an interest in GM trials.

D Harvey
Chippenham, Wiltshire

UN Climate Conference in Poland:
World Future Council calls for a 'Poznan Action Plan'

Hamburg, 27th November: The World Future Council (WFC) today called on politicians participating in next week's UN climate conference in Poznan, Poland, to agree a 'Poznan Action Plan.' The Hamburg based non-profit organisation states that the accelerated melting of sea ice and glaciers across the world, due to rapidly increasing global greenhouse gas concentration, demands unprecedented action. The WFC is asking conference participants to agree urgent new measures:

•

The transformation of taxes on energy into taxes on emissions that could be structured as a progressive annual increase, and

•

The rapid introduction of policy measures to speed up the deployment of renewable energy across the world as a replacement for fossil fuel technology.

"The world still has not faced up to the dramatic challenges of climate change," says Herbert Girardet, Programme Director and co-founder of the WFC. "New scientific evidence suggests that we must not just reduce carbon emissions but that we must reduce global carbon concentrations. This is a huge challenge but also a tremendous new economic opportunity. Urgent action is of key importance for the well-being of future generations and must be in accordance with the alarming scientific findings of recent months." Girardet demands that a Kyoto-Plus agreement must aim for an actual reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations to some 350 ppm CO2eq, which requires concrete steps towards a global zero GHG emissions target.

With regard to the mechanisms that are part of the current Kyoto protocol, the World Future Council calls for a fundamental redesign of the so called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This redesign should yield actual net emission reductions whilst providing renewable energy development support to emerging countries, rather than allowing industrialised countries to purchase cheap carbon credits without reducing their emissions.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan will bring together representatives of more than 180 countries, as well as thousands of participants from the NGO community. The outcome of the conference will lead the way to a follow-up agreement to be finalised in Copenhagen next year, replacing the Kyoto protocol which will expire in 2012. (sts)

Press contact:

Regina Körner
Director Media and Communications
Phone:Ý +49 (0)-40-3070 914 -16
Mobile: +49 (0)177-587-44-28
Regina.Koerner@worldfuturecouncil.org
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org

On 4th December at the Poznan conference the WFC will host a side event on green economic development. On December 12-14, as a follow up to the conference, the WFC will co-host a parliamentary hearing on renewable energies at Palace Bedlewo near Poznan.

26 November 2008

EU risks 'climate bomb' on biofuels

Birdlife International, Friends of the Earth Europe, Oxfam International, Transport and Environment
Press release, 26 Novemer 2008.

Brussels -- As negotiations over new EU targets for biofuels enter a critical final phase, environment and development campaigners have warned of a 'climate time bomb' if so-called 'sustainability criteria' are not dramatically improved.

The EU's proposed renewable energy directive (RED) calls for 10 per cent of transport fuel to come from renewable sources by 2020, which will significantly increase demand for biofuels. Representatives of the European Parliament, Commission and the French Presidency are meeting today to hammer out the final details of the sustainability rules that would apply.

The groups say the latest proposal from the French Presidency does not take into consideration recent scientific warnings on biofuels and could actually worsen climate change, endanger biodiversity and deepen global poverty.

In particular environmental groups are concerned that the French Presidency has so far failed to respond to European Parliament and other member state initiatives that would account for the impact of 'indirect land use change' (ILUC) on overall CO2 emissions from biofuels. When agricultural land is used for biofuels, additional land is required for other purposes which can cause, for example, forests to be cleared for food crops. As a result, biofuels can actually cause more emissions from 'well to wheel' than crude-oil based petrol and diesel.

Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The European public were assured that only sustainably-grown biofuels would be permitted in the EU. But these so-called sustainability criteria are little more than political greenwash. Despite all the warning of the potential harm biofuels can cause, the EU is ploughing ahead with massive expansion."

Development organisations are concerned that sustainability criteria, as currently proposed, will do little to tackle the impacts of biofuel production in the poorest countries including rising food prices and increased poverty. Biofuel production has been identified by international agencies and academics as a principal driver of recent food price rises and is also linked to displacement of rural populations in poor countries.

Robert Bailey of Oxfam International said: "It is the World's poor that are being hit hardest by climate change, whilst rich economies such as the EU are most to blame for it. Europe is now set to compound this injustice further with a policy that comes at the expense of poor people's land rights, human rights and food security. This is in no way sustainable."

Nusa Urbancic of Transport and Environment (T&E) said: "The French Presidency and the European Commission are sticking their heads in the sand. They have, so far, ignored the findings of numerous independent scientific bodies who say land use change is absolutely central to truly understanding the environmental impacts of biofuels. Weak rules will now massively increase investment in biofuels - good and bad - and risk creating a climate time bomb at a moment when the world needs policies guaranteed to cut emissions."

Ariel Brunner of BirdLife International said: "This directive will not lead to a sustainable biofuels industry. Indeed, precious wildlife and fragile ecosystems will continue to be destroyed to make way for biofuels, without even guaranteeing benefits to the climate."

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel: +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile)

Nusa Urbancic, Policy Officer for Low Carbon Fuels, Transport & Environment (T&E)
Tel: +32 488 574 418 (Belgian mobile)

Robert Bailey, Policy Adviser for Oxfam International
Tel: +44 7720 254444 (UK mobile)

Ariel Brunner, BirdLife International
Tel: +32-497457880 (Belgian mobile)

Francesca Gater, Communications Officer, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel: + 32 2 542 61 05 or +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile)

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Agri-biotech companies like Monsanto, BASF and Syngenta are touting GM agrofuel crops - along with the promise of future "climate ready" GM crops - as needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change.

For more information see the related section of the Friends of the Earth Europe web site at
http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/

Monsanto predicts GM crops coming to UK soon

Farmers Guardian, News Special, 25 November 2008. By Alistair Driver.
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=24&storycode=22839

BIOTECH giant Monsanto is predicting that genetically modified crops will arrive in the UK soon, as the public tires of claims that the technology is unsafe.

Monsanto's head of external affairs, Colin Merritt, insists the biotech industry has learned its lessons from the past and is developing and marketing the next generation of GM products with the consumer very much in mind.

Speaking to Farmers Guardian as part of our special on the future of GM crops in the UK, he admits the biotech industry got it wrong first time round by focussing only on the farmer as a customer.

"When there's nothing obvious to show consumers as a benefit they don't buy into it," he admitted.

But he believes that when 'genuine benefits' are demonstrated consumers will 'buy into' GM food, easing the path for new products.

"I think we will see GM will come in to the UK quite quickly. The public will eventually get tired of this debate. You can't keep saying it is unsafe and all the rest of it without presenting some hard evidence," he said.

However, opponents of GM crops believe the biotech industry will never win the battle in the UK.

Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett told FG he does not believe the industry is capable of producing complex products able to benefit wider society.

He is also adamant consumer opposition is too entrenched for the technology ever to be accepted in this country and that farmers do not want GM crops.

"The consumer will have the last word. Opponents of GM crops are winning the war, not because of media hype or fear, but because the science is supporting them," he said.

Comment from GM Watch:

The pro-GM Farmers Guardian is publishing a "GM special" this coming Friday (28 November).

25 November 2008

Claims of GM canola contamination in Vic

The Land (Australia), 25 November 2008.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/claims-of-gm-canola-contamination-in-vic/1369599.aspx

Anti genetically modified food group, GM Cropwatch, claims to have found evidence of GM contamination from crops in Horsham, Victoria.

GM Cropwatch's Jessica Harrison says she has found GM canola plants heaped up on the roadside near Horsham, and that galahs were also seen feasting on GM canola last week.

She says windrowed GM canola plants also blew off a farmers' property and were strewn 75 metres across the road.

"Agriculture Minister Joe Helper must apply strict pollution laws to this GM harvest, monitor and manage all the GM sites and clean up this GM contamination," Ms Harrison said.

"He must also ensure that all GM canola cut for hay is used where it stands or is destroyed, instead of spreading viable seed across the country-side."

Cropwatch has monitored and tested for GM canola spills on roadsides and farms around Horsham and the Lubeck silo for the past two weeks.

Geoffrey Carracher, of the Network of Concerned Farmers, says that after windrowed canola is cut and laid down to dry "wind gusts often lift up whole rows and dump the plants metres or even miles away".

Mr Carracher claims the GM contamination is now "rampant", even though "just fifteen farmers will deliver GM canola to the Lubeck silo this year".

True Food Guide launched in Sydney
Australia's culinary icon Margaret Fulton today launched the "Canola Edition" of the Greenpeace True Food Guide in Sydney

Hospitality Magazine, 25 November 2008
http://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/Article/True-Food-Guide-launched-in-Sydney/431909.aspx

The guide, which aims to help consumers avoid buying genetically engineered food products, was welcomed by industry and consumer representatives and top chefs at the launch event, hosted by Bird Cow Fish head chef Alex Herbert.

Coles, Aldi and IGA Metcash, top users of canola oil Goodman Fielder, Unilever and Peerless foods, and some of the big consumer food brands including Kellogs, Heinz, Arnott's, Carman's Fine Foods, King Island Dairy and Lilydale, are now listed as "green" in the True Food Guide and will "actively avoid ingredients from GE crops".

This major industry rejection comes at a time when Australia's first genetically engineered canola is being harvested in New South Wales and Victoria.

Fulton said, "This is the first time so many food brands have pledged their commitment to use only natural non-GE produce; it is so reassuring to see how far we have come from the launch of the first True Food Guide in 2002. It is fantastic that GE-free shopping can now be easy and affordable."

Jackie Healing, Coles quality manager said, "Coles developed its current range of house brands to exclude genetically modified ingredients after we recognised our customers' concerns about the technology and its use in the food they purchase from us."

The wallet-sized GE-free shopping guide also provides information about food products which "may allow GE ingredients" to help consumers make an informed choice.

Michelle Sheather, Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner said, "The timely response from a majority of the food industry means that although GE canola will enter our food chain unlabelled, we can still avoid eating GE food. There is no future in GE food; we need to keep GE food and crops out of Australia."

Chefs, mothers, nutritionists and leading groups have joined Greenpeace in asking for labelling of all GE food - including oils and products from animals (milk eggs, meat, honey) fed on GE feed.

The True Food Guide can be downloaded at http://www.truefood.org.au

24 November 2008

Feds heading to deregulate corn for ethanol use

Associated Press - November 24, 2008.

WASHINGTON - The Agriculture Department is moving to make it easier to grow genetically engineered corn for ethanol production, despite fears among safety advocates that some might end up in human food.

The agency is seeking public comments on a request to deregulate corn that is designed to produce a special enzyme, making it easier to convert into ethanol.

The department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service released a draft environmental assessment earlier this month. In it, the service concluded that the corn, developed by Syngenta Seeds Inc., is safe.

The department will review any comments submitted by the Jan. 20, 2009, deadline to determine whether its safety assessment should change.

Greenpeace urges EU to keep GM crops off menu

Associated Press, 24 November 2008.

BRUSSELS, Belgium: Greenpeace is urging the European Union to ban genetically modified crops from being used in food sold in the bloc.

The environmental group says genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, pose "unpredictable risks" to both consumers and the environment.

Greenpeace activists climbed the EU headquarters building in Brussels and unfurled a huge yellow banner saying "Stop GMOs!"

Environment ministers from the 27 EU nations plan on Dec. 4 to discuss how to authorize GMO use in the future.

Greenpeace says more research is needed to assess the long-term impact of altered before such crops can by approved for use.

Stop GM crops, save our food!
EU environment ministers should reform authorisation of GM products

Greenpeace press release, 24 October 2008.

Brussels -- In an a-maize-ing feat at the heart of the EU quarter in Brussels this morning, Greenpeace activists climbed a building on Schuman square to display a giant banner of a 'scary' genetically modified (GM) corn plant bearing the slogan Stop GMOs'. The action coincides with the last in a string of meetings of national experts who are looking into reforming the EU's authorisation process for GM products and precedes a meeting of European environment ministers who will assess their findings next week.

Greenpeace activists warned decision-makers about the health and environmental risks linked to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by symbolically contaminating the Schuman area with dozens of 'scary' maize plants.

"EU decision-makers are ignoring the serious and unpredictable risks to human health and the environment posed by GM crops. Greenpeace urges environment ministers to reform the EU's flawed GMO authorisation system and calls on Barroso and the Commission to stop blocking this process," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director.

A recent study carried out under the auspices of the Austrian government has highlighted some of the serious health threats posed by GMOs. The fertility of mice fed with an authorised Monsanto GM maize variety (NK603xMON810) was severely impaired compared to that of mice fed on non-GM crops.[1] This crop was authorised based on a positive assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

"The current risk assessment process contravenes EU law as it's unable to assess long-term impacts of GM crops on the environment, biodiversity and human and animal health," said Contiero. "EFSA and the Commission continue to rubber-stamp anything the agro-biotech industry puts under their nose. This situation is a downright scandal and EU environment ministers must put an end to it."

Greenpeace calls on EU environment ministers meeting on 4 December to:

•

Strengthen the GMO risk assessment process and reform EFSA

•

Suspend all GM crop authorisations until the EU risk assessment system is thoroughly improved and EFSA is equipped to assess the long-term environmental impact of GMOs and their detrimental socio-economic effects

•

Prevent GMO contamination of seeds

•

Protect the right of member states to establish GM-free areas

•

Recall from the European market the GM maize varieties at the centre of the Austrian study

Contacts:

Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU GMO policy director: +32 (0)2 274 1906, +32 (0)477 777 034 (mobile), marco.contiero@greenpeace.org

Mark Breddy - Greenpeace EU communications manager: +32 (0)2 274 1903, +32 (0)496 156 229 (mobile), mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

Photos - Greenpeace International picture desk: + 44 (0)207 865 8230, picture.desk.int@greenpeace.org

Notes to editors:

[1] You can see the Austrian study on http://www.bmgfj.gv.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3- 2008_letztfassung.pdf

Media briefing - GMO debate

Ad hoc working group 24 November and
Environment Council 4 December 2008

Greenpeace media briefing, 24 November 2008.

On 4 December 2008, EU environment ministers have to agree on measures to reform the EU's authorisation system for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The last preparatory meeting before the Council, where national experts have to finalise their recommendations is 24 November, 2008.

Reform of the GMO authorisation process has been at the heart of the French Presidency of the EU. Representatives from 27 member states have already met six times in the 'ad hoc working group on GMOs' to debate and prepare the final Council conclusions. Environment ministers will meet on 4 December to discuss and agree on these conclusions, which need to be accepted unanimously to go through.

Environment Ministers already held a GMO orientation debate during the October Council meeting in Luxembourg.

Discussions over the last few months have focused on:

•

boosting the environmental assessment;

•

taking into account socio-economic criteria;

•

improving the way in which scientific evaluation works;

•

establishing labelling threshold for seed contamination;

•

taking into account certain sensitive and/or protected areas.

Why is this debate important?

GMOs pose an unacceptable risk to our food, to human health and the environment. GMOs pose a major threat to food security as a result of their adverse effects on biodiversity, contamination of conventional crops, agro-companies control of the global seeds market, and heavy handed tactics around GMO patenting rights (see the Greenpeace briefings: 'Food security and climate change' [1] and 'Who will feed the world?' [2] ).

There is growing scientific evidence of the negative health and environmental impacts of GMOs. A recent scientific study [3] commissioned by the Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health found mice fed on a GM maize type approved by the EU (NK603 x MON810, owned by Monsanto), suffered reduced fertility. Mice fed on the GM maize produced fewer offspring than those fed on non-GM maize. The research is one of few long-term studies into the effects of GM.

Several other recently published peer-reviewed studies point to numerous unexpected effects of GM cultivation (see the Greenpeace briefings: 'GM crops: too many risks to ignore' [4] and 'Environmental and health impacts of GMOs: the evidence' [5]).

In particular, the Austrian study exposes once again the fundamental flaws in the EU's risk assessment process. The authorisation system contravenes EU law which requires all available socioeconomic and scientific evidence to be considered.

Currently, only the opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are considered. As the Austrian study highlights, EFSA is incapable of assessing the potential impacts of GMOs and therefore does not fulfil its legal and scientific requirements. EFSA's conclusions are based exclusively on data submitted by the companies applying for licences, and have all been positive to date. Long-term effects of GMOs, effects on non-target organisms, detrimental impacts on biodiversity, diverging scientific opinions and concerns raised by member states' competent authorities, are just some of the crucial evidence EFSA fails to consider.

Changes in agricultural practices, loss of traditional farming knowledge and the implications of contamination are just some of the "legitimate factors" that must be considered during the authorisation of GMOs. Yet, so far the European Commission has ignored these, rubber stamping all of EFSA's recommendations without question. This means the Commission is also breaching EU law.

EFSA itself has acknowledged its shortcomings by agreeing to a two-year mandate to develop its expertise on the assessment of long-term environmental effects of GMOs (see the Greenpeace briefings: 'EU GMO risk assessment needs reforming' [6] and 'Flaws in the EU authorisation process for GMOs' [7]).

What is the likely outcome of the meetings?

The EU can play a leading role in addressing the real solutions needed to guarantee safe and secure food and agriculture in the EU, and across the world.

EU member states are highly divided over GMO issues. Some countries, such as Austria, Hungary, Greece, Luxembourg, France, Italy and Cyprus, often highlight scientific concerns, the social and economic impacts of GMOs on agriculture and the inadequacy of the EU authorisation system. Others, such as the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands, strongly support the introduction of GMOs and defend business interests that clearly have no regard for science, the EU regulatory system or public opposition to GMOs.

The latter group of countries has found a strong ally in JosÈ Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. In June Mr. Barroso set up a high level political group (the 'Sherpa group') asking the 27 EU Heads of States and Governments to nominate a person responsible for debating broader political issues concerning GMOs. The aims of such an 'informal' initiative are not only to bypass the Commissioners responsible for GMOs (Health Commissioner, Ms. Vassiliou and Environment Commissioner, Mr. Dimas) and steer the debate towards Barrosso's pro-GMO position, but also to directly influence the ongoing French Presidency debate with environment ministers.

Instead of holding open and democratic meetings, the 'Sherpa group' meets behind closed doors and its decisions are not made public. The only written output from the Sherpa meetings reflects the biased conclusions of the Chair (Barroso's head of cabinet) and was not agreed by all participants. It calls on Sherpa members to intervene in the French Presidency negotiations.

On 10 October the Chair invites the participants "to report the discussions of the group to their heads of government and stressed the importance of drawing their attention on ongoing discussions in the Council ... in order to have a richer debate."

This pressure created by the Sherpa group heightens the risk that in December's meeting, ministers will only agree minor 'cosmetic' changes to the current authorisation system. A protracted stalemate on GMOs will show that ministers are unwilling to address food safety and security.

Greenpeace demands

EU decision-makers are ignoring the serious and unpredictable health and environmental risks posed by GMOs. Greenpeace calls on ministers to agree on a meaningful set of measures to reform the EU's flawed GMO authorisation system, and calls on Barroso and the European Commission to stop blocking this urgently needed process.

Greenpeace urges ministers to:

•

Suspend the authorisation system until fundamental reform is agreed;

•

Enact the safeguard clause and recall Monsanto's GM maize NK603 x MON810 - as well as their mother lines MON810 and NK603 - from the European market;

•

Strengthen the GMO risk assessment process ensuring that long term environmental and health impacts are considered, as required under EU law, and put on hold EFSA's assessments until this is the case;

•

Reform EFSA, giving it the necessary scientific expertise to carry out complex environmental and health risk assessments (involving environmental scientists and ecologists);

•

Ensure that the environmental and health effects caused by an increased use in herbicides in conjunction with GM crops are fully assessed, as required by EU law;

•

Guarantee that conventional and organic seed varieties are kept free of any GMO contamination;

•

Ensure that the negative socio-economic impacts of GM crops are taken into account during the authorisation process;

•

Give member states and local authorities the right to establish GMO-free areas.

All briefings mentioned above are available on http://www.greenpeace.eu

Notes:

1. 'Food security and climate change'
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/food-security-and-climate-change.pdf

2. 'Who will feed the world?'
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/who-will-feed-the-world.pdf

3. The recent scientific study commissioned by the Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health:
'Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice'
http://www.bmgfj.gv.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf

4. 'GM crops: too many risks to ignore'
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/GM-crops-too-many-risks-to-ignore.pdf

5. 'Environmental and health impacts of GMOs: the evidence'
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/environmental-and-health-impac.pdf

6. 'EU GMO risk assessment needs reforming'
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/Reform-of-EU-GMO-risk-assessment.pdf

7. 'Flaws in the EU authorisation process for GMOs'
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/flaws-in-the-EU-authorisation.pdf

Austrian ministry links GM corn to infertility

FoodNavigator.com, 24 November 2008. By Stephen Daniells.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Austrian-ministry-links-GM-corn-to-infertility/?c=4UZvOL3vyw2Rla2BIPSoag%3D%3D

Consumption of genetically modified corn may lead to infertility, according to a new study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna.

Results from a long-term feeding study with mice were interpreted as showing that consumption of a genetically modified corn developed by Monsanto (NK603 x MON810) led to lower fertility and body weight.

The study has not been peer-reviewed but a report was released on 11th November by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, which managed the study. To read the full report, click here.

"The number of females without litters decreased with time in the GM and ISO group, especially in the fourth generation," wrote the researchers, led by Professor Jurgen Zentek. "In the group fed with [a non GM corn cultivated in Austria] fewer females were without litters, and accordingly more pups were weaned."

The researchers noted that a 90-day feeding study is considered "sufficient" for the detection of adverse events, but chronic effects may only become evident in longer-term mutigenerational studies.

"This is the first study investigating a stacked event in a multigeneration study focussing on mice in reproduction and development," they added.

Biotech giant Monsanto has been quick to respond to the study, and released a statement on Friday emphasising that the study has not been peer-reviewed, as well as quoting 'two internationally recognised experts' who concluded that the study contained "significant flaws".

Study details

The feeding trials lasted 20 weeks using the fertile outbred mouse strain OF1/SPF. The animals were fed a diet containing 33 per cent of NK 603 x MON 810 corn, or a closely related non-GE variety. v MON810 is the only genetically modified crop approved in the EU, although not for human consumption. It has been cultivated for animal feed since 1998 and requires a review every ten years. It is engineered to produce a naturally occurring toxin, Bacillus thuringiensis, which has insecticidal properties. It also contains genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto's herbicide Roundup

The results indicated a statistically significant decrease in the sizes of the litters and the weight of the pups in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.

"The trial indicates that dietary interactions with the host organism have to be further evaluated," wrote the authors. "Regarding the sensitivity of the topic, studies are needed to extend the database using standardized feeding trials with clear endpoints such as reproductive performance and a backup by genomic, proteomic and metabolomic traits.

"Whether similar findings could be expected for other animals, needs to be evaluated in studies including reproductive traits. Future studies are necessary to determine the impact of normal and transgenic dietary ingredients on the organism," they concluded.

'Devastating' oversight

In a statement by Greenpeace, the environmental campaigners said that the study is "further evidence that the food and feed safety of genetically engineered crops cannot be guaranteed.

"The biotech industry is playing a game of genetic roulette with our food and with health.

"The reproductive ramifications of this GE maize were totally unexpected - regulators around the world have previously considered this variety to be as safe as non-GE varieties: a potentially devastating error.

"That alone should be a good enough reason to close down the whole biotech industry," said Greenpeace.

Monsanto replies

Jerry Hjelle, PhD, vice president of Monsanto's regulatory group responded to Greenpeace's statements, saying: "Once again, these organizations have demonstrated that their primary interest is sensational headlines and not scientific substance.

"Every time a preliminary study like this comes out, Greenpeace and the Center for Food Safety cry 'wolf'. And time and time again, scientific scrutiny finds that GM crops and food are safe."

A winner: Tasmania Bans GM Until 2014

Gene Ethics Media Release: Melbourne, 24 November 2008

Gene Ethics applauds the Tasmanian Government's ban on GM crops until the end of 2014, at least. This policy resulted from an exhaustive inquiry that has all-party support for a GM-free stance.

"The government's far-sighted decision opens up various GM-free marketing and other opportunities for the Apple Isle," says Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps.

"With premiums for GM-free canola now between A$75-90 (The Land, weekly graphs), the market prospects are excellent for Australian GM-free canola growers.

"The Japanese, Indian and Middle Eastern markets all want GM-free products and are ready to pay the premium.

"Genetically Manipulated canola is a dead loss in NSW and Victoria, with only a handful of selected growers risking Roundup tolerant GM canola that puts them at the mercy of rapacious companies.

"Growers are charged an accreditation fee of $500 ($1,000 next year), a premium for seed, more expensive Roundup, and an end-point-royalty of $10.20/tonne ($20.40 next year).

"The new WA government should match Tasmania's GM-free stance and also reap the benefits.

"Tasmania's display of real leadership, and its excellent report on GM canola, should be carefully studied by all Australian governments before they commit any further to GM canola," Mr Phelps concludes.

Comment: Bob Phelps 0449 769 066

GMO Ban To Stay Until 2014

Press release from David Llewellyn, MP, Tasmania's Minister for Primary Industries and Water
Monday, 24 November 2008

The Minister for Primary Industries and Water, David Llewellyn, announced today that Tasmania's ban on the commercial release of genetically modified food crops will continue for at least another five years from the end of November 2009 to the end of November 2014.

"This will make the State's primary produce even more desirable," Mr Llewellyn said.

"Tasmania's GMO-free status is a key factor in the Tasmanian brand and is therefore vital to Tasmania's primary producers realising their full potential in international and interstate markets."

The Minister said there are exciting opportunities for Tasmania's primary industries, operating under the Tasmanian brand.

"The markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green, high quality and safe.

"Tasmania is already well-positioned to meet that demand and our decision to extend the GMO ban makes the Tasmanian brand even stronger.

"The decision by some other Australian States to relax their GM bans has actually increased the value of Tasmania's GMO-free status and that creates opportunities for even better access to prime markets across the globe.

"The hard work done over recent years has ensured Tasmania is well-placed to take full advantage of its reputation as a reliable supplier of the best and safest food to a range of new markets that will arise out of the maintaining of the ban.

"The State Government and the Brand Tasmania Council will be developing a more aggressive marketing campaign to maximise the business opportunities flowing from extension of the GMO ban."

The Minister said that the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) will be actively working with industry to investigate GMO-free seed production and other opportunities.

"Clearly, the growing demand in premium markets for non-GM food will also see a growing demand for non-GM seed stock for both crops and pastures that will flow into industries such as dairying and beef, to value-add to their products in the market place."

Tasmania's GMO policy:

•

prohibits use of gene technology in commercial agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fisheries, bioremediation and pets; *does not apply to gene technology use in contained research and medical or non-agricultural industrial use where there is no risk of release to the environment;

•

allows specific authorisation of some types of research if risks of escape of GM organisms to the environment is low enough; *prohibits import of viable GM organisms which could establish in the environment (eg GM canola seed);

•

does not prohibit import of non-viable materials derived from GMOs (eg feed containing GM soya bean meal); *continues the eradication program at former trial sites at which residual GM canola occurs; and,

•

supports continued Tasmanian participation in national GMO and food safety regulation systems.

Copies of the gene technology policy can be found at http://www.dpiw.tas.gov

Further information:

Margaret Lindley
Phone: 6233 2451

Food guru Margaret Fulton likens genetically-modified food push to Adolf Hitler

Herald Sun (Australia), 24 November 2008. By Caroline Berdon.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24697594-5005961,00.html

FOOD guru Margaret Fulton has joined a host of celebrity foodies to condemn genetically-modified (GM) food, likening the big chemical companies pushing its merits to Adolf Hitler.

Food writer Ms Fulton, along with celebrity chefs Alex Herbert and Jared Ingersoll, launched the Greenpeace True Food Guide Canola Edition 2009 in Sydney today.

The booklet coincides with the imminent entry onto the national market of Australia's first GM food crop, GM Canola, which is now being harvested in NSW and Victoria.

Critics say preliminary studies of GM Canola have shown it to be potentially toxic, partly due to higher levels of pesticides used in its farming.

With a green list of "goodies" - brands which avoid ingredients from GM crops - and a red list of "baddies" brands that may allow GM ingredients to contaminate their supply, the guide aims to help consumers actively avoid products containing GM Canola.

At the guide's launch, Ms Fulton hit out at the big chemical companies for pushing the "benefits" of growing GE canola to farmers for their commercial gain.

"They're going to control the world," she said.

"We thought Hitler was a bad fella ... these guys could show him a thing or two - and they're creeping up on us quietly without guns or anything like that, but the poison is there."

There are no laws which compel manufacturers or retailers to state whether a product is genetically modified, making it challenging for consumers to choose GM-free goods without the right information.

23 November 2008

Vilsack won't be named ag secretary

Des Moines Register, November 23 2008. By Philip Brasher.

D.C. - Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack today said that he won't be the next agriculture secretary, ending speculation that an Iowan would snag the post important to a large swath of the state's economy.

In an e-mail, Vilsack said he had never been contacted by aides to President-elect Barack Obama about that position or any other.

"I would have to speculate that I was in fact in the running and further speculate as to why I was no longer. I do not think it prudent or appropriate to speculate about either," Vilsack said.

Vilsack had been linked repeatedly to the Agriculture Department position in news reports. The Washington Post at one point called him a "near shoo-in" for the job. Obama's staff had never confirmed that he was being considered.

Obama "has many interests he has to consider, and we have an abundance of talent in both parties from which to satisfy those interests," Vilsack said today.

Other names that have been mentioned included those of Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union, and Rep. Collin Peterson, the Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Agriculture Committee. Peterson told the news service DTN recently that he wouldn't get the job.

Vilsack campaigned for Obama in several states and promoted his agricultural views in contacts with farm leaders. He published newspaper essays in October offering renewable energy plans that paralleled Obama's. The articles helped fuel speculation about the former governor's possible role in the Obama administration.

USDA plays a role in many facets of Iowa's economy. The state is often the largest recipient of crop subsidies, collecting up to $2.3 billion in some years, and is home to much of the crop insurance industry, which also is heavily supported with taxpayer money. USDA regulates meatpackers and has helped finance an array of rural businesses, including biofuel plants.

Can GM save the world?

BBC, 24 November 2008. By Jimmy Doherty.

Genetic modification is one of the great contentious issues of 21st Century science.

To some it is a powerful technology that could boost food production and prevent famines; to others it is a dangerously untested science that threatens environmental disaster.

The BBC Horizon programme sent Jimmy Doherty - an advocate of sustainable farming - on a personal mission to get at some of the truths on GM.

Can GM crops save the world? It's not a question most people would expect me to be asking.

They look at the way I farm and assume that I'd be opposed to GM technology. But my attitude towards GM is more complicated than that.

I trained as a scientist; I was studying for a PhD in entomology when I started the farm, and I'm fascinated by genetic technology.

It could be an incredibly powerful tool if it's used properly. But on the other hand I think how we produce our food is really important, and I run my farm according to the principles I believe in.

All our animals are raised outdoors, we don't use any chemical pesticides or fertilisers and we try to work with nature as much as possible.

So I've spent the last six months travelling around the world to investigate GM crops. I wanted to find out if they had a role to play in our agricultural systems or whether the environmental and health concerns make it too risky.

No fear

The first thing I found was that much of the rest of the world does not share Europe's concerns about GM technology.

GM crops were planted on over 100 million hectares last year - that's about 10% of the world's crops which are now genetically modified. And it really seems to be working for the farmers.

I visited Argentina where they've adopted GM technology in a big way.

Every year they plant an area larger than Britain with GM soya beans.

The beans are much more profitable to grow than conventional beans and they have become the country's biggest export. They almost single-handedly rescued Argentina from economic meltdown when they were introduced in the late 1990s.

But there have been downsides. The GM production system works best when grown on a large scale and many smaller farmers have been squeezed off their land by the expansion of the mega-farms and huge areas of natural forest are being cleared to make way for more soya.

Lifestyle changes

In the US, GM technology has become even more widespread.

In Pennsylvania I met Amish farmers whose lifestyle hasn't changed for decades. But even though they still use horse-drawn machinery to tend their fields, they also grow GM crops.

They grow a variety of corn that produces its own insecticide. It means their crops suffer from much lower levels of insect damage and they have to spray much less pesticide. And that has got to be a good thing for the farmers and for the environment.

But there are other concerns about the environmental effects of GM crops. My biggest fear is that the genetically modified genes may spread into other non-GM crops.

We know that this gene-flow does happen, and if it were to occur on a wide scale, it would mean that you couldn't guarantee any crops were truly GM free.

That would be bad news for conventional and organic farmers who don't want to grow GM crops, and for anyone who doesn't want to eat GM food.

Although I've seen no evidence that eating GM crops is bad for you I do believe that you should have the choice to avoid GM if you want to.

On balance, I'd say we don't really need the GM crops we have at the moment.

Pros and cons

The only people who really seem to benefit are the farmers who grow the crops and seed companies who provide the seeds, while there are environmental risks that affect us all.

But I don't think that we should turn our backs on GM either.

It is still a young technology and I think it's real use may lie in the future.

Imagine if GM could be used to create crops that produced higher yields, or were resistant to drought or could even fix their own nitrogen and produce their own fertiliser.

While that's a possibility, we need to proceed with research into GM. We need to make sure it's safe - but we may really need it in the future.

At the moment we are facing a food crisis. The world's population is increasing.

Arable land is being used to produce biofuels, the increased demand for meat, particularly in India and China, is raising demand for animal feed. Climate change. All these factors are putting our food supply under pressure.

Most estimates suggest we need to double the amount of food we produce in the next 50 years.

The biggest challenges will lie in Africa - where agricultural productivity has been falling and 30% of the population is permanently under-nourished.

If anywhere needs to benefit from farming technology, it is here. No-one is saying GM is the total solution to all these problems. But if there is a chance it can provide some of the answers, then we need to pursue it.

Brasher: Obama, like Bush, may be ag biotech ally

Des Moines Register (USA), 23 November 2008.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081123/BUSINESS01/811230309/1029/BUSINESS

Washington, D.C. - The agricultural biotechnology business could hardly have had a better friend than George W. Bush.

His administration challenged the European Union's anti-biotech regulations and avoided imposing rules domestically that would hinder the industry's growth, with the exception of the most controversial products, such as pharmaceutical crops.

But there are clues President-elect Barack Obama could be an ally of the industry, too, especially in the effort to put biotech crops into widespread use in Africa. These hints come from both statements of policy and the type of people from whom he's taking advice.

Consider:

•

Obama explicitly endorsed genetically engineered crops in an answer to a candidate questionnaire initiated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and other scientific groups. He said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."

•

His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000.

•

Obama has endorsed the idea of a second Green Revolution, a concept understood to include biotechnology, to feed the world's growing population. In an exchange of letters last June with Norman Borlaug, the Iowa-born plant breeder who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the first Green Revolution, Obama said he was "deeply committed to greater agriculture research and global agricultural development."

•

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, an outspoken proponent of agricultural biotechnology, is considered a leading candidate to become Obama's agriculture secretary. The Biotechnology Industry Organization named him its governor of the year in 2001.

•

Obama has called for doubling foreign development aid to $50 billion and establishing a special initiative to provide farmers in poor countries with affordable fertilizer and "improved seeds."

Obama's official statements on development are "pretty strong on agricultural science," said Robert Paarlberg, author of the recent book "Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa."

"I certainly haven't seen any sense of opposition to technology."

Obama's administration will be closely watched to see whether he follows through. Public and congressional interest in boosting world food production could wane, given the recent plunge in commodity prices and the global economic slowdown.

"We need an across-the-board revival of our agricultural development work," said Paarlberg, a Wellesley College professor.

A doubling of government spending on agricultural research over five years could lift more than 280 million people out of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute.

However, U.S. spending on foreign agricultural research has fallen dramatically since the 1980s. And even though Congress inserted $150 million in agricultural development assistance in an emergency spending bill this year at a time when food prices were soaring worldwide, that extra money only compensated for a cut that lawmakers had made earlier in the aid budget.

Paarlberg says U.S. agricultural aid is needed to help African scientists to do their own modification of food crops.

"Let them get comfortable with the technology, and let them sell it to their governments," he said.

In the long run, he says, that would make biotechnology more acceptable in Africa than continuing to push the biotech products from U.S. seed companies like Monsanto and Johnston-based Pioneer Hi-Bred.

Africa is home to more than 900 million people, or 14 percent of the world's population. Regardless of how it's done, the U.S. industry would surely count any president a friend who opens that continent to biotechnology.

22 November 2008

There's no market for GM crops

The Independent (UK), 22 November 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-in-praise-of-hugo-chavez-1029917.html

The lack of GM test sites in the UK can be traced to the market rejection of GM crops in the late 1990s ("Government to defy critics with secret GM crop trial", 17 November). Monsanto's withdrawal from GM wheat research in 2004 amid global concerns from consumers and wheat farmers has also contributed. Why test crops for which there is no market?

Another significant reason has been the failure of GM herbicide-tolerant crops to gain commercial approval. The Government rejected GM oilseed rape and beet in 2004 because its own farm-scale evaluations found they caused long-term harm to farmland wildlife. GM herbicide-tolerant fodder maize was withdrawn by Bayer CropScience even after Margaret Beckett said it could be grown commercially.

As herbicide tolerance was the main GM trait being developed for the UK, it is hardly surprising that the need for test sites has largely disappeared.

Given that the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development highlighted the urgent need to prioritise agro-ecological approaches to agriculture, why do ministers persist in pushing unpopular and outdated GM technology?

Pete Riley
Campaign Director, GM Freeze
Barnsley, South Yorkshire, UK

GM foods safety uncertain

Food Consumer (USA), 22 November 2008. By David Liu, Ph.D.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/Agri_amp_Environ_41/112203102008_GM_foods_safety_uncertain.shtml

A new review study suggests that many years of research with animals and clinical trials are needed to assess the safety of genetically modified foods.

The review found most studies indicate that GM foods may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical and immunologic functions.

Animal toxicity studies have already shown that GM foods may toxically influence organs and systems.

The authors also say that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-evaluated since it has been found to increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.

The review was conducted by Dona A and Arvanitoyannis IS from the University of Athens Medical School in Athens, Greece and published in the Feb 2009 issue of Critical Review of Food Science and Nutrition.

The most common GM foods used in the US include corn, canola and soybean.

21 November 2008

GM crops must come out of the dark

The Telegraph (UK), 22 November 2008. By Jimmy Doherty.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/11/22/do2209.xml

Do you know that saying, that we're only ever four meals away from anarchy? Well, we've arrived at a point in history where we can't possibly feed the world's population. There's just too many of us for the amount of food the earth can produce to go around. That problem isn't going to go away, and we need to start addressing it.

So, could GM crops - ones that are genetically modified to be resistant to disease and pests - be the answer?

Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's food for thought.

And that, in short, is the starting point for my Horizon documentary about the pros and cons of GM crops. In this country, there have been many debates on the subject but do these discussions get to the general public - the people who matter?

To explore public opinion, I did an easy test for the documentary. I stopped shoppers in Norwich high street and offered them a choice of a sausage cooked in GM oil, or one in non-GM oil. The immediate reaction was to go for the non-GM option. Why? The most common response was: "I dunno really."

When I started investigating the issue, I thought GM food was something on the periphery, something that most of us in the UK never come in contact with. But the truth is, we could possibly be eating food containing GM ingredients every day without realising it.

In reality, there aren't that many GM crops currently in production - it's mostly maize, soya, rice and cotton, and they're mostly grown in the United States, which has been producing GM crops for the past decade. But the first two play such a big part in our daily diets, they're hard to avoid. Maize is used to make the corn syrup found in fizzy drinks, among many other things, and soya is a key ingredient to lots of animal feeds, so it may work its way into our diets, too.

Products that originate from the United States don't have to specify on the label whether it contains GM or not. For me, that's wrong. What we need is better labelling so people can have better choice. Then the consumer is king - if people don't buy it, people won't grow it. advertisement

Some people think that, as we're an island state, we should set ourselves up as a GM-free zone, and exploit the market for GM-free food. I can afford to farm in this way, because people are willing to pay a little bit extra for my free-range rare breed pigs. But can my farm supply the world demand for pork? No, it can't. I can fill a niche with them, but I can't feed the world.

You can understand why some large-scale farmers who are producing for a global market can see the potential benefits it holds for them. These are bright people, modern businessmen, and they want to stay competitive. They are the ones thinking: "Hang on a minute, I've got all these costs to pay for like fertiliser and fuel when my competitors in other countries like Brazil appear to have the advantage by using GM crops like BT Maize that use less pesticides."

It appears that the organic sector is completely against GM crops because it could lead to an ecological disaster, not least because GM crops could pass on their genes to non-GM crops.

Growing GM is something of a Pandora's box, potentially the modern-day equivalent of the Romans releasing the first rabbits into the UK. The danger is not that GM crops will mutate over time and become a superbreed like some kind of science fiction nightmare; but the possibility that the genes could spread from one GM species of plant and cross pollinate with other plants that then spread into natural communities and change the natural order of things in a way that we don't know how to deal with.

Now, I'm no poster-boy for GM. I'm a farmer whose background is in science. I did a degree in zoology and studied a phD in entomology, and am as passionate about science as I am about farming.

What I want to do is to bring some ideas to the fore; I don't want to be overly negative or positive, I just want to see what the potentials are and draw some conclusion.

Ultimately for me it's about freedom of choice. If you want to eat GM, you should have that right. But more importantly if you don't want to eat GM, you should also have that right, and this may already have has been taken away from us. After all, GM Crops are grown world-wide.

Prince Charles has caused controversy over GM and has come under criticism from sections of the farming community, but I think that we need people like him to get us debating the issue.

The current status quo of GM Crops may not be the answer, but we have a responsability to rigorously and openly discuss the science, as well as its consequences.

* Horizon: Jimmy's GM Food Fight is on BBC2 on Tuesday, 25 November, 9pm

Brave New Farm: GE Food Animals in the USA

The Pig Site, 21 November 2008.

Imagine a new kind of food farm: animals that flourish on infertile lands, eat less but grow faster; there are no fears of disease or environmental side-effects on these farms and the animals produce meat that is lean, safe and nutritious. Think of all that can be gained, but then again, think of all that can be lost. "What will the face of genetically engineered food farms really look like?" asks Adam Anson, reporting for ThePigSite.

[Download graphic: Genetically Engineered Animals:
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/ge_animals_diagram091808.pdf]

The US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) recently released a draft guidance on animals being genetically engineered (GE) for the food sector entitled Guidance for Industry Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs. The authors say that when this draft is finalized, it will reflect the FDA's current thoughts on this topic.

Genetic engineering generally refers to the use of recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques to introduce new characteristics or traits into an organism. Ever since the idea was first conceived, it has been the bone of contention in the media. Science fiction literature has portrayed it in a whole spectrum of colours, but the issue is no longer confined to fiction. It has entered the world around us almost unforeseen and now it beckons on the door of animal farming, but do we yet understand its real implications?

According to Randall Lutter, "Genetically engineered animals hold great promise for improving human medicine, agriculture, the environment, and the production of new materials, and the FDA has long been involved in their scientific evaluation." In a press item released shortly after the draft report, deputy commissioner of policy for the FDA, Dr Lutter, commented that the FDA guidance "provides a framework for both GE animals and products made from them to reach the market".

According to the FDA, GE organisms currently being developed are being used to improve animal health or enhance agronomic traits and food quality. For instance, we may start seeing fish that grow faster and more efficiently, or goats are being engineered with spider genes to produce silk in their milk. Some GE pigs could have less environmentally deleterious wastes, whilst others may be engineered with mouse and bacterial DNA to improve digestion.

An FDA Fact Sheet says that GE food animals could also produce "highly specific antimicrobials that target disease-causing bacteria such as E. coli 0157:H7 or Salmonella".

There are also implications for these animals to be more drought- and heat-tolerant, which may allow for high quality food to be produced in parts of the world where disease, climate or accessibility of feed material have previously limited the ability to raise food animals. Animals can be engineered to be resistant to diseases, have less environmental impact, grow more quickly, require less feed, and produce healthier food.

The draft makes clear the opinion portrayed by the FDA but the issue is more complex than simply that of improving efficiency and meat quality. For instance, when does a genetically modified animal cease to be an animal at all? How safe is it to unleash these animals on nature? And what effects will this have on farmers and the industry as a whole?

A Glance Through European Eyes

Conspiracy theorists dream up scenarios involving giant chickens and headless cattle, but are these visions as radical as they seem? A lot of the fears involved with GE food animals are not based merely around farming, or even modern day experiments, but rather they are concerned with what the next step after that will entail and whether or not this is a future into which we are stepping with our eyes fully open.

There is undoubtedly a question of ethics at stake among many people, as this would be a genetically unnatural step. An FDA Consumer Q and A, says that the issue of ethics is an extremely complicated one. However, "On the one hand", it says, "the standard for approval does not explicitly include ethics...many people would consider animal health and safety to be a subcategory of the broader term 'ethics'".

A quick look at European perceptions on genetic tampering of food animals shows evident concerns. In a survey conducted by the European Commission, entitled Europeans' Attitudes Towards Animal Cloning Analytical Report released in October 2008, three-quarters of interviewees agreed that there could be ethical grounds for rejecting animal cloning, whilst 69% agreed that animal cloning would risk treating animals as commodities rather than creatures with feelings.

Significantly, a large majority of EU citizens were unwilling to accept animal cloning for food production purposes and 58% said that such cloning should never be justified. The question is whether these people would vote the same way if the topic concerned GE animals rather than cloned animals?

A majority of EU citizens said that it was unlikely that they would buy meat or milk from cloned animals, even if a trusted source stated that such products were safe to eat, whilst eight out of ten EU citizens (83%) said that special labelling should be required if food products from the offspring of cloned animals become available in the shops. Would it be a breach of rights if this option was refused?



The Fearful Glare of the Media

The main aspects of the FDA's draft guidance that has drawn concern amongst consumer groups is food labelling and transparency. "While the new guidance would require a long-overdue review process, the proposed FDA rules are seriously flawed," says TheTrueFoodNetwork.

"Under this draft, the public cannot know if the review of a product has met the highest scientific standards until after its approval, and then they cannot avoid the product in the marketplace because it is not labelled. The FDA feels it deserves the public's trust, but refuses to give us the tools to verify that it is doing its job fairly and adequately."

However, GE organisms are nothing novel. Since the first demonstration as proof of principle by Cohen and Boyer in 1973, recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology has been applied to microorganisms, plants, and animals. Now, more than two decades later, many different species, including those traditionally consumed as food, have been genetically engineered with various rDNA constructs.

However, according to NaturalNews, ever since the beginning of GE grains, controversy has surrounded their safety. The Organic Consumers organization is equally against GE grains, stating "Campaign activists are also demanding that corporations and governments heed the concerns of consumers, North and South, and remove genetically engineered corn and other foods and crops from the market, unless they can be proven to be safe for human health and the environment.

NaturalNews claims that hundreds of US consumers have reported allergic reactions after consuming FDA-approved products such as Kraft and other branded products likely to contain GE corn.

The FDA says that under the draft guidance, in those cases where the GE animal is intended for food use, producers will have to demonstrate that food from the GE animal is safe to eat. However, at a time when the FDA has inadequate resources to protect the food system and is reeling under allegations of conflicts of interest, has the issue of food safety been fully considered?

The Centre for Food Safety, a non-profit organisation, has spotted an area of concern. "This new proposal uses a secret approval process wherein no one other than FDA reviewers can see the data submitted before final approval," said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Analyst on cloning and genetics for the Center for Food Safety. "And, unlike drugs which can be recalled because they are labelled, FDA maintains that genetically engineered animals should not be labelled."

After all is said and done, the fact remains that any move towards GE food animals will most probably precede a monumental shift in what we now know as farming and what we perceive as meat. If it is for anyone to decide whether it is the right, or wrong move then we ask "who should it be?" Is it the American government, corporate leaders, or the everyday citizen that has to produce, or consume these products? What is there to be really gained, and parallel to these gains, what is there to be lost?

The comment period for the FDA's Draft Guidance ended on 18 November.

Further reading

You can view the Food and Drug Administration Draft Guidance by clicking here:
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Guidance/guide187.htm

GMO crop critics fear USDA will ease regulations

Reuters, 21 November 2008. By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Critics of biotech crops were trying to head off rule changes by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the waning days of the Bush Administration that the critics said would ease restrictions on the controversial crops.

"USDA is laying the statutory groundwork to eliminate a lot of genetically modified plants from any regulation at all, even at the field test stage," said Center for Food Science policy analyst Bill Freese.

Monday is the deadline for comments on proposals that could impact how a range of genetically modified organisms are regulated, as well as limit state and local government regulation of such crops.

There is also language that would formalize an existing policy providing that low levels of contamination by unauthorized biotech crops would not necessarily require remedial action.

Several environmental, consumers and farm groups alarmed at the details of the changes are urging members to sign petitions opposing the changes.

"We want to stop these last-ditch attempts by the Bush Administration to put through bad genetic engineering rules," said Anne Petermann, co-director of the Global Justice Ecology Project.

The USDA and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which regulates certain genetically engineered organisms including plant pests that may damage crops and other plants, have been revising their policies after coming under criticism for lax oversight practices.

Last year, a judge found USDA acted illegally when it allowed unrestricted commercial planting of Monsanto Co's "Roundup Ready" biotech alfalfa without fully analyzing the environmental impact.

USDA has said the new rules came after comprehensive review and would allow USDA to provide effective oversight of the technology.

APHIS spokeswoman Rachel Iadicicco said the goals were to insure the safe development and use of certain genetically engineered organisms while reducing the "regulatory burden."

"There are some things in there to lessen the regulatory burden but also we want to ensure that the organisms are overseen appropriately," she said.

Iadiciccio said all public comments would be considered.

Biotech critics said one particular concern deals with language that states "all state and local laws or regulations that are inconsistent... (with APHIS rules) will be preempted."

That potentially could impact actions like that seen last month in Hawaii where a county council recently banned growing biotech coffee as well as taro.

Genetically modified crops, particularly corn and soybeans that are resistant to herbicide, are popular with U.S. farmers. St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto Co is the leading developer of such crops.

In all, 23 countries allow the cultivation of biotech crops, but much of Europe, Japan, and most of Africa remain opposed to genetically altered crops.

Opponents say genetically altered crops can hurt human and animal health and damage the environment. And many farmers fear they will lose customers if their nongenetically altered crops are contaminated with the biotech varieties.

A recent study out of Austria indicated a correlation between genetically engineered corn and infertility, prompting the Center for Food Safety to call for a moratorium on the distribution of genetically engineered foods until the risk can be further assessed.

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

USDA Rushing Through Dangerous New Rules on GE and Pharmaceutical Crops

True Food Network / Center for Food Safety, 21 November 2008.

In the waning months of the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has joined the ranks of federal agencies rushing through new regulations that weaken protections for human health and the environment. USDA has released a proposed rule that would significantly weaken oversight of all genetically engineered crops, and which continue to allow companies to grow food crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals.

The USDA began this process over four years ago by promising stricter oversight.Ý Unfortunately, improvements considered early on have been dismissed, and the proposed rule now has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well.Ý For instance:

•

USDA has created a huge loophole allowing biotech companies to assess their own crops to determine whether USDA should regulate them.Ý And the criteria are open-ended, very subjective, and will certainly reduce USDA's oversight of GE crops.

•

The proposed rules could also allow companies to grow untested GE crops with no oversight whatsoever: "Over time, the range of GE organisms subject to oversight is expected to decrease...," a move which USDA itself admits will make contamination of conventional/organic crops with untested GE material more likely.

•

To add insult to injury, USDA has proposed to write into law its "Low Level Presence" policy, which excuses it from taking any action to remove untested GE crops from conventional or organic food, feed and seed.Ý This contamination often occurs through cross-pollination or seed dispersal, and has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and lowered profits.

•

USDA rejected options that would have banned outdoor cultivation of pharmaceutical-producing GE (food) crops, the only way to ensure that untested drugs don't end up in our food, despite strong support from citizens and the food industry.

•

USDA has refused to propose any controls on pesticide-promoting GE crops, despite increasing pesticide use and an epidemic of resistant weeds that have been fostered by these crops.

•

Finally, USDA snuck in a last-minute "correction" that bars state or local regulation of GE crops more protective than its own weak rule.Ý CFS strongly opposes such preemptive language that would bar local or state authorities from putting meaningful regulations or restrictions on GE crops in place that best suit their communities. This last-minute change should be cause to extend the public comment period.

The USDA is treading dangerous new ground here. The structure of the new proposal opens loopholes that can be exploited by biotech companies and expose consumers to more untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods.

After denying requests for an extension to the short comment period given for the proposed rules, USDA's comment period closes on Monday.

Sign our petitionÝto the USDA today and demand stronger-not weaker-regulations for genetically engineered crops!

Full Petition Text: Ý

Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

Re: Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023, Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release into the Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms.

I am very concerned about the risks genetically engineered crops--especially those engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals--pose to human health, family farmers, wildlife, and the environment. I urge USDA to close the gaping loopholes in its proposed rules, and put stronger--not weaker--regulations in place. In particular:

1.

Please follow the advice of the National Academy of Sciences and make genetic engineering the trigger for USDA oversight so that ALL experimental GE crops are properly regulated. This approach is scientifically sound, administratively efficient, and more protective of public health, the environment, and the interests of farmers. Eliminate loopholes that exempt any GE crop that has not undergone a determination of non-regulated status from USDA regulatory oversight.

2.

Please do NOT incorporate the "Low Level Presence" policy in the final rule. Instead, make zero presence of experimental GE crops in food and feed your management goal, and gear your implementing regulations to achieve it as fully as possible. In particular, make all field trials of experimental GE crops subject to strict gene containment standards at least as stringent as those now applied to pharmaceutical-producing GE crops.

3.

Please reconsider your "business as usual" pharma crop policy, and instead adopt one of two alternatives you proposed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement - a simple ban on outdoor cultivation of all pharmaceutical-producing crops, or at least pharmaceutical-producing food crops - to best protect public health and the environment.

4.

Please regulate as necessary pesticide-promoting, herbicide-tolerant GE crops in order to address the rise in pesticide use these crops have fostered, and to mitigate the growing threat posed by herbicide-resistant weeds to farmers and the interests of American agriculture.

5.

Remove any preemption clause that bars state and local authorities from enacting laws or regulations to control GE crops as they best see fit.

Signed by:

[Your name]

Please sign the petition here: http://ga3.org/campaign/GMOregs

Monsanto Beets Down Opposition

In These Times, 21 November 2008. By Kari Lydersen.

WILLAMETTE VALLEY, Ore. – The sugar beets growing in farmer Tim Winn's fields do not look menacing. But other farmers in Oregon's fertile Willamette Valley fear the beets could devastate their crops.

Winn's sugar beets have been genetically modified to allow them to survive application of Monsanto's Roundup Ready herbicide. The modification allows Winn to kill weeds in his field with two sprayings of Roundup, rather than the multiple applications of various herbicides he used to use.

Winn and other sugar beet farmers across the country say Roundup Ready sugar beet – which are being grown on a commercial scale for the first time this year – make farmers' work easier and more profitable. And, they claim, there will be environmental benefits because farmers will make fewer passes through fields with a tractor – a point that was made in a 2003 British study published in New Scientist magazine.

But Kevin Golden, staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, says the unknown long-term environmental risks of genetically modified crops outweigh short-term benefits.

"We admit Roundup is a less toxic alternative than a lot of the herbicides, but weed resistance is developing really fast," Golden says. "Eventually, Roundup becomes obsolete and farmers have to use these really nasty herbicides. It's a self-defeating prophecy to use this as a silver bullet."

And, he notes, the possible human health consequences of genetically modified organism (GMO) crops have not been adequately studied.

"GMOs are only 12 years old. It's a human experiment we don't know the answer to yet," says Golden.

Frank Morton, who distributes organic seeds all over the world from his farm in Philomath, Ore., says Roundup herbicide alters the local soil ecology, including suppressing beneficial fungi that kill pathogens.

"The whole farm system can be affected," Morton says.

Sugar beets supply about half the nation's sugar, and represent a $21 billion industry. Packaged sugar on grocery shelves contains sugar beet and sugar cane. Because sugar is produced in large factories, if Roundup Ready becomes the sugar beet industry standard, it is unlikely any sugar would be available to consumers that does not come partially from GMO beets.

Luther Markwart, executive vice president of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, the industry trade group, claims that in most farming areas, contamination would not be an issue because sugar beets are harvested before they go to seed.

But in the Willamette Valley, where sugar beets are grown specifically for seed, it is a different story.

In January, several environmental and public health groups – including the Center for Food Safety, the Organic Seed Alliance, the Sierra Club and High Mowing Organic Seeds – filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal district court in northern California. They demanded a permanent injunction against planting GMO sugar beets until the agency studies closely their environmental and health impacts, and the risk of cross-pollination.

The ongoing suit was filed in the same court that in February 2007 issued a permanent injunction against the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa, pending further study by the USDA.

Controversy continues over how far apart farmers' crops must be to avoid the risk of cross-pollination.

In the Willamette Valley, the industry standard is one mile for beets. But many farmers say the windborne seeds can travel up to five miles.

Because many farmers are part of cooperatives that grow sugar beets on contract for companies that supply seed, Winn says individual farmers have little choice on whether to plant Roundup Ready sugar beets.

If the court rules against Roundup Ready beets this season, Winn says his crop will be destroyed, though he will still get paid.

"As a businessman, it's easier on my stomach if I can predict the outcomes," he says. "I just want to harvest my crops. I get emotional about all the politics around this."

But Morton and other growers of organic chard and table beets fear Roundup Ready beets will wipe out their industry, regardless of whether it is contaminated from nearby GMO sugar beets.

Chard is closely related to sugar beets, so genetically modified sugar beet seeds could contaminate the crop, thereby obliterating the chard's organic certification and market.

"There's a problem with perception," Morton says. "If word gets out that we're contaminated with GE [genetic engineering], we're no better than any place else." Kari Lydersen, an In These Times contributing editor, is a Chicago-based journalist writing for publications including The Washington Post, the Chicago Reader and The Progressive.

Summary of study:
New Study Finds GM Maize Affects Reproduction Rates in Mice

Third World Network, 21 November 2008

A study commissioned by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Family and Youth Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management has found time related negative reproductive effects in mice fed GM maize.

In one study design where mice were continuously breeding, more mice fed on GM maize NK603 x MON810 had no litters or produced less offspring after the third or fourth litters, than those fed on conventional maize. The differences were statistically significant.

Similar results were obtained in a multi-generational study, where the parental generation was fed with either GM or non-GM maize and successive generations bred. Although the differences did not reach statistical significance in any one generation, the trend was clear - average litter size and weight as well as number of weaned pups were better in mice fed non-GM maize.

The study, one of the few long-term feeding studies that has been conducted to date, was presented by Prof. Dr. J¸rgen Zentek, Professor for Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna and lead author of the study, at a recent scientific seminar in Vienna, Austria. The seminar was hosted by AGES, the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety.

According to Greenpeace, Monsanto's GM maize NK603 x MON810 has been approved for planting and food use in a variety of countries, including the US, Argentina, Japan, Philippines and South Africa. In Mexico and the European Union, it is approved for food and feed use.

Download the study:

Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice

http://www.bmgfjgv.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf

Monsanto tried to block Austrian research

GM Free Cymru (Wales), 21 November 2008. By Dr. Brian John

It has emerged that Monsanto was asked to provide the GM materials and non-GM comparators for the Austrian study, but declined. This is par for the course. Monsanto (and the other GM corporations) have NEVER provided any help for feeding studies or other research over which they do not have direct control. That is why truly independent studies are almost impossible to conduct. We have documented some of the episodes of blocking / intimidation / corrupt science on our web-site, for example:

•

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/manipulation.htm

•

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/gm_health_effects_part1.htm

•

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/exposed.htm

•

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice10Mar2008.html

In the light of the above, the Monsanto statement in response to the release of the Austrian study is breathtakingly arrogant and complacent. In the full knowledge that it had tried to stop the study from going ahead, it trots out snide comments about the "preliminary" nature of the Report, the fact that it has not been peer-reviewed "by qualified experts", and the fact that it shows "inconsistent results." Then it goes onto the attack and refers to "activist groups" which have made "multiple allegations based on data taken out of context and lacking rigorous scientific review."

As we have said before, it beggars belief that the EU, EFSA, the UK government and the regulatory bodies allow anything at all from Monsanto to cross their desks, given its comprehensive abandonment of scientific ethics. But not only do they accept applications from the corporation, but they accept its dossiers full of non-peer-reviewed and carefully manipulated data, facilitate the approvals process for its GM varieties, and place the support of its commercial ambitions far ahead of the protection of the people of Europe.

79% of youth want more money spent on scientific research

Irish Examiner, 21 November 2008. By Juno McEnroe

WE are in favour of furthering scientific research but are cautious about technology and possible health risks, according to an EU-wide survey.

Some 79% of young Irish people think the Government should spend more money on scientific research.

On the other hand, advances in technology and the sciences have also made people aware of new risks.

The Eurobarometer survey found that four out of 10 people in Ireland think that using a mobile phone might be dangerous for their health. At the same time, 86% think that there's a health risk involved in living near a nuclear power plant. And more than half think that GM foods pose a health risk [emphasis added – Ed.].

The research was conducted among almost 25,000 young people aged 15-25 in 27 EU countries.

More than 1,000 Irish people were interviewed by phone for the research between September 9 and 13. Other findings revealed that 88% of young Irish people think science and technology make lives healthier, easier and more comfortable while 61% think that it could help to eliminate global poverty and hunger.

However, while Irish youths were cautious about mobile phones, other EU members were less concerned. Only 13% of Finns thought there were any health risks links associated with mobile phones.

But while Irish people might be adverse to mobile phones, they are very aware about developments with the technology.

Some 84% of Irish 15-25 year-olds said they had heard about innovations in mobile phone technology and were interested in them. This is the second-highest level of interest of all Europeans – second only to the Maltese (93%).

The survey also revealed that almost six in every 10 Irish young people feel that living near high-tension power lines might be dangerous. This was more or less in line with the EU average (54%). Elsewhere in Europe, only 21% of Finnish respondents thought there was the same risk but 86% of Portuguese see living near power lines as a possible health risk.

Surprisingly though, while young Irish people are enthusiastic about scientific developments, only a small number would consider formally studying science-related subjects.

Less than a third are thinking about studying biology, medicine or engineering and only a fifth are considering studying natural sciences.

Future Farmers of Wales anniversary conference

Farmers Guardian (UK), 21 November, 2008. By Barry Alston.

Barry Alston reports from the Future Farmers of Wales anniversary conference at the Royal Welsh Showground, Builth Wells.

WIDESPREAD UK use of genetically modified techniques, excellent farming prospects, higher product prices, greater volatility and carbon trading.

That, at least, was the farming 2020 vision of speakers at this year's conference marking the invitation-only elite organisation's 20th anniversary.

Predicting a much wider acceptance of GM technology was Prof Gareth Edwards-Jones, professor of agriculture and land use studies at Bangor University.

He believed it would be first seen in the energy chain and in the quest to find solutions to fight the increasing challenges from exotic and other diseases.

"I think that by 2020, the social political scene will have changed so much that the world will be ready for more widespread growth of GM crops, especially in the UK.

"By then, too, maybe Government will have realised selling off all the family silver over the past 25 years has not been such a good idea," he added.

"There may at last also be a realisation of the need to put more public money into research in order to increase food production."

He could, however, see higher average producer prices - but with greater fluctuation, fewer but larger farms, and renewable energy and carbon trading playing more significant roles.

Farmer links seed patents to the Antichrist
Michael White says genetic manipulation eradicating God's gift

The Huntsville Times (Alabama, USA), 21 November 2008. By Kay Campbell.
http://www.al.com/religion/huntsvilletimes/news.ssf?/base/living/1227262565230860.xml&coll=1

DUTTON - Michael White, who farms near Scottsboro, keeps a Mason jar full of wheat grains next to his well-worn Bible.

Capped with an antique zinc lid, the jar was filled by his grandfather decades before anyone dreamed of genetically altering plants or animals. The jar reminds him of what he considers God's first earthly gift to humanity: seeds.

It's a gift that is in danger of being eradicated, White says, through increased genetic manipulation of plant genes, hybridization and the patenting of living genes by large corporations. God's gift of seeds, given the day after he separated dry land from water and the day before he hung the sun, moon and stars, according to Genesis, is not something that should be taken away from a farmer. To forbid a farmer or gardener from gathering his own seed to replant the next year is something White sees as one of the signs of the end of time.

"The Antichrist will use seed to control nations and people," White writes in the book he published in May, "The 666's Are in the Seed," a title that refers to the traditional number of the Antichrist of Revelation. "He will also use seed to create food shortages. Patented seed will become the most prized possession of the Antichrist."

Seedtime and harvest

White, like many Christians, believes the years before Jesus returns to Earth will be a "time of trouble," filled with the chaos predicted in Matthew and Revelation: war, famine, pestilence, plagues and a world-wide totalitarian government. Many Christians believe a globally idolized figure, the Antichrist, will rule the world.

White has been through his own "time of trouble" over seeds. A few years ago he and his father were sued by Monsanto for patent violation - it is illegal to save seed from patented plants for re-planting. White denies he ever saved the altered seed, or that he cleaned such seed for other farmers in his seed-cleaning business. At the time of the lawsuit, he said, his retired father hadn't farmed in years.

The lawsuit against his 85-year-old father was dropped in the spring of 2006, shortly before White agreed to settle out of court with Monsanto. White cannot comment on the details of that settlement.

But who won or lost in the legal tussles he had, White says, is immaterial. What matters is that people understand that seed patents, non-reproducing hybrids and plants engineered to produce seeds that terminate a germinating seedling are part of what he considers an immoral corporate and legal control of one of God's first gifts to humankind.

Most seed scientists claim that genetically modified plants are the key to future bounty. Monsanto and other agri-corporations argue that protecting their patents through their Seed Stewardship programs enables their scientists to make more discoveries and ultimately to benefit all.

In fact, patents "facilitate technology innovation which benefits all farmers, including the most resource-poor," says John Combest, an issues manager for Monsanto, who commented about criticism of seed patents and genetic engineering by e-mail Wednesday. Monsanto, he said, is helping to develop seeds to produce plants that tolerate drought and increase yields. Those seeds will be licensed to the African Agriculture Technology Foundation for distribution without royalties to farmers, Combest wrote.

Hunger abroad

Marie Hollinsworth of Madison says from what she has seen in Africa, poor farmers desperately need an affordable or free source of reproducible seeds.

Hollinsworth, who returned to the U.S. last week, has worked alongside her husband, Winston, for 10 years in a rural part of Kenya near Lake Victoria. Winston, 71, has worked at a school in the area since 1985.

There at present, Hollinsworth said, government representatives tell farmers that their own seed is no good, and that they must use modified seed - which is available for a price. The hybridized seed produces sterile plants that don't make usable seed and also require more water than indigenous plants, Hollinsworth said.

Combine government control of seed with escalating international fights over the use of the polluted water of Lake Victoria for irrigation, factor in the AIDS epidemic's decimation of healthy workers, and what you get is a perfect storm of hunger, Hollinsworth said.

"We know in the end times there will be famine," Hollinsworth said. "Whether this is the end-time harvest, I don't know, but this world is shaping up for the last end time."

Hollinsworth and her husband have read White's book and agree with his basic theology.

"Michael is writing out of a lot of hurt from what happened to him," Hollinsworth said. "But deep down, it has to do with all the government takeovers."

Useful 'weeds'

Part of the problem may stem from the ill-conceived transfer of agricultural assumptions from one culture to another. In India, for instance, the "weeds" that grow between rows are hand-pulled by people who then use those for greens to feed their families or livestock. American-style cultivation, in which herbicide-resistant crops are sprayed with weed-killers, increases farmers' costs and decreases food supplies for impoverished field hands.

Many farmers worry that plants engineered to produce their own pesticides could also be contributing to the worldwide decline in insect pollinators like honeybees.

Many religious thinkers have warned against the practical and long-term effects of tinkering with a system God put into place at creation. Statements of concern over genetic engineering and patenting of seeds have been issued by Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, the National Council of Churches and others.

One of the most recent was circulated by the International Catholic Rural Association, signed by some 250 religious leaders and faith groups, and presented to a United Nations' meeting on food security in June. The goal of these groups, says Jaydee Hanson, who worked on bioethics issues for the United Methodist Church and now works at the Center for Food Safety, is to make sure farmers are not restricted from saving or exchanging seeds. That saving or exchanging is currently prohibited by Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

"TRIPS ... hinder farmers' innovations," Hanson wrote in a recent e-mail. "Plants, seeds and genes (should be) part of creation which cannot be claimed by intellectual property rights."

Navdanya is one organization that uses a religious philosophy, in this case Hinduism, to resist the imposition of altered seed. Most altered seed is geared toward export business, not the diverse, organic, sustainable, self-sufficient farming of small landowners in India, says Dr. Vandana Shiva, a physicist and ecologist who helped found Navdanya.

According to Navdanya and to a report in the German newspaper Deutsche Welle, the shifting control of seeds and resulting increase in poverty has contributed to the suicides of some 140,000 small farmers in India over the last 10 years.

'Altar call' in the garden

Michael White sees a blessing in his own troubles, although, he says, the three-year legal fight over seed patents cost him his business, his first marriage, his health and nearly killed his father. The shed at White's seed-cleaning business, was shuttered for four years when his customers quit coming after they received query letters from Monsanto's lawyers, he said. The shed is now stacked with bags of the foundation seed he bought from Auburn University.

These seeds, he says, are like his grandfather's wheat. They will germinate plants that produce seeds that anyone can save and replant for the next year's harvest. His own yields this summer were 35 to 45 bushels an acre, a yield that surpassed that of several nearby farmers who were using genetically modified seed, he said.

White is now getting orders for the heritage seed from farmers who haven't planted conventional seeds in eight or nine years.

"I hope there's some good news in this picture," White said this week. "It's a monster, but people are waking up. The trend is finally turning around and going back to conventional. I hope I can wake some people up and get back to growing their own food."

Even more important, White says, he hopes his book points out one of the ways people can see that the end of earthly time is at hand.

"Unsaved reader, it's altar call again," White writes in his book's conclusion. "Give your life to Christ before you die or the rapture takes place ... The food shortages have begun. The honey bees are almost gone. The Terminator Gene with its altered fertility is being approved and planted ... In the fall of 2007, many farmers could not find wheat seed to plant. It is now spring of 2008 and farmers are begging for soybean seed and having little or no success in finding them ... The 666's are in the seed."

20 November 2008

Will Genetically Modified Foods Make You Sick?

Huffington Post, November 20 2008. By Jeffrey Smith.

Two new government studies, published within days of each other, point to disturbing health hazards of genetically modified (GM) foods.

On November 13th, a study by the Italian National Institute of Research on Food and Nutrition showed how GM corn caused significant immune system changes in mice, related to allergic and inflammatory responses. The corn, sold by Monsanto, contains a gene that produces the toxic "Bt" pesticide in every cell--and in every bite. The results raise the question whether this toxin (or some other unpredictable change in the GM corn) might be contributing to the rise in allergies or other immune disorders in North America.

The second study provokes the equally compelling question, are GM foods the missing link to decreasing fertility? The Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety commissioned one of the very few long-term feeding studies on GM corn, released last week. The University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna fed GM Monsanto's GM corn to mice, which were then mated. In the third and fourth litters, there was a reduction in the number of size of rat pups (statistically significant). Similarly, in mice fed GM corn for four successive generations (from original mice parents to their great grandchildren), the size and number of offspring was less than those compared to non-GM fed mice (trend only, not yet statistically significant).

These studies should strike a major blow to biotech advocates who claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe. They should--but similar results in other studies and reports have so far been unable to dislodge the GMO safety myth and get them off our plates.

Consider some of the evidence related to reproductive problems: Offspring of Russian rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Italian male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice (also Italian) had altered DNA functioning. Several farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among American pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators have documented fertility problems among Indian buffaloes, cows, and goats fed GM cottonseed products, including abortions and premature births.

There is also evidence that the Bt crops cause allergic and toxic reactions. The GM cotton engineered to produce the Bt toxin, for example, is linked to thousands of deaths among sheep, buffaloes, and other livestock, and to widespread allergic reactions by Indian farm workers handling the plants. Monsanto's own Bt corn study showed toxic reactions in rats, and their corn is linked to mysterious deaths of cows, and to disease among people breathing the corn's pollen.

Whenever these studies or reports surfaced, scientists should have charged in to conduct intense follow-up research. Instead, the funding--to find and expose the cause of the problem--often mysteriously dries up; scientists are transferred, threatened or fired, and the health risk link to GMOs is vehemently denied.

Take the Russian rat study above, conducted by Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences. After we presented GMO health risk info at the EU Parliament in June 2007, she told me about the backlash that occurred after doing her study. Samples were stolen from her lab, documents were burnt on her desk, and her boss, under pressure from his boss, ordered her to cease all future research on GMOs. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, "Maybe GM soy will solve the human overpopulation problem." She wasn't comforted.

Unless we want to wait until more studies are done, risking allergies and immune dysfunction, infertility, infant mortality, or poorer health inherited by the next generation, we will have to opt out of the GM food experiment. Without required labels, it isn't simple. But our Campaign for Healthier Eating in America offers Non-GMO Shopping Guides that make it much easier, go to http://www.HealthierEating.org.

You might want to pass it on to those planning to have children, or wanting to stay healthy

U.S. Groups, Businesses and Organic Farmers Overwhelmingly Oppose Engineered Papaya

STOP GE Trees Campaign / Global Justice Ecology Project, 20 November 2008.

Organizations came together with scientists, businesses, organic farmers, bee keepers and others [1] to oppose a U.S. Department of Agriculture proposal to allow the commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) papaya trees in Florida. Over 12,000 people opposed the commercialization while only 17 people submitted statements supporting the commercialization of GE papaya.

The STOP GE Trees Campaign, which initiated the call for opposition, includes 137 organizations across the world that have united in the demand for a global ban on GE trees of all types.

GE papaya trees were previously commercialized in Hawaii where Hawaiian activists and scientists charge they have been a disaster, with one study demonstrating 50% contamination of backyard, wild and organic papayas only a few years after being released on the Big Island of Hawaii. Another study found that GE papaya, engineered to resist the ringspot virus, are increasingly susceptible to black spot fungus, leading to use of fungicides to control the problem. [2]

Dr. Neil Carman, of the Sierra Club's Biotechnology Committee stated: "The use of GE papaya trees in Hawaii caused a rapid contamination of backyard and organic papaya.Ý The USDA admits that release of GE papaya in Florida will also cause contamination, yet they continue to pursue it. They argue such contamination would be beneficial, ignoring the fact that it could wipe out the organic papaya farmers in Florida. In addition, their Environmental Assessment was completely inadequate.Ý It did not assess the potential impacts on human health, pollinating insects like honey bees, or wildlife." [3]

Anne Petermann, Coordinator of the STOP GE Trees Campaign and Co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project said: "That the USDA continues to promote destructive genetically engineered trees and foods, despite the documentation of over 140 cases of genetic contamination [4] is disgraceful. The approval of GE papaya trees in Florida would set a very dangerous precedent that could open the door to commercialization of GE forest trees in the U.S.Ý It could help pave the way for huge plantations of non-native and invasive GE eucalyptus trees across the U.S. South that would increase destruction of our native forests and devastate the communities that depend on them."

The STOP GE Trees Campaign teamed up with the Sierra Club, the Center for Food Safety and Florida Organic Growers to publicize the USDA's plans to deregulate GE papaya in Florida and generate comments opposing it.

Contact:

Anne Petermann
Coordinator
STOP GE Trees Campaign
Co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project
+1.802.482.2689 / mobile +1.802.578.0477
email: globalecology@gmavt.com

Dr. Neil Carman
Sierra Club's Biotechnology Committee
+1.512.472.1767Ý
email:Ý neil_carman@greenbuilder.com

Notes:

[1]Ý Organizations and businesses a that submitted comments included Abundant Life Essentials, Bee Heaven Organic Farm, Brooklyn for Peace, Center for Food Safety (petition signed by 7,843 supporters),Ý Community Ecology, Designed for Movement, Dolores Green - Florida organic farmer, Environmental Council of Volusia/Flagler Counties (Florida), Family Farm Defenders (5,000+ members), Florida Certified Organic Growers & Consumers, Inc., Food & Water Watch (petition signed by 3,973 supporters), Global Justice Ecology Project (600+members), Global Organics, Hawaii SEED, Indiana Forest Alliance, Institute of Science in Society, Institute for Social Ecology, Mountain Biscuit (Uses Papaya in their products), Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ, Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering, Oregon Toxics Alliance, Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition, Park Slope Food Coop, PCC Natural Markets (45,000 members), Reserve Technology Institute, Rising Tide North America, Sierra Club (1.3 million members), Stop GE Trees Campaign (137 organizational members), Sunray Harvesters, The Ecohawk Foundation, The Truth News.Info, Whole Foods Community Coop, Whole Foods Markets, Wildgrace Organic Farm, Youth for Ecology Liberation

[2] http://www.grain.org/research_files/Contamination_Papaya.pdf

[3] USDA Environmental Assessment for GE Papaya and all public comments can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064806cf607

[4] http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/

GM: just two questions?
Hilary Benn said this week that there are only two real questions about GM foods.
What questions should our elected leaders be asking?

The Guardian (UK) Word of Mouth blog, 20 November 2008.

At the Soil Association's annual conference in Bristol this week, delegates had the pleasure of the Right Honourable Hilary Benn's company. Not in person, you understand - the secretary of state's planned visit was foiled by important Commons business - but over the phone at least.

Benn came on the line to participate in a debate about the best way to feed Britain. Audience and panel members were able to grill him, and his replies were broadcast live around the conference hall.

A question about GM food generated the most controversy. Phillip Lowery, director of the Real Food Festival, asked Benn what the government's view of GM was in light of last week's IFPRI report.

Benn replied that only two questions needed answering in relation to GM food. One, is it safe to grow; and two, is it safe to eat?

This assertion occasioned some disbelief in the hall. Monty Don, the president of the Soil Association, managed to come up with another question: who is funding the research into whether or not GM is safe - is it the biotech companies themselves?

Dr Vandana Shiva, the food activist, also found another question sprang to mind: will GM help poor rural workers, or trap them in a downward spiral of debt?

The overwhelming response to Jay Rayner's citizen journalism piece on GM food suggests that rather a lot of people think there are more than two questions to be asked about this technology.

So what questions should our elected leaders be asking? And is it worrying that that the minister in charge of Britain's food policy takes a simplistic view of such a complex issue?

Alert of the Week: Tell President-Elect Obama:
Sack Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture

Ten thousand organic consumers signed OCA's petition last week to Barack Obama, asking him to take a clear position in support of organic agriculture. Thanks to all who joined in to deliver this resounding message to the incoming administration.

Unfortunately, it is now being widely reported that former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is being considered for the Secretary of Agriculture position in the Obama Administration.

Vilsack is a notorious cheerleader for genetically engineered crops and chemical and energy-intensive industrial agriculture--certainly no friend of organic food and farming.

Tom Vilsack's appointment would represent a major disappointment for the Organic Consumers Association and its members. But there is still time to make your voice heard.

Take Action Here

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=55ROEr06uScpbt9Ea0XHcIVa5P1xA9bC

Startling Science Facts of the Week: Who Owns Nature?

•

Ten companies now control more than two-thirds of global proprietary seed sales.

•

Ten companies now control almost 90% of agrochemical sales worldwide.

•

Ten companies now account for three-quarters of industry revenues.

•

The top ten pharmaceutical companies control 55% of the global drug market.

Source: ETC Group's new 48-page report, "Who Owns Nature?", released last week.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15594.cfm

Quote of the Week:
New Study Confirms Genetically Engineered Food Damages Fertility

"This work will do huge damage to the GM industry worldwide, since it shows that a crop -- Monsanto's maize line NK603 x MON810 -- which has been approved as safe by EFSA, and given consent for use in food and feed by the EC, is in fact dangerous to health. It demonstrates that the approvals process is at best inadequate and at worst corrupt."

Dr. Brian John of GM Free Cymru speaking about a new study out of Austria confirming previous study results that indicate GM corn damages the reproductive system of laboratory rats.

Learn more

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15588.cfm

From Genes To Farmers' Fields: New 'Waterproof' Rice Developed

ScienceDaily, 20 November 2008.

"Waterproof" versions of popular varieties of rice, which can withstand 2 weeks of complete submergence, have passed tests in farmers' fields with flying colors. Several of these varieties are now close to official release by national and state seed certification agencies in Bangladesh and India, where farmers suffer major crop losses because of flooding of up to 4 million tons of rice per year. This is enough rice to feed 30 million people.

The flood-tolerant versions of the "mega-varieties" – high-yielding varieties popular with both farmers and consumers that are grown over huge areas across Asia – are effectively identical to their susceptible counterparts, but recover after severe flooding to yield well.

A 1-9 November tour of research stations and farms in Bangladesh and India led by David Mackill, senior rice breeder at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), marked the successful completion of a project, From genes to farmers' fields: enhancing and stabilizing productivity of rice in submergence-prone environments, funded for the past 5 years by Germany's German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

The new varieties were made possible following the identification of a single gene that is responsible for most of the submergence tolerance. Thirteen years ago, Dr. Mackill, then at the University of California (UC) at Davis, and Kenong Xu, his graduate student, pinpointed the gene in a low-yielding traditional Indian rice variety known to withstand flooding. Xu subsequently worked as a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Pamela Ronald, a UC Davis professor, and they isolated the specific gene – called Sub1A – and demonstrated that it confers tolerance to normally intolerant rice plants. Dr. Ronald's team showed that the gene is switched on when the plants are submerged.

A geneticist from UC Riverside, Julia Bailey-Serres, is leading the work to determine exactly how Sub1A confers flood tolerance.

"Sub1A effectively makes the plant dormant during submergence, allowing it to conserve energy until the floodwaters recede," said Dr. Bailey-Serres.

Typically, rice plants will extend the length of their leaves and stem in an attempt to escape submergence. The Sub1A gene is an evolutionarily new gene in rice found in only a small proportion of the rice varieties originating from eastern India and Sri Lanka. The activation of this gene under submergence counteracts the escape strategy.

"This project has been a great success, not only in its results but also in the truly international collaboration that made the project possible," said Dr. Mackill, referring to the several national organizations, including the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, India's Central Rice Research Institute and Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology.

"The potential for impact is huge," he said. "In Bangladesh, for example, 20% of the rice land is flood prone and the country typically suffers several major floods each year. Submergence-tolerant varieties could make major inroads into Bangladesh's annual rice shortfall and substantially reduce its import needs."

Using modern techniques that allow breeders to do much of their work in the lab rather than the field, Dr. Mackill and his team at IRRI were able to precisely transfer Sub1A into high-yielding varieties without affecting the characteristics – such as high yield, good grain quality, and pest and disease resistance – that made the varieties popular in the first place.

"The impact is evident for farm families as well as at a national production level," said Dr. Ronald. "To be part of this project as it has moved from a lab in California to rice fields in Asia has been inspiring and underscores the power of science to improve people's lives."

Because plants developed through this "precision breeding," known as marker-assisted selection, are not genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the new Sub1 varieties are not subject to the regulatory testing that can delay release of GMOs for several years.

Once Sub1 varieties are officially released within the next 2 years, the key will be dissemination to smallholder farmers in flood-prone areas. IRRI is leading this initiative through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Adapted from materials provided by International Rice Research Institute.

19 November 2008

GM Maize Disturbs Immune System of Young and Old Mice
New research adds to the weight of damning evidence against the safety of GM food

Institute of Science in Society press release, 19 November 2008. By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.

The Italian government's National Institute of Research on Food and Nutrition has just published a report online in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry documenting significant disturbances in the immune system of young and old mice that have been fed the GM maize MON 810 [1]. This follows hot on the heels of results released by the Austrian government showing that GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice (SiS 41) [2]. These revelations confirm a string of previous findings on adverse health impacts of GM food and feed, leave us in little doubt that GM is Dangerous and Futile (SiS 40) [3]. Proponents should stop misleading the public that GM food and feed are safe.

The GM maize and the parental non-GM variety from which it was derived, were grown simultaneously in neighbouring fields in Landriano, Italy, from seeds provided by Seeds Emporda (Girona, Spain). The control maize flour from the non-GM parental strain had a low level of GMO contamination (0.29 percent by PCR test) but only the GM maize had the specific gene coding for the toxin Cry1Ab that acts as a pesticide.

The GM and non-GM maize were also analysed for levels of the fungal aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, G2, fumonisin B1 (FB1), deoxynivalenol (DON), ochratoxin, and zeralenon, that frequently contaminate maize grains. The values were below the maximum allowed in Europe, except for FB1 (1350 and 2450 mg/kg) and DON (1300 and 650 mg/kg) in GM and non-GM maize respectively.

The diets were formulated according to accepted standards and contained 50 percent MON810 or its parental control maize flour. A standard pellet diet containing about 50 percent of commercial non GM maize was also used, which did not contain CrylAb by PCR test.

Weaning mice, 21 days old, were fed with the diets for 30 and 90 days, and the old mice, 18 to 19 months, were fed for 90 days on the test diets; and male Balb/c mice were used in all the experiments.

There were no differences in the mean body weight or in food consumed between the GM-fed and control mice. These are the 'agronomic' characteristics typically measured in feeding tests, and all too often, the only characteristics measured.

The total number of white blood cells in the small intestine, spleen and blood were not different. However, there were significant differences in the percentages of T and B cells, and of CD4+, CD8+, gdT+, and mbT+ subpopulations in both weaning and old mice that were GM-fed for 30 and 90 days respectively compared with controls. These changes appeared in the gut, spleen and blood, and were accompanied by increase in blood cytokines IL-6, IL-13, IL-12p70, and MIP-1b, all involved in allergic and inflammatory responses. These changes were not detected in the mice fed the commercial non-GM pellet diet.

The greatest effects were found in the weaning mice fed for 30 days on GM maize, whereas those fed for 90 days only had increased B cells. In the old mice, the induced changes were similar to those found for the weaning mice fed for 30 days. These results show that very young and old mice are more susceptible to immunological insults. By the time the mice were 111 days old (90+21), a degree of tolerance had been established, so that the disturbances were reduced.

The immune disturbances are significant also in view of findings from another laboratory [4]; proteomic analysis identified 43 proteins that were up or down regulated in the MON 810 maize seeds compared with the parental strain, among them a 50 kda g-zein, a well-known allergenic protein [5], that was not present in the parental strain.

It is clear that genetic modification is inherently hazardous, as it invariably results in unpredictable and uncontrollable changes in the genome and the epigenome (pattern of gene expression) that impact on safety.

References

1. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A and Mengheri E. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric food Chem, http://pubs.ac.org, 16 November 2008

2. Ho MW. GM maize reduces fertility and deregulates genes in mice. Science in Society 41 (to appear)

3. Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile. Science in Society 40 (in press).

4. Zolla L, Rinalducci S, Antonioli P, Righetti PG. Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a sresult of genetic modification. J. Proteome Res 2008, 7, 1850-61.

5. Pasini G, Simonato B, Curioni A, Vincenzi S, Cristaudo Q, Santucci B, Peruffo AD, Giannattasio M. IgE-mediated allergy to corn: a 50 kDa protein, belonging to the reduced soluble proteins, is a major allergen. Allergy 2002, 37, 98-106.

FDA Opens Floodgates to Genetically Engineered Animals

Pressbox.co.uk, 19 November 2008.

Jenkintown, PA -- The (U.S.) FDA can now, in theory, allow meat and milk from genetically engineered animals onto grocery store shelves at any time. The FDA rushed ahead today to pave the way for genetically engineered (GE) animals to enter commerce, closing the comment period during which the public and interested stakeholders could provide feedback about their concerns with the agency's plan. This latest move from the FDA came despite requests from numerous advocacy and watchdog groups, including the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for Food Safety, and The Humane Society of the United States, to take additional time to get it right.

"It's hard to see who the FDA is helping, other than the biotech industry, by pushing this through in the last days of the outgoing administration," said Nina Mak, Research Analyst at AAVS. "This is a complicated issue. Sixty days is hardly enough time for the public to learn about the FDA's plan and for stakeholders to assess all the implications."

Genetic engineering is a highly controversial topic, raising numerous concerns about the ethics of genetic engineering, the implications for animal health and welfare, the consequences of a GE animal escaping into the environment, the risk to human health of using products derived from GE animals, the socioeconomic ramifications, religious concerns, and consumers' rights. More than 99 percent of genetic engineering experiments go wrong, and animals frequently suffer from unanticipated diseases and pathological conditions.

"The FDA claims it recognizes the concerns about animal welfare, ethics, and labeling, but then it bulldozes ahead to allow genetically engineered animals onto the market without addressing any of these concerns," said AAVS President, Sue Leary. "In addition, FDA's entire regulatory process is confidential, closed to public scrutiny or involvement. The public won't know about a genetically engineered animal until it's already on the market."

In response to the FDA's move to allow GE animals to be commercialized, AAVS has released a report entitled "Animal Welfare for Sale: Genetic engineering, animal welfare, ethics, and regulation." In the report, AAVS assesses the animal welfare problems and ethical concerns raised by genetic engineering, highlights problems with the FDA's proposed plan for oversight, and provides recommendations, including a moratorium on developing any GE animals until these concerns are addressed.

"Rather than talking about how to get genetically engineered animals to market, we should be discussing if we should even be manipulating animals this way and subjecting them to such risks," said AAVS Executive Director, Tracie Letterman. "Given all the welfare problems, AAVS does not believe that animals should be genetically engineered. Most people, in fact, disapprove of genetically engineering animals."

"There is huge potential, if something does go wrong, for enormous consequences," said Letterman. "Congress needs to pass legislation to protect animals, people, and the environment from these risks."

For more information and to download the report, visit http://www.aavs.org/GEreport.html

EU clashes on authorizing Monsanto GM soybean

Reuters, 19 November 2008. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS - EU farm ministers fell short of a consensus agreement on Wednesday to allow imports of a genetically modified (GM) soybean developed by Monsanto, paving the way for a default approval, an EU official said.

The soybean, a second-generation GM product known by its code number MON 89788 and commercially as Roundup RReady2Yield, is designed to resist glyphosate Roundup Ready herbicides and produce increased yields for farmers.

Monsanto's application for European Union approval is for its use in food and feed, not for growing in European fields.

The application will now return to the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, and most probably will receive a default 10-year approval in the coming weeks.

EU law allows for rubber-stamp GMO authorizations when ministers cannot agree after a certain time. Since 2004, the Brussels-based Commission has approved a string of GM products, nearly all maize, in this way, outraging green groups.

Monsanto's approval request landed on the ministers' agenda after a meeting of EU national experts in September also failed to reach agreement under the complex EU weighted voting system.

There were 13 countries in favor of approval: Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Netherlands.

Eight voted against -- Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and Poland. The rest abstained.

Europe's livestock and feed manufacturing industries have a keen interest in the EU authorizing more soybean imports since they depend heavily on shipments of soy products -- beans, meal -- as a source of protein-rich and high-quality feed.

EU countries produce a minimal amount of soybeans in terms of overall EU consumption, so imports are crucial. Soybean meal is the primary source of protein for the EU animal feed market, representing more than 60 percent of vegetable protein.

Obama and the USDA
Monsanto's man in the Clinton admin joins the transition team, and more

Gristmill, 19 November 2008. By Tom Phillpot.

Whither Obama's food/ag policy?

I don't think I'm a jaded enough observer of Washington's ways to figure it out. But here's what I know.

•

The transition named its "team members" looking at energy and natural resources agencies, which includes USDA. The list includes Michael R. Taylor, a man who spent his career bouncing between the employ of GMO-seed giant Monsanto and Bill Clinton's FDA and USDA. Taylor is widely credited with ushering Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) through the FDA regulatory process and into the milk supply. He was particularly useful in the effort to prevent abstaining dairies from advertising their milk as rBGH-free.

•

Over on Ethicurean, Steph Larsen of Center For Rural Affairs has a good post on the dreary real politics around who gets to be the next USDA chief. Have you seen those lists (like this one) that contain names like Hightower and Pollan? Forget about it, Steph says. According to Steph: "The process of becoming Secretary of Agriculture begins long before a presidential election. Candidates typically have myriad political connections and make themselves useful in the campaign of the eventual winner. By election time, the list of possibilities is already well-established." That means the petition currently being circulated to demand Pollan be chosen is doomed. And anyway, who would leave an endowed Berkeley professorship and a regular gig at The New York Times Magazine to run a sprawling bureaucracy?

•

So who are the serious candidates for USDA chief? Steph's post contains a list, and here's one from Reuters and another from an ag trade publication. These are hardly inspiring names. Even in this era of "change," it seems like you generally need to have proven your fealty to GMOs and corn-based ethanol to win serious consideration as USDA chief. Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who briefly vied for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, is emerging as a front-runner. Vilsack hews tightly to the biotech-industry party line; and he hotly promoted corn-based ethanol while governor. On the other hand, none other than Grist's own David Roberts declared his energy plan during last year's Democratic primaries the "ballsiest and most detailed any candidate from either party has offered." And Ferd Hoefner of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition told me that Big Ag commodity groups had mounted a backroom campaign against Vilsack's bid for USDA chief. Evidently, the former governor is more of a champion of conservation programs than they can tolerate.

•

There are certainly more egregious names on the short list than Vilsack. Last week, Pennsylvania ag secretary Dennis Wolff emerged as a contender. Wolff is notorious for unilaterally trying to prevent his state's dairy farmers for labeling their milk rBGH-free. Former Texas congressman and Big Ag lobbyist Charles Stenholm is another profoundly depressing name.

•

One name I'm intrigued by is John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association. Boyd helped lead the fight to hold USDA accountable for its long history of stiffing black farmers; his nomination is being championed by the Congressional Black Caucus. Virginia-based Boyd himself runs a relatively small-scale farm; seems like his position as a USDA outsider might lead him to champion the interests of small farmers in an agency that's long been beholden to large industrial operations.

•

Michael Pollan, who recently laid out an ambitious blueprint for ag policy in the next administration that Obama says he has read, recently appeared on the Brian Lehrer show. Pollan expressed optimism that Obama would move in progressive directions on ag, declaring the president-elect the most synthesis-oriented chief executive we've had in a long time. Pollan laughed off speculation that he could be appointed USDA chief, noting that the marijuana chapter of Botany of Desire would cause vetting trouble; and pushed the idea, which he first floated on Grist, that Obama name a "food czar."

EU Parliament Member Calls For Recovery Zones For Honey Bees

RedOrbit Staff & Wire Reports, 19 November 2008.

An EU lawmaker suggested that honey bees should be given large swaths of Europe's farmlands so that they can recover their struggling population size.

"If we continue to neglect the global bee population, then this will have a dramatic effect on our already strained world food supplies," said Neil Parish, who chairs the European Parliament's agriculture committee.

Honey bees are a useful part of nature's cycle because they help to pollinate several of the world's crops.

Scientists have expressed that a drop in the bee population could harm agriculture.

Parish, a British conservative, said farmers could help bees by planting patches of bee-friendly flowers -- including daisies, borage and lavender.

"We're talking about less than one percent of the land for bee-friendly crops -- in corners where farmers can't get to with their machinery, round trees and under hedges."

Genetically modified crops, climate change, pesticides and modern farming techniques have all been blamed for making bees vulnerable to parasites, viruses and other diseases. However, more research is needed to find the root cause, scientists say.

"The experts themselves are mystified," said Parish. "A failure to act now could have catastrophic consequences."

The European Parliament is expected to recommend in its vote Wednesday evening.

Abrange seeks to stimulate the planting of conventional grains

Valor Econômico Online, 19 November 2008. By Fernando Lopes

São Paulo, Brazil -- Ý Founded a little over two months ago, the Brazilian Association of Producers of Non-GM Grains (ABRANGE) trusts the foreign demand to ensure the country as a secure source of conventional products supply - non-GM.

Ricardo Tatesuzi de Souza, executive secretary for the association, clarifies that it does not mean a position against the development of genetically modified seeds, but simply a stimulus so the farmer can evaluate his alternatives for planting, and to opt for the niche that is considered more interesting.

For such, he alerts, organization and tight controls in the various Brazilian cultivating regions are needed, especially to avoid contamination of conventional grains with genetically modified ones, which, after the regulation, have proliferated rapidly in Brazil over the last few years.

According to ABRANGE's calculations, about 50% of the national soy production will be genetically modified in the 2008/09 crop year that is currently being planted. In the case of [GM] corn, whose commercialization was approved recently by the National Technical Commission of Biosafety (CTNBio),Ý the percentage will still be small in this cycle, around 5%, but possibly increasing to 40% already in 2009/10.

According to consulting firm Céleres, GM soy will represent 64.7% of total area planted with soy in 2008/09; as for corn, they estimate around 6.4%, and around 24% for cotton.

In order to assist producers and enterprises interested in planting conventional seeds, Abrange promises to have, besides a database, a committee to discuss regulations, a team of agronomists large enough to provide assistance around the country in partnership with agronomists from the companies and producers themselves. "We are already getting a lot of inquiries from importers. The non-GMOÝcorn, for example, is generating a lot of interest", said Souza.

Besides the obvious agronomic questions of segregating GM and non-GM grains, the committee would evaluate questions such as labeling of food that contains genetically modified organisms, which is also worrisome and are being debated by the food industries involved.

There are five national groups that started ABRANGE: Caramuru Alimentos, which presides the organization, AMaggi, Imcopa, Brejeiro, and Vanguarda. According to Souza, ABRANGE also has "collaborators" such as cooperatives - Cocamar, from Paraná, is one of them - and multinationals such as Solae and Louis Dreyfus. The association also hopes to stimulate the continuation of research developments for conventional grains improvements, by Embrapa and by multinationals such as Monsanto, which has become globally known for its GMOs

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

At the Second International Non-GMO Soya Summit (http://www.nongmosoysummit.com) held on 7-9 October in Brussels, soya growers, traders and consumers from around the world co-ordinated their strategies to promote the use of certified Non-GMO soya products widely used by Ireland's farming competitors in other EU member states. The full conference proceedings may be downloaded from http://www.nongmosoysummit.com/download/

GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice

Institute of Science in Society press release, 19 November 2008.

Comprehensive long term studies commissioned by the Austrian government reveal that mice fed GM maize produced fewer and smaller litters with many genes affected compared to controls. By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Austrian scientists carried out long term studies that showed GM maize fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation [1]. Similar effects were found in mice fed GM maize and bred over four generations; although the results did not reach statistical significance in any one generation, the trend was unmistakable, more pups lost and smaller litters in the GM-fed mice.

The studies are by far the most meticulous and comprehensive feeding trials to-date, and confirm deleterious reproductive and health impacts obtained by scientists independent of the biotech industry and farmers' observations in the field. For a recent review, see [2] GM is Dangerous and Futile (SiS 40: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDangerousFutile.php).

The new research results are a landmark in the safety assessment of GM food. Most feeding trials were short-term and restricted to a single generation or a single breeding cycle. The "multi-generational" study widely cited as evidence of no long term adverse impacts from GM feed is highly misleading as the experiment did not involve trans-generational feeding, but merely breeding mice that were not GM fed for three generations, and carrying out a separate experiment with GM feed for each generation [3] (Letter to Nature Biotechnology: Systematic bias in favour of no adverse impacts from GM feed, SiS 37: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NatureBiotechnologyLetterErmakova.php). There were other serious flaws in that experiment, not least the failure to ascertain by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that the processed GM feed used actually contained GM soya.

Targeting long term effects

The new studies were commissioned by the Austrian government several years ago, when it became clear that proper feeding trials were very thin on the ground, and regulators all over the world were largely dependent on companies submitting data that were inadequate and unreliable in many ways, but which they accepted without question [4] (GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham, ISIS scientific publication: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Food_Nightmare_Unfolding.php).

Alberta Velimirov at the Research Institute on Biological Agriculture (Forschungsinttitut für biologishen Landbau) and Claudia Binter and Jürgen Zentck at the Institute for Nutrition (Institut für Ernährung) both in Vienna, monitored changes in gross morphology, reproductive performance, and sub-microscopic analyses of tissues and cells, as well as gene expression. (They found no immunochemical or other microscopic differences in the tissues.)

Three series of experiments were done. The first was a multigeneration feeding trial in which the mice were fed and bred for four successive generations, beginning with the F0 parents that were fed on the diets from birth. The second was a multi-cycle breeding trial lasting 20 weeks in which breeding pairs of mice were fed beginning 1 week prior to co-habitation until the end of experiment, and allowed to go through four breeding cycles in the same generation. The third was a life-term trial involving feeding the mice without breeding from conception (via the pregnant mothers) to their eventual death.

A laboratory non-inbred strain of mice was used for all experiments, in order to avoid the effects of inbreeding, so that the results would be more generally applicable to natural populations.

The researchers report that it was not possible to obtain a GM test crop plus parental line from the agro-business companies, which was why the test diets consisting of 33 percent GM maize had to be compared with a non-GM maize variety (also at 33 percent) that was closely related to the GM maize. Both were grown under identical conditions in the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada in Nova Scotia, in 2005 and 2007. The GM maize was the transgene hybrid NK603 x MON810 containing three gene cassettes, two conveying glyphosate herbicide tolerance and one insect resistance coding for endotoxin Cry1Ab. The transgenic protein was estimated to be 0.11-0.24 microgram per gram of fresh grain.

The multigeneration study also included one group with a non-GM maize variety cultivated in Austria.

The herbicides dicamba, atrazine and s-metalochlor were used with non-GM

Maise, while glyphosate only was used with the GM maize. Contamination levels of the maize grains with herbicides were determined to be less than 0.01 percent of each of the herbicides. This was important to make sure that effects due to herbicides were not confounded with those from the GM feed.

Main effects on reproduction

In the multigeneration study, the parental generation was fed since birth with either GM or nonGM maize diet, and 4 generations were bred. Less pups were born in successive generations in both control and GM fed mice. But the controls tended to do better than GM fed. The average litter size and weight as well as number of weaned pups were in favour of the non-GM maize group. None of the differences reached statistical significance in any one generation, although the trend was clear.

Over all generations, about twice as many pups were lost in the GM group as compared with the control group (14.59 percent vs 7.4 percent). More litters with 8 or more pups were seen in the control compared with GM group. And a greater number of pups were lost at weaning in the GM fed.

Comparison of organ weights did not indicate direct dietary effects in the multigeneration study, except for the kidneys. Kidney weight of females in the GM-fed group were significantly lower in the F2, F3 and F4 generations than controls; and males in the GM-fed group also had significantly lower kidney weight than controls in the F2 generation

The electron microscope investigations revealed differences in the liver cells indicative of reduced core metabolism in the GM-fed mice. In addition, DNA microarray analyses showed important differences in gene expression between both groups fed non-GM maize and the group fed GM maize.

In the multi-cycle breeding trial, the same differences between GM-fed and controls were evident. and reached statistically significant levels in the 3rd and 4th litters. There were clearly fewer and smaller litters in the GM-fed mice.

The average number of pups born was always lower in the GM fed but did not reach statistical significance before the 3 rd and 4th deliveries. The number of pups at weaning was also always smaller in the GM-fed group. Over all the deliveries, more pups were born in the controls than in the GM group (1035 vs 844).

Consistent with these findings, the life-term feeding trial showed no significant differences in the average life-span of the GM-fed mice compared with controls.

Epigenetic effects of GM maize feed

In the F3 generation of the multigeneration trial, DNA microarray analyses were performed on the lower small intestine. This identified 2 374 genes that were significantly abnormally expressed in GM fed compared with non GM fed mice; with 421 of these showing a 2-fold or greater change from controls. This was more than 3.2 percent of the total 13 034 genes expressed in the lower small intestine. The reproductive and other effects observed could be just the tip of the iceberg as far as the epigenetic changes are concerned. The impacts could take more generations of GM feeding to become fully manifest.

The genes were functionally classified and found to predominate in the pathways of protein biosynthesis and protein metabolism and modification, interleukin signalling and cholesterol biosynthesis.

Epigenetics - the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve alterations in DNA sequence - is a maturing discipline with growing applications in toxicology, cancer, nutrition, and brain and behavioural sciences [5-8]. A change in our diet as far-reaching and profound as GM food cannot be entertained without detailed long term studies of the kind carried out by the Austrian scientists together with analyses using DNA microarrays, proteomics, and metabolic profiling, which are now routine in laboratory and field studies.

References

1. Velimirov A, Binter C and Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3. Institut für Ernährung, and Forschungsinttitut für biologischen Landbau, Vienna, Austria, November 2008.

2. Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile. Science in Society 40 (in press).

3. Ho MW. Letter to Nature Biotechnology, systematic bias in favour of finding no adverse impacts of no adverse impacts from GM feed. Science in Society 37, 10, 2008.

4. Ho MW, Cummins J and Saunders PT, GM food nightmare unfolding in the regulatory sham. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2007, 19, 66-77.

5. Newbold RR, Padilla-Banks E and Jefferson WN. Adverse effects of the model environmental estrogen diethylstilbestrol are transmitted to subsequent generations. Endocrinology 2006, 147, S11-S17.

6. Reamon-Buettner SM, Mutschler V and Borlak J. The next innovation cycle in toxicogenomics: environmental epigenetics. Mutation Res 2008, 639, 158-65.

7. Weidman JR, Dolinoy DC, Murphy SK and Jirtle RL. Cancer susceptibility: epigenetic manifestation of environmental exposures. Cancer J 2007, 13, 9-16.

8. McGowan PO, Meaney MJ and Szyf M. Diet and the epigenetic (re)programming of phenotypic differences in behaviour. Brain Research 2008, 1237, 12-24.

Ireland not serving citizens on Lisbon, says Ganley

EU Observer, 19 November 2008. By Andrew Willis in Dublin and Valentina Pop in Strasbourg.

Speaking in the Irish parliament on Tuesday (18 November), Declan Ganley, the head of anti-Lisbon campaign group Libertas, said the Irish government had encouraged other EU states to continue with ratification of the Lisbon treaty in order to increase pressure on Irish citizens.

"It is very clear to me that some who should be representing Ireland wish it to be isolated," he told the parliamentary sub-committee on Ireland's Future in Europe.

"There is a charade being played in this country right now to walk us into another referendum."

The sub-committee was set up in the wake of last June's rejection of the Lisbon treaty and is due to hand in its report to the Irish government by the end of the month.

Earlier in discussions, Mr Ganley suggested that the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, had told the Irish government that they would be prepared to halt British ratification of the Lisbon treaty.

By not taking them up on the offer, "we lost the best negotiating chip we had," said Mr Ganley.

The three-hour meeting was characterised by heated exchanges as committee members from various Irish political parties became increasingly frustrated with the Libertas chairperson.

For his part, Mr Ganley said the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty did not amount to a rejection of the European Union, describing Irish membership as having had a profoundly positive effect.

He continued by saying however that "Libertas believes we have to make the citizens of Europe feel like this is their project."

To do this there would need to be a pan-European election on a fresh treaty that should not exceed 25 pages, as the Lisbon treaty was an "affront" to democracy and embodied the worst examples of elitism, he said.

Lucinda Creighton, a member of parliament for opposition party Fine Gael, said Mr Ganley talked about elites, "but are you not the very idea of an elite, you use your power and money to secure influence."

Beverley Flynn, a deputy for the ruling Fianna Fail party, asked Mr Ganley why he voted Yes in both the Nice referendums of 2001 and 2002 and then went ahead and spent around §1 million fighting the Lisbon treaty in 2008.

"In those intervening years, what happened to you?" she asked.

Mr Ganley said the existence of a general election between the two Nice referendums had provided for a proper debate and a chance to discuss and vote on concerns.

Despite the Irish Times and TNS MBRI poll published on Monday suggesting a majority of Irish voters would now support the Lisbon treaty if concessions were granted, Mr Ganley felt this was not the case.

"Don't hold it (another referendum) because there will be a No vote, a No vote that will probably provide the collapse of this government or at least several senior ministers," he said.

Asked about his intentions to run a pan-European party in next year's European elections, Mr Ganley said: "We are in the process of studying if that can be done but I would certainly like to."

"That democratic deficit that they've been talking about for years, this is a chance to finally fix it."

Strasbourg urges ratification before June 2009

Meanwhile, the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee approved on Monday a report urging the Irish government to put forward concrete proposals on the way forward after the referendum to ensure that the Lisbon Treaty is ratified before the 2009 European Parliament elections.

The committee also called on Sweden and the Czech Republic to complete their ratification procedures before the end of 2008. The Swedish parliament is expected to pass the treaty on Thursday.

The report, drafted by German Social Democrat MEP Jo Leinen, was adopted in the committee with 16 votes in favour and six against. The plenary is expected to vote on the report in early December, before the European government heads are to meet and agree what to do with the Lisbon treaty stalemate.

Asked why a second referendum in Ireland is required when this was not the case in France and the Netherlands after they rejected the Constitutional Treaty, Mr Leinen said: "The situation is different now than in June 2005, when there were two Nos in one week and seven more countries set to hold referendums."

"But when all the countries say 'Yes', it's legitimate to ask [the Irish] if that's their last answer," he argued at a press conference in Strasbourg.

"A second No would be a No, and then of course you could forget about the treaty. But a first No is volatile, let's say, because it's not a clear No against Europe. Here you have a diffuse coalition of Nos. We respect it, but we have to respect as well the Yes of the other member states," Mr Leinen concluded.

He repeated calls for the Czech Republic to ratify by 1 January 2009, the date when Prague takes over the six-month rotating EU presidency from France, otherwise claiming that the central European state would lack "credibility" and the "ability to negotiate" on behalf of the bloc.

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

One of the reasons Irish people voted against the Lisbon Treaty was our reluctance to abdicate more sovereign decision-making power to the same unelected European Commission bureaucrats who refuse to recognise the right of member states to ban GMO crops if we so choose.

This was not reported in the Irish media, which maintain a wall of silence on GM food and farming issues. But the members of the GM-free Ireland Network – together with the people who live in the 18 local authorities whose elected representatives have already declared their areas as GM-free zones – add up to over one million citizens who value their freedom to choose such basic things as what kind of food we are made to eat. Ganley is right. We want a more democratic Europe in which policies are decided by the people. We reject the Lisbon Treaty!

18 November 2008

Apparent spread of transgenes from GM corn

ScienceBlogs.com, 18 November 2008. By Revere.
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/11/apparent_spread_of_transgenes.php

In 2001 Ignacio Chapela, an ecologist from the University of California, Berkeley, and co-author David Quist published a highly controversial paper in Nature that appeared to show that genetically engineered genes used in genetically modified (GM) corn (maize) was spreading from GM cornfields in Mexico into traditional corn crops. This set off a firestorm where proponents of GM agriculture declared the paper fatally flawed, pointing out some apparent errors. Accusations of agribusiness conflicts of interest were traded with those of political agendas. Nature subsequently published an "editor's note" stating the journal felt the paper's data were insufficient to support its conclusions. The journal has been careful to say that the editor's note was not the same as a retraction, although advocates of GM crops have claimed it was. A subsequent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by Ohio State plant ecologist Allison Snow failed to find transgenes in maize in the same areas sampled by Chapela and Quist, although questions about that paper were raised on the grounds of statistical power. Now the latest chapter, a forthcoming paper in the journal Molecular Ecology by yet another researcher, Elena Álvarez-Buylla of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City:

Transgenes from genetically modified (GM) maize (corn) crops have been found in traditional 'landrace' maize in the Mexican heartland, a study says. The work largely confirms a similar, controversial result published in Nature in 2001 and may reignite the debate in Mexico over GM crops.

The paper reports finding transgenes in three of the 23 locations that were sampled in 2001, and again in two of those locations using samples taken in 2004.

[snip]

In 1998, the Mexican government outlawed the planting of GM maize to protect its approximately 60 domesticated landraces and their wild relatives. But newspaper reports suggest that farmers have planted at least 70 hectares of GM maize crops in the northern state of Chihuahua, and it is unclear what repercussions this may have.

Only about 25% of the maize planted in Mexico comes from commercially sold seed; the majority is saved from harvest to harvest. That's why, says Álvarez-Buylla, researchers need to pin down whether transgenes really have made it into local crops. "It is urgent to establish rigorous molecular and sampling criteria for biomonitoring at centres of crop origination and diversification," the team writes. (Rex Dalton, Nature News)

The new paper examined thousands of seed and leaf samples, looking for the presence of two genes introduced into GM crops, a gene promoter from the 35S cauliflower mosaic virus, and the nopaline synthase terminator, NOSt. They found them in about 1 in 100 fields. These included fields sampled by Chapela and Quist in the 2001 paper. Snow, the author of the PNAS paper that didn't confirm the Chapela findings, said she believes the new Nature paper is well done and significant for showing how easily the transgene have spread.

The controversy is far from over. The paper was submitted to PNAS but rejected as of insufficient interest, noting in addition the opinion of a reviewer that it could, according to the story in Nature, "gain undue exposure in the press due to a political or other environmental agenda." That was a reviewer's comment, not the editor's view, but one wonders what role that notion played in the decision of PNAS not to publish this paper. It is interesting to observe that PNAS published the Snow paper with negative results, declined to publish the Álvarez-Buylla paper with positive results, while Nature published the Chapela paper in 2001, appeared to have gotten its fingers singed in the ensuing brouhaha, and is now running a news piece about a yet to be published paper in another journal that seems to confirm their earlier publication.

No pride or politics involved, though. That's for sure.

How To Fight Super Pests? Build Superbugs

Forbes.com, 18 November 2008.

The Asian Citrix Psyllid is a brown insect that spreads the most devastating citrus disease in the world. Just ask Florida's orange growing industry.

A native of the border regions of Pakistan and India, the parasite, which infects citrus plants with a so-called "greening disease," probably appeared by accident in the southeastern U.S. less than a decade ago. The bug has no natural enemies in its new home and requires far deadlier pesticides to kill it than other insects do. As a result, they've infested much of Florida and decimated the state's orange juice industry.

Up until now, growers poured on pesticides and hoped for the best. But now a controversial solution may be at hand: creating predators in the lab.

In October, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, one of three federal agencies responsible for oversight of genetically modified organisms, said it would soon give the green light for transgenic insects designed to combat the spread of invasive species like the Asian Citrix Psyllid.

The agency released a draft regulation, the most comprehensive overhaul of genetically modified organism (GMO) regulations since 1987, to "respond to emerging trends in biotechnology." It provides the vague parameters that applicants must meet to commercialize genetically engineered (GE) bio-control organisms.

Though it's likely to change before becoming law, the proposal puts in place new permitting procedures for the interstate movement and environmental release of non-vertebrae transgenic animals, promising to usher in a new era. "There are relatively few examples today of genetically engineered biological control organisms, but these may become more common in the future," according to the report.

More than 6,500 invasive species have established themselves in the U.S., disrupting natural habitats, decimating the population of many native species and wreaking havoc on the economy. By at least one estimate, invasive species cost the U.S. roughly $130 billion in losses annually. Mark Hoddle, a professor of entomology at the University of California, Riverside, says the GE insects promise to be a safe, effective way of halting the problem.

"Almost all biological control processes use natural enemies that are highly screened for post-specificity, meaning they feed exclusively on the pests you want to eradicate," says Hoddle. "Genetic engineering allows you to enhance this trait significantly so that the engineered insects eat the desired species and then starve themselves to death."

Bill Freese, a science policy adviser at the Center for Food Safety, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, isn't convinced. "The stringency of the rules needs to be much higher than the vague, unclear standards in the [Department of Agriculture] regulation," he says. "This is all experimental stuff and there is a high risk of unintended consequences."

One victim, ironically, could be the booming market for pesticides and herbicides, though many companies like Monsanto and Cargill that developed the pesticides are best positioned to develop the engineered bugs that will replace them.

There is no shortage of applications for using this brand of biological control, especially if regulators ramp up restrictions on pesticide and herbicide as many believe they will in order to protect water supplies and combat a number of environmental problems linked with overuse of pesticides.

In Florida, some citrus growers may shut down operations until they find a more effective way of eradicating the pests. Others have simply poured on heavier and heavier concentrations of chemicals.

Florida's orange growers aren't the only farmers facing pest problems that didn't exist a few years ago. California has waged a decade-long war against the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, a half-inch long brown fly, which infects grapes with a rotting disease that has cost the state's wine-growers millions of dollars in losses. Then there's Kudzu sweeping across the American south, along with a host of other threats.

"Everything has a risk, but these risks can be quantified," says Hoddle. "And in many cases, the risk is one most people would accept given the costs of doing nothing."

GM maize found to have health hazard

Western Mail (Wales), 18 November 2008. By Steve Dube.

FRESH evidence of health hazards from genetically-modified maize, approved in Europe for consumption by both people and animals, has brought calls for a recall of GM food and a change in approach by UK Government.

The environmental group Greenpeace said all GM food crops should be withdrawn after a feeding trial for the Austrian government found GM corn damaged the fertility of laboratory mice.

And the campaign group GM Free Cymru challenged UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn to revise his Commons statement earlier this month that "scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the safety of GM foods".

The results of the new study were presented last week by Jurgen Zentek, Professor for Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna, to a conference organised by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety.

The work involved a GM maize hybrid line called NK603 x MON810, which was approved for use in human and livestock food by the European Commission in October last year.

Feed costs to rise if EU stalls on GM

Irish Independent (farming supplement), 18 November 2008. By Caitriona Murphy.

The EU's failure to approve GM feed ingredients quickly, could lead to a serious increase in feed costs for farmers, the director of R&H Hall told last week's Teagasc Feed for Profit conference.

David Hickey said unless the EU approved the next generation of GM soybeans -- RR2 -- in time, the supply of soya products to Europe could be severely disrupted or even halted completely.

Mr Hickey has accused both Ireland and the EU of sticking their heads in the sand on the issue of GM feeds.

He added that the EU's zero tolerance approach to GM feed ingredients meant importers were not willing to risk bringing in contaminated loads.

"If any trace of GM product is found in a 120,000t cargo, the entire load must be sent back or destroyed," said Mr Hickey.

Europe is 74pc dependent on imports of soya, and GM production is rapidly increasing around the world.

Higher premium

Of the 35m tonnes of soya products imported annually, only 3m tonnes are non-GM varieties.

"It will be harder to get non-GM soya, and the price premium for non-GM product will get higher," warned Mr Hickey.

"It could destroy the poultry industry altogether," he said.

The EU hasn't approved a single GMO (genetically modified organism) by a qualified majority.

Herculex and GA21 were approved by default after more than 30 months, while Agrisure and Yield Guard have been waiting 43 months and 34 months for respective approval by the EU.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Why does the Irish Independent not tell the truth about GM food and farming? David Hickey knows full well that certified Non-GM soya is widely available to competing farmers in other EU countries. R&H Hall's scaremongering attempts to weaken the EU's regulatory process is a blatant example of food fascism!

•

For accurate information on the EU "zero tolerance" policy for contamination with unapproved GMOs see http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html

For more information download the "Joint NGO briefing on 'zero tolerance' and 'asynchronous approvals': A response to the orientation debate where Commissioner Vassiliou (DG Health) was asked for proposals for technical solutions (May 2008):
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal%20feed/Briefing_animal_feed_GMOs_May_2008.pdf

See also An analysis of the DG AGRI report on the economic impact of unapproved GMOs (May 2008):
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/position_papers/Analysis_DG_AGRI_report_May2008.pdf

•

David Hickey's claim that Monsanto's "Roundup Ready 2" GM soybeans might not be approved in the EU is false. Last month, the European Commission sent the Roundup Ready 2 dossier to the European Council for approval, putting it on track for final import clearance by next year's harvest in 2009. http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Index.htm

•

The EU imports most of its soy feed not from the USA but from Brazil and Argentina, where farmers only plant GM crops for feed or food approved in the EU.

•

Hickey's claim that "If any trace of GM product is found in a 120,000t cargo, the entire load must be sent back or destroyed" is misleading. Ireland imports entire shiploads of GM feed on a monthly basis. It is only non-approved GM varieties that must be sent back, when they are discovered. However this has only happened twice, when illegal imports were intercepted by GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace in R&H Hall's Herculex scandal in 2007 (http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac/) and by the Department of Agriculture after an EU tip-off in Monsanto's Bt10 maize scandal in 2005 (http://www.gmfreeireland.org/scandal/). No-one knows how many million tonnes of illegal GM feed have entered the EU food chain through Ireland because of a regulatory breakdowns and lack of testing.

•

The simple reason why only 3 tonnes out of the total 35 million tonnes of soya products imported to Ireland are non-GM varieties is because R&H Hall and other members of the Irish Feed and Grain Association refuse to import them! At the Second Interational Non-GMO Soy Summit in Brussels earlier this month, Brazil's largest GM-free soy exporter, IMCOPA, informed GM-free Ireland that R&H Hall told IMCOPA that Irish buyers wanted only GM feed!

•

Hickey's threat that imports of soy products could be "severely disrupted or even halted completely" is reprehensible scaremongering. There is plenty of other approved GM and Non-GM soya feed available from, inter alia, Brazil, India, China and the USA. Brazil alone can easily supply all the imported soy meal used by European farmers from its certified Non-GMO varieties. Moreover, other non GMO and non-soy protein crops can be grown locally and sustainably, unlike imported GM soy which has devastating health and environmental consequences in the countries which produce it.

At the Second International Non-GMO Soya Summit (http://www.nongmosoysummit.com) held on 7-9 October in Brussels, soya growers, traders and consumers from around the world co-ordinated their strategies to promote the use of certified Non-GMO soya products widely used by Ireland's farming competitors in other EU member states. The full conference proceedings may be downloaded from http://www.nongmosoysummit.com/download/

•

As Friends of the Earth Europe points out, "the EU's stance on GMOs is not a threat to the livestock industry, contrary to claims by the industry and the European Commission. This scaremongering is an attempt to use rising animal feed prices to weaken EU GMO policy. This is also being used by the biotech industry to push for the 'zero tolerance' policy to be dropped http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html. But it is in fact the blind rush for agrofuels and poor weather conditions that are causing the worldwide shortages in key feed crops". For details see http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Index.htm

•

Monsanto – and the US and Canadian governments which still represent the transnational company's economic interests – should accept the fact that EU member states will continue to deny "qualified majority" approval of GM food and farming products, and stop trying to force them upon us by gross attempts to subvert the EU's democratic process through political pressure and propaganda. For more on this see the website of the European Network of GM-free Regions (which now includes 47 EU Regions), at http://www.gmofree-euregions.net

R&H Hall and its giant owner, IAWS Group plc (now a subsidiary of Aryzta AG), dominate the Irish animal feed import business, pushing GMOs into the irish food chain. Horace Plunkett – who founded the Irish Co-Operative Agricultural Society that later became IAWS Group – must be rolling in his grave!

_______________________

Plenty of food for paranoia, fired whistleblower says
Former Health Canada scientist launches book

The Gazette (Canada), November 18 2008

Some might dismiss Shiv Chopra as paranoid for seeing carcinogens in every mouthful.

As the Health Canada whistleblower whose testimony led to the agency's banning bovine growth hormone as an additive to increase milk yields in cows, Chopra puts little faith in regulatory bodies and food safety standards.

"There's the tainted blood inquiry, mad cow disease, silicone breast implants ... there's a whole series of things that government says it knows better," said Chopra, who will be in Montreal tonight to launch his book, Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower.

The agency fired Chopra, a microbiologist, and fellow scientists Gérard Lambert and Margaret Haydon in 2004, six years after they testified before the Canadian Senate about their concerns surrounding bovine growth hormone. (The dismissal is under appeal.)

Hormones, pesticides and vaccines get fast-track approval because greedy corporations put pressure on government officials who then overrule scientists, Chopra said in a telephone interview.

"We all know what's going on in China with melamine," he said, referring to the milk contamination scandal that claimed the lives of dozens of children.

"Food safety has become a No. 1 issue around the world," Chopra said.

Much of the food produced is from pesticide-dependent, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) made by multinational corporations, he said.

"Everything that people eat must be organically grown and the simplest way to do that is not to allow five substances from entering any food production," Chopra said. Ban pesticides, hormones, GMOs, slaughterhouse animal wastes and antibiotics, he said, "and automatically food becomes organic or natural."

Note:

Shive Chopra's Wikepedia profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Chopra

Monsanto's rBGH scandal: http://www.purefood.org/text4.html

Take action:
Keep genetically engineered animals off the dinner plate!
Tell FDA to ban the use of genetically engineered animals for food.

Food & Water Watch (USA), 18 November 2008.

Keep genetically engineered animals off the dinner plate!

The [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration recently released its draft plan for approving animals that are genetically engineered to grow faster, produce more milk, or even produce drugs in their tissues. To make matters worse, the FDA is not requiring that food from GE animals be labeled, so consumers won't know if the food they buy for their families was produced with this controversial technology.

Tell FDA to ban the use of genetically engineered animals for food.

Please edit the letter below.

Subject: Docket # FDA-2008-D-0394

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to comment on Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0394, "Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs." I urge you not to approve the use of genetically engineered animals for food. But if the approval of GE animals moves forward, there are significant changes that should be made in the way FDA will regulate this questionable technology:

- FDA must require labeling of food products from all genetically engineered animals. Consumers deserve to know if they are buying food produced with technology that they may want to avoid.

- FDA must establish an open, transparent, and participatory review process of any genetically engineered animals. The current drug approval process that FDA proposes to use for GE animals is too secretive for something as unproven and poorly understood as genetically engineering animals.

- FDA must include a meaningful consideration of the ethical implications and environmental impacts of genetically engineering animals. The refusal of the agency to consider these impacts of a new and controversial process like genetic engineering is inexcusable and makes approval of these animals premature.

I also believe that FDA should give the public more time to weigh in on something as critical as their plan for approving GE animals. I urge you to extend the comment period for at least another 60 days.

Sincerely,

We will add your signature from the information you provide.

To edit and sign online go to: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/t/741/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26229

Greenpeace takes legal action against Thailand over GM crop

Bio-Medicine, 18 November 2008.

The suspected prevalent contamination of Thai farms with genetically modified papaya has led to suing of the Thailand government by an international environmental group called Greenpeace.

Greenpeace is to take legal action against those Thai Agriculture officials who permitted the supply of genetically engineered papaya seeds to farmers throughout the country.

Patwajee Srisuwan, who is a genetic engineering campaigner for Green Peace Southeast Asia, said, "We decided to sue the (Department of Agriculture) because we have been waiting for more than two years for them to do their duties."

Ms. Srisuwan said, "Our group is also asking Thailand's Department of Agriculture (DOA) to recall an order allowing open field testing of genetically modified (GMO) papaya and to order additional decontamination of papaya plants believed to be tainted by the genetically engineered fruit."

She added, "Greenpeace tried every means to get the DOA to stop this massive GMO papaya contamination and end all GMO field trials, but the DOA and related government agencies failed to act to protect public interest."

For the improvement of agricultural production by making disease-resistant papaya, the Thailand government had been encouraging GMO research.

17 November 2008

'Frankenstein' crops could be grown in secret to halt GM trial sabotage

Mail Online (UK), 17 November 2008. By Sean Poulter.

Photo captions:

1.

Scientists and biotech firms are putting pressure on ministers to implement special protection measures to prevent saboteurs from attacking GM trials

2.

During an attack on an experimental GM maize crop several years ago Lord Melchett was arrested along with 30 other protesters

3.

Protests against GM crops include those made here by the 'Barewitness' demonstrators

4.

Lord Mandelson, left, was seen as a cheerleader for GM during his time as a trade commissioner in Brussels. Food and farming Secretary Hilary Benn, right, has also signalled his support for trials]

GM crop trials should be carried out in secret or behind security fences in a bid to prevent saboteurs from ripping them out of the ground, it is claimed.

UK scientists and biotech companies are putting pressure on ministers to implement special protection measures.

They are understood to have support in government from Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, who is keen to support GM science and farming.

However, the proposals have been slammed by critics who say secret trials would expose vast areas of the country to disastrous GM contamination.

Conventional and organic farmers could find their crops are contaminated with GM pollen without any idea who is responsible.

The vast majority of consumers, supermarkets and food manufacturers in Britain and Europe have made clear they do not want GM crops and food.

Questions have been raised about GM farming techniques and their harm on the environment and beneficial insects such as bees.

Just last week, a study funded by the government of Austria suggested GM corn could harm fertility following a feeding trial with rats.

Experts at the University of Leeds claim they are being prevented from carrying out trials on GM potatoes and other crops for fear they will be wrecked by protestors.

They claim the only way to go ahead is either to keep their precise location a secret or spend many thousands of pounds on security fencing and guards.

They are considering asking a Government funding body, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, to stump up £100,000 for fencing.

It has even been suggested that the Government's military research centre at Porton Down, best known for its research into chemical warfare, could be used to protect the trials.

Professor Tim Dean, who is research dean at the Leeds Faculty of Biological Science, believes GM technology is a vital tool in feeding the world's growing population.

He said the public should have faith in the Government to police GM crop trials without the need to say where they are.

'What we should have as a society is faith in the system that we can do things properly. If we have a democratically elected government, what is the point in publishing the location of GM trials,' he said.

'We have to find a way to allow science to go ahead without vandalism.'

Prof Dean said there was 'some degree of sense' to using Porton Down. 'It is in the middle of a firing range, it would be quite difficult to trash trials there and it has some good quality farmland,' he said.

Lord Mandelson was a cheerleader for GM during his tenure as a trade commissioner in Brussels, while the food and farming Secretary Hilary Benn has also signalled support for trials.

It is clear that ministers are trying to find some way to ensure the crop trials go ahead.

A spokesman for Mr Benn's department, DEFRA, said: 'Sensible and credible decisions on GM organisms cannot be taken without solid scientific evidence.

'The government has always maintained that human and environmental health are paramount, but the destruction and vandalism of GM crop trials risks withholding potential benefits to agriculture while simultaneously harming the UK's science base.'

In the past, protestors have walked free after being arrested and prosecuted for criminal damage to crop trials.

Peter Melchett, who is policy director at the Soil Association and among those cleared in the past, condemned efforts to hold the trials in secret.

He said: 'Porton Down is probably a suitable location for GM potato trials. It would properly symbolise the threat of GM technology to Britain's potato farmers.'

Lord Melchett said: 'Regardless of what the GM advocates want, it is illegal under EU law to keep the location of trials secret. That is for a very good reason, because it poses a real danger of contamination to non-GM and organic crops.

'We know, for example, that virtually the entire US long-grain rice crop was found to be contaminated with a GM crop that was only grown in trials.

'The contamination had huge commercial implications with the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of exports.

'Separately, researchers in Sweden found GM plants were still growing in fields which had hosted a crop trial ten years earlier.

Someone buying that land could find it is heavily infested with GM plants with the result they would be unable to use it for growing conventional or organic crops.'

Lord Melchett said that Lord Mandelson had been the most pro-GM commissioner of all those in Brussels.

'The one value of having him back in the UK is that he is no longer able to push for the adoption of GM in Europe despite the opposition to the governments and people of the vast majority of member states,' he said.

DEFRA responds to secret GM crop trial claims

Farmers Weekly (UK), 17 November 2008 By Jonathan Riley.

DEFRA has said it cannot confirm reports suggesting that the government intends to conduct future genetically modified crop trials in secret.

The reports claimed that the government was considering a number of measures to prevent trials being wrecked by anti-GM protesters.

These included withholding details on the whereabouts of trial sites and carrying out trials at research locations with better security facilities.

The government was also thought to be considering a crackdown on the protesters themselves by using laws devised to tackle animal rights activists.

But a DEFRA official told Farmers Weekly that it was taking stock of the situation and that no announcements had been made on the measures.

However, the official added: "Sensible and credible decisions on GM organisms cannot be taken without solid scientific evidence.

"The government has always maintained that human and environmental health are paramount, but the destruction and vandalism of GM crop trials risks withholding potential benefits to agriculture while simultaneously harming the UK's science base."

"We need to see if they [GM foods] have a contribution to make - and we won't know the answer unless we run controlled experiments," said Hilary Benn, the DEFRA secretary.

'Enviropig' may go to market
Consumers offered an ecological reason to buy genetically modified meat

Medill News Service / MarketWatch, 17 November 2008. By Kevin Janowiak. WASHINGTON -- It's been called "Frankenfood." But backers of genetically engineered meat say it's just as tasty and safe for consumers as regular cuts from the butcher.

We're not talking about mad scientists holed up in castles. Some of the biggest links in the food chain are expecting farm animals with altered DNA to end up on the dinner plate -- unless the Food and Drug Administration says no.

The creators of "Frankenfood" push health and costs benefits, but diners also could be doing their part for the environment by gorging on modified pork chops in the not-too-distant future.

Canadian researchers have created a new breed of pig -- dubbed enviropig -- whose upgraded digestive system produces cleaner manure. The genetically engineered hog hasn't made it to the market yet because it's been penned in for years by regulatory obstacles in Canada and the U.S.

Pig farms produce giant lagoons of waste, which are then skimmed for natural fertilizer. But the manure contains high levels of phosphorus, a chemical that pigs have difficulty breaking down from their cereal-grain diet.

After being spread onto crops, excess phosphorus can trickle its way to surface and ground water. Where there is phosphorus in ponds, there is algae and the green muck can choke off oxygen in water and kill fish.

The enviropig keeps more phosphorus inside of its belly, reducing the concentration in manure by about 60%, according to developer John Phillips. Its rewritten DNA code tells the salivary glands to pump out an enzyme that digests the chemical. Cost benefits, health concerns

Phillips is joined by a slew of food producers who say genetically engineered meat can cut costs for both farmers and consumers. Potential applications include salmon that grow twice as fast and cattle resistant to mad cow disease. But first the Food and Drug Administration has to sort through reams of data and a bevy of health concerns. The FDA took a step toward approving genetically engineered meat with draft guidelines for approval in September, but there's no timeframe for a definitive stance.

Phillips, a professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, said the FDA's rigorous review process and full disclosure through clear labeling are needed for consumers to gain trust in the technology.

"I don't think we will call it green pork," Phillips said at a panel discussion in Washington last week, "but nonetheless we think people should have the choice."

Gregory Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which advocates for food safety and nutrition, said he doubts shoppers will clamor for genetically engineered food right now.

"Consumers today are more aware than ever about where their food comes from," he said. But they might be persuaded given proper education and a transparent approval process, he said.

Other critics have focused on animal welfare.

Michael Greger of the Humane Society of the United States said farm animals already are pushed to their biological limits -- from exhausted cows to monster turkeys that can't even support their own weight -- and can't take more stress. Greger said some genetically engineered animals could be beneficial, but called enviropig a "Trojan pig" during the panel discussion -- something the "industry can hold up while they slip past the really lucrative and potentially damaging applications."

Did you want your genetically-engineered steak medium or rare?

Examiner.com, 17 November 2008. By Eric Burkett,

Tomorrow is the last day the FDA is accepting comments on its draft plan for how it will approve genetically engineered animals.

The idea of adding genetically engineered livestock to our nation's food supply makes a lot of people nervous. Perhaps even more unnerving is the fact that, if and when the FDA's proposal goes into effect, there is no plan in place for labeling foods from genetically engineered animals. In other words, if genetically engineered pork containing Omega 3 fatty acids - typically a product of fish - is allowed into the market place, the producers won't have to label it as such.

The idea of bacon chock-full of Omega-3 fatty acids is, on the one hand, not a bad idea (and it's already a reality). Anything that might help reduce the risk of heart disease - particularly in a food as cholesterol laden as bacon - could be viewed with an appreciative eye. But, then, isn't eating foods like bacon in moderation a simpler approach? Researchers have also been conducting research to produce cows that produce their own antibiotics to help combat udder infections. Again, nice in principle, but with genetically engineered dairy cows, those same antibiotics are then passed on to you in their milk.

"Unlike conventional antibiotics, which must be cleared from the cow before it can be used to produce milk or meat, the antibiotic that is genetically engineered into the animal will always be present. We are concerned both about the potential safety and lack of labeling on such food products," said Michael Hansen, a scientist with Consumers Union in a release from that organization.

The FDA has no plan to require labeling telling you that. Nor does the FDA have any plans to test the food that comes from these animals, according to Food and Water Watch, and environmental and consumer watch-dog organization. If the animals meet the FDA's guidelines, the thinking apparently goes, the food should be fine, too.

The FDA insists there is nothing to worry about with the rise of genetically modified foods, but they're also aware that most people are extremely wary of consuming genetically modified eggs, milk, and pork chops. One only has to read the agency's FAQ on genetically modified foods and animals to know there is a great deal they don't want to talk about. Why? The FDA has been extremely chummy with the pharmaceuticals industry and there is a great deal of money to be made here. The more you know, they fear, the less you'll want to consume.

Note: The debate over genetically modified foods is not a new one. Dr. Ron Epstein, formerly a professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University, wrote a series of essays and articles on the ethics of genetic engineering more than 12 yeas ago. His points are worth thinking about today.

Essays:
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/GEF%20labelling.htm

Articles:
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm#ESSAYS%20ON%20GENETICALLY%20ENGINEERED%20FOOD

Urgency eases for GM wheat as prices fall

Reuters, 17 November 2008.

The push to promote genetically modified (GM) wheat to combat global food shortages could slow as global commodity prices ease, a top industry executive said on Sunday.

"Now that prices have fallen off their peak, I don't think it will be a priority," said Vijay Iyengar, managing director of the Singapore-based grains trader Agrocorp International Pte Ltd.

"Because of the record high prices we saw the push for increasing supplies, and so the call for genetically modified grain seeds received a lot of attention."

Resistance from the public and consumer groups in rich countries to genetically modified wheat has forced major producing countries like Australia, the United States and Canada to steer away from growing GM crops.

No commercial transgenic wheat currently exists in world markets due to strong opposition by consumer and environmental groups in many countries.

The European Union has not approved any genetically modified crops for a decade and the 27 member countries often clash on the issue.

Japan supports genetic research, but the public is strongly opposed to genetically modified wheat and rice.

But the future push for GM seeds does have some potential with the success of India's cotton production, Iyengar said.

India surpassed the U.S. to become the second-biggest producer of cotton in 2006-2007 after adopting GM crops.

India's GM cotton area is estimated at 6.33 million hectares or 66 percent of the total cotton area in 2007-2008, up from 3.69 million hectares in 2006-2007, data from the Cotton Advisory Board showed.

"The success of GM cotton in India is encouraging with the production of a hardy crop, where crop levels have improved," Iyengar said.

"The issues surrounding using GM seeds will be overlooked if you can replicate similar yield levels for grains."

Defra denies secret GM trials

Farmers Guardian (UK), 17 November 2008. By Jack Davies.

DEFRA has moved to deny reports that it is set to carry out secret GM crop trials around the UK.

The move comes after reports today (Monday, November 17), that ministers are planning to change policy to prevent anti-GM campaigners from vandalising field trials.

Although the Government has signalled its intent to carry out more trials on GM crops, it denied that any new policies had already been put in place.

Secretary of State Hilary Benn and former Food and Farming Minister Lord Rooker both called for greater protection for trials earlier this year, but a Defra spokesperson said the department was unable to change the rules without a green light from Europe where law demands details of all GM trials be made publicly available.

A Defra spokesperson said: "The Government has always maintained that human and environmental health are paramount, but the destruction and vandalism of GM crop trials risks withholding potential benefits to agriculture while simultaneously harming the UK's science base.

"The Government is therefore taking stock of the situation, but no announcements have been made on a change in policy."

Transgenic Animals for Food Not Proven Safe
FDA's guidelines on commercial release of transgenic animals ignore known hazards of GMOs and totally inadequate to protect the public from genetic and epigenetic damages that may result from transgenic foods.
Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Institute of Science in Society press release, 17 November 2008.

This report was submitted to the United States Food and Drugs Administration on behalf of ISIS.

[Note: this document contains many hyperlinks not included here. To view the links see the online version at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TAFNPS.php]

The [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a draft guidance document (GFI187) entitled [1] "Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs." This draft guidance is intended to clarify FDA's requirements and recommendations for producers and developers of genetically engineered (GE) animals and their products. It describes how the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) apply with respect to GE animals, including FDA's intent to "exercise enforcement discretion regarding requirements for certain GE animals." The current Draft Guidance deal with GE animals that provide food or drugs; FDA decided to include all GE animals in this guidance and indicated that another guidance would be prepared to deal with GE animals used in gene therapy and vaccination.

In 2006, the Institute of Science in Society commented to the Codex Alimentarius on foods derived from transgenic animals that included both animals engineered for gene therapy or vaccines [2] (GM Food Animals Coming, SiS 32). In 2007, we commented on cloned transgenic animals to the FDA [3] (Is FDA Promoting or Regulating Cloned Meat and Milk?, SiS 33). The comments below will deal with studies on transgenic animals published since in the past two years and their implications for the FDA Guidance.

Transgenic animals as pharmaceutical bioreactors

Transgenic animals have grown in importance as 'bioreactors' (factories) producing pharmaceutical proteins for disease treatment and for vaccines. A recent review [4] compared the advantages of producing pharmaceuticals in transgenic animals with bacteria, yeast, insect or vertebrate cells, and transgenic plants. Transgenic animals appear to avoid the glycosylation patterns provoking immune responses that complicate pharmaceutical protein production in plants and microbes. For the most part, the animal products are isolated from milk, but may be recovered from urine, semen, blood or eggs. A number of the transgenic animal pharmaceutical are in preclinical development while others are in clinical and advanced clinical development; and a few may soon be approved for the market [4]. A fuller list of the transgenic animal pharmaceuticals in clinical or preclinical development was published earlier [5]. Transgenic animal bioreactors were proposed as a new line of defence against chemical weapons by producing enzymes that destroy the chemical weapon after being injected into the bloodstream [6].

A wide range of animals have been exploited to produce pharmaceuticals. Transgenic chickens expressing parathyroid hormone is being developed as a treatment for osteoporosis. The chickens were engineered using a Moloney murine leukemia virus as a vector for delivering the human gene to the chicken genome [7]. Human erythropoietin (stimulating red blood cell production) was produced in chicken using a retrovirus vector derived from the Woodchuck hepatitis virus [8]. A cattle mammary bioreactor was created by transforming bovine fibroblast cells with the human lactoferrin gene. Nuclei from the transformed cells were cloned to produce calves making elevated levels of the anti-bacterial protein [9]. A human vitamin K dependent blood clotting factor was recovered from the milk of transgenic pigs [10]. Human lysozyme (an antibacterial enzyme) was produced in transgenic goats. Pasteurized milk from the transgenic goats was found to influence gastrointestinal morphology in young pigs [11]. Transgenic goats expressing recombinant human butyrl-cholinesterase in its milk were found to produce high levels of the human enzyme at the expense of milk production. Butylcholinesterase could be used to treat pesticide or war gas poisoning [12]. One salient point is that the FDA Guideline document did not lay out details of any scheme to deal with accidental or purposeful entrance of the transgenic bioreactor animals into the human or animal food chain.

Xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation is the transplant of animal organs and cells into humans. Transplant of transgenic humanized pig organs to humans has been promoted for over a decade. The major concern that has delayed the widespread transplantation of soft tissue organs from pigs to humans is not graft rejection. Hyper acute rejection of the pig organ has been prevented by transgenic modification of pigs to resemble human in their immune signature. In addition, transplant recipients require severe immune suppression of both B and T cells. Using that strategy, lo ng term survival of transgenic pig kidney and heart has been observed in non-human primates [13, 14]. One main remaining hurdle to xenotransplantation i s po rcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV ) i ncorporated into the pig genome. Pig cells when exposed to human cells causes the PERV to be activated and potentially able to invade and infect humans with a new and dangerous virus disease New strategies such as the use of small inhibitory RNA molecules are being implemented to prevent activation of PERV on transplantation or the development of anti-PERV vaccines may prevent the spread of a PERV disease [15]. Until an effective anti-PERV defense is found, xenotransplantation should not be undertaken. The Institute of Science in Society has pointed out that PERV provides a major obstacle to xenotransplantation since 2000 [16] (Xenotransplantation - How Bad Science and Big Business Put the World at Risk from Viral Pandemics, ISIS Report)and continues to highlight the fact that the danger of releasing a virus that crosses the species barrier has not yet bee n solved [17] (Xenotransplant Fails All-round, ISIS News 7/8). 'Humanising' transgenic pigs to address immune rejection will also enhance the potential for PERV to cross species barriers [16].

Problems with transgenic farm animals

Dairy products from cloned cattle derived from somatic cells and cloned transgenic cattle derived from modified somatic cell lines were compared with control cattle from the same area. The clon ed transgenic cattle were modified with additional gene copies for the milk proteins b- and k - casein and previously shown to express the transgenes at high levels. Based on gross composition, fatty acid and amino acid profiles and mineral and vitamin contents, milk produced by clones and conventional cattle were deemed e ssentially similar and consistent with reference values from dairy cows farmed in the same region under similar conditions. Whereas c olostrum produced by transgenic cows with additional casein genes had similar IgG secretion levels and kinetics to control cows, milk from the transgenic cows had a distinct yellow appearance, in contrast to the white colour of milk from control cows. Processing of the m ilk into cheese resulted in differences in the gross composition and amino acid profiles; 'transgenic' cheese had lower fat and higher salt contents and small but characteristic differences in the amino acid profile compared to control cheese [18]. The cloned transgenic cows were certainly not substantially equivalent to cloned cattle or control animals.

In many instances, transgenic animals have been allowed to be destroyed by composting rather than incineration. Transgenic pigs modified with the Escherichia coli appA gene, which codes for phytase to reduce phosphate elimination in manure, were composted, and it was claimed that composting satisfactorily eliminated the transgenic pig remains. There were a number of significant differences between transgenic and control pig carcasses in organic matter, ash, organic carbon and a number of inorganic chemicals [19]. The significant differences recorded were not discussed, but certainly require a fuller comment.

The interaction between cloning and inserted transgenes in farm animals requires fuller investigation. Cloned and cloned transgenic animals are not substantially equivalent to control animals [20] (see Cloned BSE-Free Cows, Not Safe Nor Proper Science, SiS 33).

Transgenic Salmon

Transgenic salmon appears to be the most advanced transgenic fish preparing for commercial release. The Aqua Bounty company has developed hybrid transgenic salmon with four linked copies of a salmon growth hormone. The transgenes were inserted at one site in four head to tail complete repeats along with two partial copies of the gene. The insertion site caused a 587 base pair deletion of Coho DNA and an insertion of 19 base pairs of unknown DNA upstream and a 14 base pair direct duplication of a sequence downstream. The growth hormone insertion was adjacent to a pseudogene for a membrane protein of a salmon parasite acquired by horizontal gene transfer [21]. The chromosomal DNA insertion site for the transgene adjacent to a site already modified by horizontal gene transfer suggests that the transgene may be an unstable mobile insert capable of horizontal transfer to natural salmon stocks and other organisms.

Horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA has been ignored or denied by regulatory regimes and is a matter of major concern for biosafety [22] (Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 38). In addition to the health and ecological hazards arising from the spread of transgenes, transgene instability compromises safety assessment and quality control of the transgenic line released. Transgene instability is well documented in genetically engineered plants, which also makes nonsense of patent protection [23] (Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible for Protection, SiS 38).

There is also concern that the large fast growing transgenic salmon would escape to the natural environment, threatening natural fis h populations and over consume resources. The reply of the producers of transgenic salmon was [24] " When reared under standard hatchery conditions, the transgenic fish grew almost three times longer than wild conspecifics and had (under simulated natural conditions) stronger predation effects on prey than wild genotypes (even after compensation for size differences). In contrast, when fish were reared under naturalized stream conditions, transgenic fish were only 20 % longer than the wild fish, and the magnitude of difference in relative predation effects was much reduced." The predation effects of transgenic salmon were reduced under natural conditions but not eliminated.

The glutathione antioxidant system was enhanced (up-regulated) in the transgenic Coho salmon, to combat reactive oxygen production from the increased metabolic rate [25]. The transgenic Coho salmon had altered hepatic gene expression related to iron-metabolism, innate im munity, reproduction and growth [26]. In wild salmon, food intake is reduced during the short days of winter but this was not the case for the tra nsgenic Coho salmon. The transgenic salmon had higher levels of hormone regulating food intake [27], and were unable to cope with low oxygen levels. The inability to cope with low oxygen levels may represent a general constraint on the evolution of rapid growth in natural salmon [28].

Genetic and epigenetic changes resulting from transgenesis need to be characterized

Transgenesis is associated with major rearrangements and mutations in the host genome. This was comprehensively reviewed in 2003 (Living with the Fluid Genome, I SIS publication [29]), and confirmed by numerous publications since [30].

In addition, transgenesis is expected to affect the epigenome extensively, altering the expression states of many genes, and this has yet to be properly investigated. Epigenetics - the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve alterations in DNA sequence - is a maturing discipline with growing applications in toxicology, cancer, nutrition, and brain and behavioural sciences [31-34].

There is already evidence of serious health impacts from transgenic food and feed (see GM is Dangerous and Futile, SiS 40 [35] for the most recent summary). Within the past week, a comprehensive study commissioned by the Austrian government showed that transgenic corn fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation. In the course of three generations fed on the transgenic corn, significant changes in gene expression were detected with DNA microarray analyses. More than 400 genes were either up or down regulated [36].

Introducing a change to the human diet as far-reaching and fundamental as transgenic foods demands a thorough investigation of both the genetic and epigenetic effects resulting from transgenesis. Genomic and post-genomic technologies such as DNA microarrays, proteomics, and metabolic profiling are now routinely used in laboratory and field studies. They must be included in safety assessment of transgenic food and feed, along with multi-generational and other long-term feeding studies.

The FDA Guidance Document highly inadequate

FDA's Guidance Document provides little or no substantive information on the introduction of transgenic animals, particularly those used as bioreactors, into the environment in general and into the human food supply to be specific. FDA seems to take a passive stance on the matter. Environmental assessment is mandated by FDA but no guidance was provided on the substance of the assessment. It does not call for any health impact assessment that is urgently needed. It does not even call for labelling of the food products of transgenic animals, which is a prerequisite for health monitoring. There is also no provision to prevent surplus bioreactor animals from being released to the food supply. Our successive reviews of the literature on transgenic animals have left us in no doubt that transgenic animals are different from conventional animals and they must be clearly labelled if they are eventually to be sold as food, which we most strenuously oppose. We hope that FDA would protect the public, but the Guidance Document suggests that FDA is more interested in promoting the use of transgenic animals.

References

1. Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0394, Guidance for Industry Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs, Draft Guidance 09/19/2008, http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648072122b

2. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM food animals coming. Science in Society 32, 24-25, 2006.

3. Ho MW and Cummins J. Is FDA promoting or regulating cloned meat and milk ? Science in Society 33, 24-27, 2007.

4. Houdebine L. Production of pharmaceutical proteins by transgenic animals. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008, Feb 1. [Epub ahead of print]doi:10.1016/j.cimid.2007.11.005

5. Dunn DA, Pinkert CA, Kooyman DL. Foundation Review: Transgenic animals and their impact on the drug discovery industry. Drug Discov Today. 2005, 10(11), 757-67.

6. Yang X, Carter MG. Transgenic animal bioreactors: a new line of defense against chemical weapons? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007, 104(35),13859-60.

7. Lee SH, Gupta MK, Han DW, Han SY, Uhm SJ, Kim T, Lee HT. Development of transgenic chickens expressing human parathormone under the control of a ubiquitous promoter by using a retrovirus vector system. Poult Sci. 2007, 86(10). 2221-7.

8. Kodama D, Nishimiya D, Iwata K, Yamaguchi K, Yoshida K, Kawabe Y, Motono M, Watanabe H, Yamashita T, Nishijima K, Kamihira M, Iijima S. Production of human erythropoietin by chimeric chickens. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008; 367(4), 834-9.

9. Yang P, Wang J, Gong G, Sun X, Zhang R, Du Z, Liu Y, Li R, Ding F, Tang B, Dai Y, Li N. Cattle mammary bioreactor generated by a novel procedure of transgenic cloning for large-scale production of functional human lactoferrin. PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(10):e3453.

10. Gil GC, Velander WH, Van Cott KE. Analysis of the N-glycans of recombinant human Factor IX purified from transgenic pig milk. Glycobiology 2008, 18(7), 526-39.

11. Brundige DR, Maga EA, Klasing KC, Murray JD. Lysozyme transgenic goats' milk influences gastrointestinal morphology in young pigs. J Nutr. 2008;138(5), 921-6.

12. Baldassarre H, Hockley DK, DorÈ M, Brochu E, Hakier B, Zhao X, Bordignon V. Lactation performance of transgenic goats expressing recombinant human butyryl-cholinesterase in the milk. Transgenic Res. 2008, 17(1),:73-84.

13. Sprangers B, Waer M, Billiau A. Xenotransplantation: where are we in 2008? Kidney Int. 2008, 74(1), 14-21.

14. d'Apice AJ, Cowan PJ.Xenotransplantation: The next generation of engineered animals. Transpl Immunol. 2008 Oct 28. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1016/j.trim.2008.10.003

15. Denner J. Is porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) transmission still relevant? Transplant Proc. 2008, 40(2),:587-9.

16. Ho MW and Cummins J. Xenotransplantation How Bad Science and Big Business Put the World at Risk from Viral Pandemics ISIS Sustainable Science Audit #2, 2000 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php

17. Ho MW. Xenotransplant fails all-round. ISIS news 7/8 2001 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/i-sisnews7-33.php

18. Laible G, Brophy B, Knighton D, Wells DN. Compositional analysis of dairy products derived from clones and cloned transgenic cattle. Theriogenology. 2007, 67(1), 166-77.

19. Murray D, Meidinger RG, Golovan SP, Phillips JP, O'Halloran IP, Fan MZ, Hacker RR, Forsberg CW. Transgene and mitochondrial DNA are indicators of efficient composting of transgenic pig carcasses. Bioresour Technol. 2007, 98(9), 1795-804

20. Ho MW and Cummins J. Cloned BSE-free cows not safe nor proper science. Science in Society 33, 28-31, 2007.

21. Uh M, Khattra J, Devlin RH.Transgene constructs in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) are repeated in a head-to-tail fashion and can be integrated adjacent to horizontally-transmitted parasite DNA. Transgenic Res. 2006, 15(6), 711-27.

22. Ho MW and Cummins J. Horizontal gene transfer from GMOs does happen. Science in Society 38, 22-24, 2008.

23. Ho MW. Transgenic lines unstable hence illegal and ineligible for protection. Science in Society 38, 28-29, 2008.

24. Sundström LF, Lžhmus M, Tymchuk WE, Devlin RH. Gene-environment interactions influence ecological consequences of transgenic animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007, 104(10), 3889-94.

25. Leggatt RA, Brauner CJ, Iwama GK, Devlin RH. The glutathione antioxidant system is enhanced in growth hormone transgenic coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). J Comp Physiol [B]. 2007, 177(4), :413-22.

26. Mori T, Hiraka I, Kurata Y, Kawachi H, Mano N, Devlin RH, Nagoya H, Araki K. hanges in hepatic gene expression related to innate immunity, growth and iron metabolism in GH-transgenic amago salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) by cDNA subtraction and microarray analysis, and serum lysozyme activity. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2007, 151(1), 42-54.

27. Lžhmus M, Raven PA, Sundström LF, Devlin RH. Disruption of seasonality in growth hormone-transgenic Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and the role of cholecystokinin in seasonal feeding behavior. Horm Behav. 2008, 54(4), 506-13.

28. Sundt-Hansen L, Sundström LF, Einum S, Hindar K, Fleming IA, Devlin RH. Genetically enhanced growth causes increased mortality in hypoxic environments. Biol Lett. 2007, 3(2), 165-8.

29. Ho MW. Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2003.

30. Wilson AK, Latham JR and Steinbrecher RA. Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants. Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnology & genetic engineering reviews 2006, 209-237.

31. Newbold RR, Padilla-Banks E and Jefferson WN. Adverse effects of the model environmental estrogen diethylstilbestrol are transmitted to subsequent generations. Endocrinology 2006, 147, S11-S17.

32. Reamon-Buettner SM, Mutschler V and Borlak J. The next innovation cycle in toxicogenomics: environmental epigenetics. Mutation Res 2008, 639, 158-65.

33. Weidman JR, Dolinoy DC, Murphy SK and Jirtle RL. Cancer susceptibility: epigenetic manifestation of environmental exposures. Cancer J 2007, 13, 9-16.

34. McGowan PO, Meaney MJ and Szyf M. Diet and the epigenetic (re)programming of phenotypic differences in behaviour. Brain Research 2008, 1237, 12-24.

35. Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile. Science in Society 40 (in press).

36. Velimirov A, Binter C and Zenteck J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3. Institut für Ernährung, and Forschungsinttitut für biologishen Landbau, Vienna, Austria, November 2008.

Commercial Interests Compromise GMO Claims

GE Free New Zealand press release, 17 November 2008.

Commercial Interests Compromise GMO Scientists' Claims

The vested commercial interests of scientists meeting at the 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms means the public can have little confidence in the independence or credibility of their risk-analysis.

The GM Biosafety Symposium being held in Wellington this week has been positioned to journalists as a chance for researchers to exchange ideas on the risk of GMO's. But many of the speakers at the media-briefing on Monday are scientists with vested interests in promoting the hasty commercialisation of GMOs for private gain, and seek to profit by allowing risks to be 'socialised' onto the wider community. Other speakers from overseas have also been lobbying at the UN for a weakening of the Cartegena rules.

Claims of scientific safety made by those directly benefitting from commercial ventures are compromised by a blind-eye being turned to new independent information about the complexities of gene-functioning, and to the proven risks to society from unbridled commercialisation of gene technology" says Jon Carapiet from 'GE Free NZ in food and environment'.

"Early-stage research is being rushed to commercial outputs, largely with patenting and license-fees in mind. This Symposium is a talkfest for people who believe that is acceptable," says Jon Carapiet. "Using commercial terms to describe their attitude to what is happening to nature; the 'property rights' of our ancestors, everyone alive today and of future generations are being lost by the privatisation of lifeforms and natural ecosystems."

The criteria for GMO safety and regulation cannot be left in the hands of those with most to gain from commercial science, including staff at government agencies who are part of the "revolving door" with industry that results in commercial GMO-users gaining approval from their former employees.

The question and answer media session being run by the Science Media Centre which is promoting the conference, is only open to a hand picked media contingent. The Science Media Centre has also shown it lacks credibility as a source of balanced information, having remained noticeably silent in discussions of the ethical, environmental and economic risks to New Zealand from AgResearch's plans to go into commercial production using a wide range of GE animals around the country.

"The GE Free media representative was initially approved and then declined an invitation to attend the briefing. This shows that the organised media event is being managed to avoid any risk of the scientists being asked difficult questions," says Claire Bleakley President of GE Free NZ, who will be attending the Conference. "We hope the media will not be hoodwinked into accepting hand-fed selective opinion that fails to reflect the full range of independent published data on the dangers posed by GMO's."

Comment by GM-free Ireland

For information about the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, go to the Convention on Biodiversity web site at:
http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/

For information about the implications for Ireland go to:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/documents/cartagena/

Zambia: 'Blame Game Regarding Rising Mealie Meal Prices'

The Times of Zambia (Ndola), Editorial, 17 November 2008.

THE blame game regarding rising mealie meal prices should be brought to an end by implementing measures that address the problem.

Since the prices took the upward turn, we have had various explanations from different players, with each blaming the other for the problem.

Initially, the Millers Association of Zambia (MAZ) accused traders of pegging retail prices unrealistically high when wholesale prices did not reflect that.

MAZ said its wholesale prices did not warrant the prices that the traders were charging and even threatened not to supply retailers who exploited consumers.

The traders, on the other hand, insisted that mealie meal prices were determined by wholesale prices which would only be reduced if and when millers cut prices.

Then the millers came up with another explanation - that the rising prices were a result of a maize shortage because, contrary to earlier Government projections that Zambia would have a maize surplus exceeding 100,000 tonnes, the country actually had a deficit.

But the Government dismissed this notion and said the millers were actually hoarding the maize.

Now, the Zambia Cooperatives Federation and small-scale farmers have accused the millers of exploiting consumers after buying the maize cheaply.

On the other hand, the millers insist that the price rise has been triggered by a maize shortage.

Whatever the reason for the high prices, we feel this debate is not assisting consumers in any way. We actually smell something fishy from mealie meal players and implore the Government to quickly move in and bring the matter to rest.

Rather than continue finger-pointing, the Government should quickly step in with measures that will bring down and stabilise the prices of mealie meal.

Government has already hinted that it would allow GMO-free maize imports to flood the market and help stabilise the prices. We think this must be done as a matter of urgency.

Much as Zambia believes in the play of market forces to determine prices, the question of mealie meal is a matter of life and death, which cannot be left to the market alone.

People need affordable mealie meal and this can only be guaranteed by deliberately offloading maize onto the market.

Of course, the Government first wants to undertake a maize audit to establish the actual deficit, but we feel that imports should be let to flow in as a matter of urgency.

The Food Reserve Agency should also play its role by releasing some of its stocks to check the rising prices.

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Are commodity traders withholding food to force Zambia to accept GM imports? If so, this is a classic example of Shock Therapy detailed in Naomi Klein's must-read book "The Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism". For details see http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

GM crops to be grown at military sites

Evening Standard (London), 17 November 2008. By Ellen Widdup.

THE Government is drawing up plans to grow genetically modified crops in top secret military locations to thwart saboteurs.

The campaign may see crops grown at sites such as Porton Down in Salisbury, which carries out military research and includes a science park.

The police could also be asked to target opponents of GM crops in the same way they have clamped down on some animal rights protesters.

Ministers intend to scrap a rule that says scientists must disclose the location of GM crop trials on a government website. Hilary Benn, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson are also demanding a review of security arrangements.

Mr Benn said: "We need to see if they [GM foods] have a contribution to make and we won't know the answer about their environmental impact unless we run controlled experiments."

Comment by the Soil Association:

Once again the government appears to be siding with the GM industry rather than public interest on the issue of GM crop trials.

Opponents to GM crop trials are dismissed as ignorant vandals, but problems of GM contamination in America confirm that their concerns are based not on irrational fear, but on hard evidence.

In 2006 it was discovered that 30% of the entire US long-grain rice supply had become contaminated by experimental GM rice varieties unapproved for human consumption. Not only was this a public safety disaster, but also cost the rice industry over $1 billion. The contamination source? 'Controlled' field trials.

Open GM field trials pose a serious risk to both the environment and our food supply, and to suggest that GM crops are the only way to feed the world in future is simply wrong. The recent IAASTD assessment by over 400 scientists worldwide stated that GM crops were unlikely to provide any contribution to our future food security.

DEFRA plans secret GM trial sites

Farmers Weekly interactive (FWi), 17 November 2008

The locations of genetically modified crop trials will be kept secret in the future to prevent protesters from wrecking the trial sites, DEFRA has announced.

Almost all of the 54 GM crop trials conducted since 2000 have been vandalised because of government rules which stated that the grid reference of the trial had to be publicised.

DEFRA also plans to conduct the trials at more secure locations from now on.

Farm fields and university sites were chosen in the past, allowing protesters to gain access. In the future secure government sites such as Porton Down near Salisbury, which carries out military research, will be used instead.

Ministers will also have more power to crack down on the opponents of GM crops. Rules introduced in 2005 have given police more powers to prosecute activists after Huntingdon Life Sciences was attacked by animal rights extremists.

"We need to see if they [GM foods] have a contribution to make - and we won't know the answer unless we run controlled experiments," said Hilary Benn, the DEFRA secretary.

Gordon Brown is aware that there has been public opposition to previous GM trials - notably from young mothers - but has said he will follow the science.

Safety trials on GM products raise concerns from international governments

The Times (UK), November 17 2008.

Sir,

Lord Krebs (How to get consumers to love GM crops, Nov 12) complains that European consumers still don't agree with him about the safety of GM food. Consumers all over the world reject GM. The latest rejection has started in the US. Labelling of milk as GM-hormone-free led to a collapse in sales of milk produced with Monsanto's GM hormone. Now Barack Obama wants to see all GM food labelled.

People reject GM food because genetic engineering is an inherently uncertain and risky technology. Almost no safety trials have been done because regulators assume that GM food is "substantially equivalent" to non-GM. On the same day that Lord Krebs wrote that there is "no evidence" that GM maize is dangerous, a study funded by the Austrian Government found that GM maize "severely impairs reproduction in mice", and said that there is an "urgent need for further studies".

Peter Melchett
Policy Director, Soil Association

Government to defy critics with secret GM crop trials

The Independent (UK), 17 November 2008. By Andrew Grice, Political Editor.

Ministers are drawing up plans for genetically-modified crops to be grown in secret and more secure locations to prevent trials being wrecked by saboteurs.

They may ask the police to target opponents of GM crops in the way that they have cracked down on animal rights protesters. Another option is for the controversial crops to be grown at a secure government site such as Porton Down near Salisbury, which carries out military research and includes a science park where they could be securely developed away from the public.

The Independent disclosed in June that the Government wants a new public debate on whether GM foods could hold the answer to global food shortages and rising prices. Gordon Brown is moving cautiously, saying he will be guided by scientific experts, because of strong public opposition to previous trials - notably from young mothers.

However, no experiments are currently underway in Britain after 400 potato plants were destroyed on a farm run by the University of Leeds in June. Almost all of the 54 GM crop trials which have been conducted since 2000 have been targeted by opponents and vandalised.

Under current rules, scientists must disclose the location of trials on a government website, thereby making it easy for anti-GM protesters to find them. Ministers are now ready to scrap that rule. A review of the security arrangements has also been ordered by Hilary Benn, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary.

Mr Benn said: "We need to see if they [GM foods] have a contribution to make and we won't know the answer about their environmental impact unless we run controlled experiments. It's important to go with the science."

A government source added: "We need to review the security arrangements. The rules are a charter for people who want to stop the experiments. A lot of information has to be put in the public domain and that makes it very easy for people to trash them."

Lord Mandelson backs the Cabinet's decision that GM policy must depend on science but is anxious to prevent Britain's biotechnology industry falling behind its overseas competitors.

He was a supporter of GM foods in his previous job as a European commissioner, where he tried to change the EU's cautious approach to GM licensing. In a speech last year, he argued: "Safe biotechnology has a crucial role to play in agriculture and agricultural trade both in Europe and the developing world."

Lord Mandelson urged governments, the Commission and the biotech industry to do a better job of setting out the issues. "While technology determines what is possible, consumer demand determines what is economically viable. Public fears may be misplaced, but they cannot and should not be dismissed," he said.

Leeds University plans to make one final attempt to conduct its field trial. It will ask the Government to foot an estimated £100,000 bill for installing fences, security cameras and guards on its farm so that the trial is not sabotaged by opponents.

Professor Tim Benton, research dean at its Faculty of Biological Science, said yesterday: "We need to find a way to do crop trials in a safe way and to minimise the environmental risk. We cannot carry on for the next 20 or 30 years saying it's too scary, the public is too frightened, it is politically too dangerous. There is absolutely no way we can move towards a world with food security without using GM technology. The amount of food we need could double because the population is growing, climate change will reduce yields and we will take land out of food production for biofuels."

Ministers, who have been lobbied by the biotechnology industry to improve security at trial sites, are drawing a parallel between anti-GM protesters and opponents of experiments on animals. The law was changed in 2005 to give police new powers to prosecute activists after Huntingdon Life Sciences was targeted and attacked by animal rights extremists.

Comment from GM Watch:

Porton Down was originally set up to support the British use of chemical warfare. Later it moved into biological warfare. It's been at the centre of a series of unethical human experimentation scandals, eg http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3206993.ece

16 November 2008

Green swine good for environment, scientists say

Gannett News Service, 16 November 2008. By Philip Brasher.

A group of 21 hogs living at an Ontario university have been genetically engineered so their manure will be less polluting -- but just as smelly as a conventional pig's.

Scientists at the University of Guelph envision the Enviropigs' pork being marketed as good for the environment.

No one has eaten it yet, but the scientists say the pork should taste like any other pig. They "look like regular pigs, they act like other pigs, and they regrettably smell like other pigs," said Cecil Forsberg, one of the Guelph scientists.

But for now, the pigs can't leave the lab, although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering an application from the university to allow the pork to go to market.

The FDA recently proposed guidelines for regulating genetically engineered animals such as the Enviropigs, but consumer activists say the rules are inadequate: The guidelines won't require developers to disclose key details, such as what genes have been used to give the animals their distinctive traits, and food from the animals won't have to be labeled.

Even if the FDA approves the Enviropigs or other biotech animals, it's unclear whether farmers and processors will consider commercializing them.

There is no evidence that consumers are clamoring for high-tech foods.

"We more often hear the cries for something that is closer back to nature," said Scott Eilert, vice president for research and development at Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., one of the largest U.S. meatpackers.

Eilert didn't rule out marketing biotech meat, but he said it is "hard for me to imagine today." He spoke at a forum on the issue sponsored by the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest and a liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress.

The pork industry shows little interest in genetically engineered hogs, said Mark Bogges, who follows swine research for the National Pork Board.

Greg Jaffe, who follows biotechnology issues for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says consumers could warm up to the idea of biotech meat, but they'll have to see the benefits and have confidence in government regulators.

The Canadian scientists think their Enviropigs would provide a public benefit. The pigs produce an enzyme in their saliva that can digest the phosphorus in their feed.

That's good for the environment because it means less phosphorus winds up in the manure and potentially fouls rivers and streams. The pigs also could cost slightly less to feed because they don't need a phosphorus supplement.

15 November 2008

Monsanto visit
Factual report of biotechnology debate

Irish Farmers Journal (Letters), 15 November (published 13 November) 2008.

Dear Sir,

It's unhelpful of IOFGA chairperson Kate Carmody to spread misinformation about the IFA county chairmen's forum visit to the Monsanto biotechnology facility in St. Louis, Missouri, in the US by suggesting it was paid for by Monsanto.

It wasn't paid by Monsanto. What's more, my article clearly acknowledged the only source of non-IFA funds for our USA visit, which was the FBD Trust. That makes Kate Carmody's insinuations all the more dissappointing.

IFA's visit to Monsanto was one day out of a week-long US visit covering the WTO, US Farm Bill and their beef, dairy, grain and bioethanol sectors. It was conducted with an open mind in the interests of education and knowledge.

We reported what we found for the benefit of Irish Farmers Journal readers, including many organic farmers who are IFA members. It was a factual contribution to a debate on biotechnology in agriculture that is too often clouded by prejudice and distortion of the truth.

Who fears knowledge?

Brian Barry
IFA Assistant General Secretary
Irish Farm Centre
Dublin

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The above letter claims that the president of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association, Kate Carmody, "spread misinformation" about the Irish Farmers Association's recent visit to the USA [1], and then asserts that a related article about the visit published by the Irish Farmers Journal "clearly acknowledged the only source of non-IFA funds for our USA visit, which was the FBD Trust" [2].

Both of these claims are false. The article made no mention of who funded the visit. And Ms. Carmody merely asked if Monsanto paid for it, after being told this was the case by a member of the IFA who spoke to her on condition of anonymity.

The IFA's denial is telling. Monsanto is one of the most controversial companies in industrial history. It controls almost one-quarter of the world's proprietary agricultural seeds, including 87% of the world's GM seeds [3]. Monsanto is widely regarded as one of the world's most socially irresponsible corporations [4] because of its production of PCBs, Agent Orange, and toxic herbicides, its international criminal track-record of bribery, corruption and biopiracy [5], its patents on conventional and GM seeds, and its harassment, intimidation, extortion, and lawsuits against farmers contaminated by seed dispersal and wind-borne pollen from its patented GM crops [6].

The IFA denies that Monsanto funded their trip to the USA by claiming the money came from the FBD Trust, a charitable organisation which exists primarily to fund grants and scholarships for "agricultural education and research" [7].

In the interest of transparency, the IFA must now answer the following questions:

a.

Did Monsanto provide the FBD Trust with financial support for this or any other IFA trips to the USA, and/or for any other purposes?

b.

Did Monsanto provide the visiting IFA delegation with any in-kind benefits such as free travel, hotel accomodation, entertainment, or any other gifts?

c.

Has Monsanto ever provided sponsorship or other kinds of funding to the IFA?

d.

Does Monsanto provide advertising revenue and/or sponsorship to the Irish Farmers Journal [8], which is widely recognised as the voice of the IFA?

e.

Does Monsanto provide sponsorship or funding to the FBD Trust (which publishes the Irish Farmers Journal), or to any other organisational members of the related FBD Group and FBD Holdings plc?

f.

Do the IFA, the FBD Trust, any other members of the related FBD Group and FBD Holdings plc – or any directors of these companies – own shares in Monsanto?

Who fears knowledge? The IFA consistently denies the evidence of the dangers of GM farming, including 216 reports of GM cross-contamination of conventional and organic crops in 57 countries [9]. Moreover, the IFA failed to respond to an invitation to participate in a public discussion of GM food and farming issues at the Green Ireland Conference on branding for food, farming and ecotourism in 2006 [10].

The GM-free Ireland Network [11] now invites the IFA to participate in a second conference to examine the agronomic, health, environmental, legal, economic, food security and food sovereignty aspects of GM food and farming on the island of Ireland, with an equal number of speakers nominated by both sides of the debate, to be held in 2009.

If the IFA really has an "open mind" on this subject "in the interests of education and knowledge", they should accept this invitation. We await their response.

References:

1. See the letter "Pro-GM propaganda in press" from Kate Carmody (President of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association) to the editor of the Irish Farmers Journal, dated 8 November, published 6 November 2008:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php#IFJ-carmody (see below under 6 November).

2. The above-mentionned letter was sent in reaction to the article "Monsanto research impresses" published in the Irish Farmers Journal on 9 October (dated 11 October) 2008: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2008/oct.php#mri. The article claims, inter alia, that Monsanto's "objective between 2000 and 2030 is to double the yield from corn, soybean and cotton, while inputs will be reduced by one third" and "The IFA leaders reached a clear conclusion: Europe cannot afford to fall further behind in the race to deploy new technologies in agriculture."

3. Based on industry statistics, Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits (including those licensed to other companies) accounted for 87% of the total world area devoted to genetically engineered seeds in 2007. The company claims that it licenses its biotech traits to an additional 250 companies. UK consultancy firm, Cropnosis, puts the global value of GM crops in 2007 at $6.9 billion. Source: Who Owns Nature? Corporate power and the final frontier in the commodification of life, ETC Group, November 2008: http://www.etcgroup.org/_page24?pub_id=707

4. Monsanto has faced numerous lawsuits because of its irresponsible and predatory behaviour, as widely reported in the international media (but not in Ireland). The company is now trying to position itself as a "life sciences" company pledged to corporate social responsibility, sustainable development, environmental protection and solving world hunger.

See the following articles and videos:

•

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear, by Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, Vanity Fair magazine, May 2008:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?printable=true¤tPage=all

Democracy Now video interview with Vanity Fair contributing editor James Steele and co-author of the article "Monsanto's Harvest of Fear":
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2008/may/video/dnB20080506a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=19:15

•

The World According to Monsanto: this critically acclaimed investigative documentary film by Marie-Monique Robin was broadcast internationally by ARTE in May 2008. Using hitherto unpublished documents and the testimonies of victims, scientists and politicians, the film pieces together the origins of Monsanto's industrial empire built upon lies, collusion with the American government, pressure and attempted corruption, and its worldwide introduction of patented GM crops without any proper risk assessments of their health and environmental impacts.

View the video online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMleWZXhi6s

Purchase the DVD: http://www.arteboutique.com/detailProduct.action?product.id=245754

Real News Network video interview on the making of the film "The World According to Monsanto":
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74& jumival=1582&updaterx=2008-06-22+09%3A47%3A01

5. Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowldedge. By Vandana Shiva. Green Books, in association with the Gaia Foundatin, 1998. ISBN 1 85649 993 4. http://www.greenbooks.co.uk

6. For details of Monsanto's harassment and patent infringement lawsuits against contaminated farmers, see:

•

GM-free Ireland interview of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who lost ownership of his seeds and crops after being contaminated by Monsanto's patented GMOs:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php

•

Percy Schmeiser's keynote speech at the Green Ireland Conference at Kilkenny Castle, June 2006:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/pschmeiser.php (html)
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/P.Schmeiser.pdf (pdf)

•

Monsanto extortion letter against a contaminated farmer:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/exhibits/D.php

Sign the Millions Against Monsanto petition at http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1265

7. FBD Trust owns 9 per cent of the insurance company Farmer Business Developments (FBD) http://www.fbd.ie, with which it shares some common directors. FBD is one of Ireland's largest insurance companies and the country's leading insurance broker in the food & agricultural sector; it also provides advice on personal and company finance. FBD's biggest shareholder is Farmer Business Developments plc, which stumped up most of the capital needed in the 1970s to set up what is now FBD Holdings. Farmer Business Developments currently owns 25 per cent of FBD. FBD also has investments in the hotel and leisure industry in Ireland (where it owns the Tower Hotel Group) and Spain (where it owns the Sunset Beach Club and La Cala Resort). FBD Holdings plc is the investment holding company for all of the companies that comprise the FBD Group http://www.fbdgroup.com.

Irish farmers should note that FBD refuses to provide farm insurance for GMO risks (including crop losses, contamination, and patent infringement lawsuits). According to the Irish Patent Office, Irish and EU law fails to protect Irish farmers from the kind of patent infringement lawsuits which Monsanto has successfully filed against contaminated farmers in the USA and Canada (see note 6 above).

8. The Irish Farmers Journal http://www.farmersjournal.ie is known locally as "the Pravda of agribusness". This weekly paper is owned by the Agricultural Trust, a registered charity whose stated objective is to be "the best source of Irish farming and rural news". But the Journal's coverage of GM food and farming issues is demonstrably biased in favour of Monsanto and the GM farming industry.

Evidence of this bias is well documented in "Debating GM: An analysis of GM coverage in the Irish Times and the Irish Farmers Journal from March 2004 to February 2006", by Emma Somers of the Dublin Institute of Technology. The study's quantitative and qualitative analysis of 30 articles on GM issues in the Journal found that 70% of the articles quoted the "power elite"; 47% quoted EC or government officials; 44% quoted the biotech industry and its lobby groups; 10% quoted farmers; none quoted the GM-free Ireland Network or any other Non Governmental Organisations which have the most concern and independent scientific expertise on GM food and farming.

This bias provides ample legal grounds for the Revenue Commissioners to revoke the Agricultural Trust's charitable status.

9. The GM Contamination Register Report 2007: Annual review of cases of contamination, illegal planting and negative side effects of genetically modified organisms, published by GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International. The report exposes 39 new instances of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007. Most of the contamination involved such staple crops as rice and maize, but also included soy, cotton, canola, papaya and fish. Over the past 10 years, the annual Register Report has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries. Summary: http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org
Download report: http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/index.php?binobj=file&cmd=passthru&oid=83

10. The President of the Irish Farmers Association was invited to speak at the Green Ireland conference in 2006, but did not do so. This international event was co-hosted by the GM-free Ireland Network and An Taisce – the National Trust for Ireland. Speakers included leading experts on GM food and farming from America, Asia and Europe, who gave a strong warning that Ireland's world famous clean green image – which provides a competitive advantage for our food, farm, and tourism industries – will soon be lost if the Irish government and the Irish Farmers Association fail to resist pressure from the WTO and the European Commission to force the release of genetically modified animal feed, seeds, crops, trees, fish and livestock here. See conference proceedings at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/index.php

11. The GM-free Ireland Network http://www.gmfreeireland.org is a coalition of 130 food, farm and restaurants organisations, all the country's leading chefs, numerous food businesses, NGOs, doctors, students, citizens, and 18 local authorities collaborating to keep Ireland free of GM food and farming. We have the largest number and broadest diversity of stakeholders of any Non Governmental Organisation on this island. As of November 2008, our 32,000 organisational members and the counties and towns which oppose the cultivation of GM crops represent over one million citizens. Please support our lobbying and public awareness campaigns: annual membership fees are €25 for individuals, €100 for non-profit organisations, €500 for businesses. Larger contributions are also welcome. Please make out your cheque to "GM-free Ireland" and mail it to us at this address: GM-free Ireland Network, Little Alders, Knockrath, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow, Ireland • tel +353 (0)404 43885 • email: mail@gmfreeireland.org • www.gmfreeireland.org

_______________________

Re: speech of Minister of State Mr T Sargent to the Terra Madre Conference September 5 2008
- reference to GM crops

Irish Farmers Journal (Letters), 15 November (published 13 November) 2008.

Dear Sir:

With reference to this speech by Mr Sargent, I bring to your attention the subjective, unrepresentative and grossly inaccurate comments made by this minister. As a citizen, he is of course, entitled to his views. However, as a Minister with governmental responsibilities any such pronouncements to a public audience should be responsible and based on fact. His comments are therefore either a deliberate case of misleading the public or he is badly advised by staff in his department.

Some facts are provided for you (below) about the impact of GM technology globally (that are representative of the real world of commercial farming and come from peer reviewed scientific journal references - notably see Brookes & Barfoot (2008) Global impact of biotech crops 1996-2006: socio-economic and environmental impacts in Agbioforum 11 (1), 21-38 - www.agbioforum.org):

1. In 2007 about 12 million farmers around the world planted biotech crops. 90% of these were resource poor farmers in developing countries with an average farm size of less than 1 hectare. They chose to use the technology because it improved their profitability, delivered higher levels of income, reduced risk of crop damage and failure, contributed to feeding their families and to improving the standard of living of their households. Farmers do not have to use this seed and are free to use alternatives. They choose to use the technology because it delivers direct benefits to them - e.g., in India and the Philippines household income levels have typically increased by over a third for many farmers using biotech insect resistant cotton and maize). This technology came from both the private sector (including large multi-national seed companies) AND the public sector (e.g., much of seed used by Chinese biotech cotton farmers comes from the state not large corporations).

2. Since 1996 biotech traits have added 53.3 million tonnes and 47.1 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and maize, and added an extra 4.9 million tonnes of cotton lint and 3.2 million tonnes of oilseed rape. Production of soybeans, maize, cotton and oilseed rape on the areas planted to biotech crops in 2006 were respectively +20%, +7%, +15% and +3% higher than levels would have otherwise have been if GM technology had not been used by farmers. In terms of contributing to feeding the world - the additional production arising from biotech crops (1996-2006) has contributed enough energy (in kcal terms) to feed 310 million people for one year (equal to the energy requirement of the combined populations of Indonesia and Vietnam).

3. Farmers using biotech traits have increased their incomes by a total of $33.8 billion (1996-2006). About half of this has been to farmers in developing countries.

4. The technology has also resulted in important environmental benefits. Pesticide use on the four crops in the countries where biotech crops have been planted have fallen by 286 million kg (-7.9%), resulting in a larger, 15.4% reduction in the associated environmental impact (as measured by the indicator, the environmental impact quotient (EIQ) - see Brookes & Barfoot (2008) for further details). Greenhouse gas emission reductions have also been facilitated, equal to 14.76 billion kg of carbon dioxide, equivalent to removing 6.56 million cars from the roads for a year (25% of registered cars in the UK).

5. There is not a single piece of credible evidence published in a peer reviewed scientific journal documenting any adverse health impact associated with this technology. In fact, there is strong evidence that positive health benefits arise from this technology, for example the significant reduction in levels of mycotoxins in Bt maize relative to conventional and organic alternatives.

6. The existence of superweeds associated with GM herbicide tolerant (GM HT) crops is a myth. The development of weeds resistant to herbicides is not a new development in agriculture and is, therefore, not an issue unique to the adoption of GM technology in agriculture. All weeds have the ability to adapt to selection pressure, and there are examples of weeds that have developed resistance to a number of herbicides and to mechanical methods of weed control (e.g., prostrate weeds such as dandelion which can survive mowing).

Weed resistance occurs mostly when the same herbicide (s), with the same mode of action have been applied on a continuous basis over a number of years. There are hundreds of resistant weed species confirmed in the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds (www.weedscience.org). Worldwide, there are less than 20 weed species that are currently resistant to glyphosate, compared to over 90 weed species resistant to ALS herbicides and over 60 weed species resistant to triazine herbicides, such as atrazine. Several of the confirmed glyphosate resistant weed species have been found in areas where no GM HT crops have been grown.

Prior to the commercial planting of GM HT crops, glyphosate was used before planting to control weeds. With the adoption of GM HT technology farmers were able to use glyphosate in the crop to control a different set of weeds (to those in the pre-planting phase). As glyphosate is the primary herbicide used in GM HT crops planted globally, and the adoption of this technology has played a major role in facilitating the adoption of no and reduced tillage production techniques in North and South America, it is possible that these factors are contributing to the emergence of weeds resistant to herbicides like glyphosate and to weed shifts towards those weed species that are not well controlled by glyphosate. In addition, it is possible that herbicide tolerant plants could become volunteers in a subsequent crop which cannot be controlled by using glyphosate. Control of glyphosate resistant weeds is achieved in the same way as control of other herbicide resistant weeds, via the use of other herbicides in mixtures or sequences. GM HT crops have no effect per se on weed control as it is the herbicide programme used with them that provides the selection pressure. The effect on the environment of having to control the limited incidence of herbicide resistant weeds in GM HT crops is very small and still produces a significant net environmental gain relative to the non GM alternative form of production.

Yours etc.

Graham Brookes, Director
PG Economics Ltd
Dorchester, Dorset, UK

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The remarks on GM food and farming which so irritate Graham Brookes were made on 5 September 2008 by Ireland's Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent T.D. at the Terra Madre Ireland conference held in Waterford:

"The whole GM debate is for me, like for many people here, at the heart of sustainability and the empowerment of people to grow food. If that power is taken away – and the corporate spin is certainly very strong in the direction of some kind of silver bullet being available through GM – we'll have gone beyond the point from which it's very difficult to come back. So we are in this generation, I believe, holding a very important responsibility. And when we look at the experience of farmers – and I think it's important to talk to farmers rather than to their corporate masters and their professionally-paid spin doctors – the farmers are saying GM is not the panacea for them. Whether you go to the universities which have been carrying out these studies – in Nebraska and Kansas, from Iowa to India – they tell you that farmers have been experiencing not greater but less yield, losing money, and losing market share. The exact opposite of the spin that is being put out there.

And that's before we talk about the health risks (and they do have to be talked about), the superweeds, the fossil fuel dependency (which Colin Sage eloquently pointed out here we cannot continue with - we have to move on from our short-term flirtation with fossil fuels, they are not going to be around to get us out of this particular hole that we have dug for ourselves). So I do feel that the GM debate is, in that context, a dangerous distraction from the fundamental challenges that have to be faced up to. And the option for us in Ireland is very clear: Ireland – the food island: we can sell that! The green clean food island - they really want that in Germany, as we heard from Professor Ham last night at the organic conference. Anywhere you go where our main markets are, they want that green clean food island. How about if Bord Bía [the Irish Food Board] tries to sell Ireland – the GM laboratory? I wonder how that would go down. Well let me tell you, that would be the end!

So I am particularly glad that Minister Gildernew is here because – she will speak for herself but I have some idea of her opinions on this from the discussions we've had in the past – the Programme for Government does not mince its words but also does not take anything for granted. We have to negotiate the establishment of Ireland as a GM-free zone. And that means live GMOs, that means release."

Speaking at the same event, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Michelle Gildernew MP, supported the call for the island of Ireland to be declared off-limits to GM crops:

"We must protect the diversity of both plants and animals, and avoid damaging natural resources and contributing to climate change... Once we go down the GM route there is no going back: we need to keep Ireland GM-free. And I think that issue - we might not fully recognise it now, but in a very short period of time we could have a unique selling point that nobody else in the world has. And I think as an island economy, we have to protect our status."

For more information see "Two Governments call for Ireland to become a GM-free zone", GM-free Ireland press release, 10 September 2008 http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI42.pdf

______

The following profile of PG Economics was provided by Corporate Watch at

http://web.archive.org/web/20050226063125/www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=308&page=P which features many useful hyperlinks not included in the text version below.

PG ECONOMICS

Peter Barfoot and Graham Brookes are co-directors of the UK-based company PG Economics Ltd - 'Independent and objective consultants servicing the agricultural, agricultural supply trade, rural and food industries'.

PG Economics has produced a number of reassuring 'reports dealing with the economic and strategic issues of GMO crops through the food chain'.

In publishing the reports, PG Economics has issued press releases such as:

•

GM and non GM arable crops can co-exist in the EU without problems: says new research paper

•

Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems

•

GM opponents' theory on co-existence 'exaggerated' according to new report

•

New research proves that co-existence is NOT a problem

The headlines generated include:

•

New study supports GM crop co-existence Co-existence Thought Possible for Maize in Spain

•

Consultants Say Biotech Crops Easily Coexist with Conventional and Organic

•

GM contamination claims 'exaggerated', claims study

•

Successful co-existence for GM food crops in 5 steps, new research

•

Study backs GM co-existence

For the biotechnology industry, such headlines are literally 'good news', particularly when generated by an 'independent and objective' source. BioScience UK, the website of GM company Bayer CropScience, made plain its excitement in May 2004, 'Can GM and non-GM crops really co-exist in the European Union? According to the respected economic consultants group PG Economics, yes they can!!'

BioScience UK did not mention that the report was commissioned by Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (ABE), an industry lobby group whose members include Bayer CropScience, as well as BASF, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta. Nor was this fact mentioned by PG Economics in its press release of the report's findings. ABE was mentioned in the report itself but without clarification of ABE's membership or of the fact that it is an industry body.

PG Economics says of its customers, 'Our clients come from both public and private sectors. These include the leading biotechnology companies, agro-chemical manufacturers, seed companies & plant breeders, animal feed ingredient manufacturers, breakfast cereal manufacturers, oilseed crushers, food processors, starch/sweetener manufacturers, farmers organisations, UK government (eg, DEFRA) and the European Commission.'

According to PG Economics, the company's Philosophy and Attributes include, 'Active customer involvement in the development of consultancy project targets and implementation'. PG Economics also assures potential customers that from the initial point of contact it will 'endeavour to put forward a proposal to define our methodology and expected outcomes'. (What PG Economics can do to assist you)

As well as Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (ABE), the company's customers are known to have included ABE's UK equivalent, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), Du Pont, American Cyanamid, the American Soybean Association, Novartis, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Monsanto Europe, the European Commission, Cebecco, Weetabix and the UK Government's Cabinet Office Strategy Unit.

There is a striking congruence between the known goals of some of these organisations and the findings of the research they have commissioned. For instance, the report GM Rice: Will This Lead the Way for Global Acceptance of GM Crop Technology? was commissioned by the biotech-industry backed International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), which works to achieve the rapid transfer of GM crops into the developing world.

PG Economics' ISAAA report concludes that the adoption of GM rice by developing countries would mean:

•

for consumers - lower real prices, greater security of supply, and the availability of nutritionally enhanced rice;

•

for farmers - reductions in costs of production, higher yields, greater flexibility/convenience in production, and additionalrevenues;

•

for developing countries - improved food security, improved health and welfare for their people, and environmental benefits.

The only losers from the adoption of GM rice in developing countries, according to the projections in the report, would be (a) those farmers who failed to adopt GM rice and (b) the biotech industry itself which would make little money out of its adoption while losing sales of pesticides. On the other hand, GM rice would be so successful that it would lead to 'spin off' gains 'for adoption of GM technology in other crops' as well as encouraging the global acceptance of GM.

In terms of biotech industry PR, the findings of the PG Economics' report read like a dream come true. Its carefully argued conclusions are, in fact, indistinguishable from the industry's own promotional claims.

The key findings of the report press released as Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems, says new research paper, were also music to the ears of the customer that commissioned it - the Agricultural Biotechnology Council. The ABC is made up of biotech companies anxious to see the early introduction of GM crops into the UK. The ABC's member companies are BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta.

Once again PG Economics' press release failed to mention who had commissioned the report. The report itself did mention the sponsor but again failed to make clear that the ABC, whose initials are remarkably similar to those of the AEBC - the UK Government's Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, is a biotech industry body.

Another PG Economics report, which argued that GM crops coexisted successfully with conventional and organic crops in the United States, led to accusations that the company had misrepresented the findings of a survey of organic farmers in order to support its premise. The paper stated that claims by 'anti-GM groups' that GM and non-GM crops cannot coexist in North America were 'greatly exaggerated' and that coexistence measures had 'been delivering effective coexistence for nearly nine years'.

The conclusions of the PG Economics paper were heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). According to Ken Roseboro, the OFRF survey actually showed 'the exact opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers'.

Roseboro writes, 'The main problem with PG Economics' findings is that they ignored the fact that the OFRF survey included organic farmers in areas where GM corn and soybeans are not grown. In fact, the survey had 1,034 respondents, but only 100 to 150 (ie a maximum of about 15%) produced corn or soybeans and were at-risk from GM crops.

'Farmers who live in Midwestern states, where the majority of GM corn and soybeans are grown, reported significant impacts. In these states, 70 to 80% of respondents reported negative impacts from GMOs. In addition, up to 88% of organic farmers in Midwestern states said they had to take some measures to protect their farms from GMO contamination. By quoting only the nationwide statistics the PG Economics authors, Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, are able to minimise the problems caused to non-GM and organic growers.' (Biotech, organic coexistence research paper skews facts to support dubious conclusion - emphasis added)

That Brookes and Barfoot might feel more sympathetic to the biotechnology industry rather than its critics or organic farmers would not be surprising. Not only is their company heavily dependent on both GM crops as a research issue and GM industry clients, Barfoot has spent the vast majority of his career either working in the biotech industry or in businesses wholly dependent on it.

Two years before he co-founded PG Economics, he launched the website of BioPortfolio Limited, of which he is still the MD. The site claims to offer 'a global directory on biotechnology businesses and acts as a "jump site" to corporate web sites, news and stock prices.'

During the mid-1990s Barfoot was also involved with Meredith Lloyd-Evans of BioBridge Associates - a biotechnology business development consultancy. Barfoot and Lloyd-Evans also jointly authored, EU Boasts Good Science Base and Economic Prospects for Crop Biotechnology

Lloyd-Evans is a fervent supporter of 'crop biotechnology'. He has described Greenpeace's opposition to GM crops as having 'no science behind it'. Lloyd Evans says it has 'much more of the flavour of a sustained witch-hunt, based on the same kind of doctrinaire and destructive propaganda that underpinned Lysenko's diatribes against rational plant and animal genetics in the US (mainly aimed at his scientific and political rivals and doubly devastating because of the support he obtained from Stalin), Goebbels's and Goering's campaigns against non-Aryan activities, including science and other pursuits that might lead to national progress, and Pol Pot's dehumanisation of his invented ideological opponents'. (AgBioView)

Barfoot's co-author and business associate has also attacked the 'organic movements' as being 'more like extremist religious cults than logical realists'. On the role of GM critics in relation to the refusal by some African countries to accept GM-grain as food aid, he goes so far as to say, 'their eco-imperialism is the closest that we in the Western world are now getting to supporting genocide in the third world'.

Prior to working with Lloyd-Evans, Barfoot had a 12 year stint (1985-1995) with the Agricultural Genetics Company, which eventually led onto Axis Genetics. Axis' aim was to produce pharmaceuticals from GM plants, as well as insect resistant GM plants, but both projects floundered as a result of the anti-GM backlash of the late 1990s. Axis Genetics was at the very centre of that storm as its products included the GM potatoes researched by Dr Arpad Pusztai and colleagues. Pusztai's research suggested that the Axis GM potatoes had damaging effects on rats.

Axis was founded by Paul Rodgers. As well as working for Rodgers' company, Barfoot produced a report on GM for another company co-founded by Rodgers - Pestax Ltd. Pestax, like Axis, failed amidst the public backlash against GM.

Rodgers' partner, Dr Geraldine Rodgers, has made public statements every bit as extreme as those of Lloyd-Evans. Rodgers warns, 'Eating organically grown food puts consumers at risk of the following diseases: Food poisoning from: Salmonella, E.coli 0157 and Cryptosporidiosis, mycotoxin poisoning, liver cancer and other cancers (e.g oesophageal) and probably new variant CJD... While everyone's peering at GM foods down an electron microscope we could be in for the much heralded epidemics of cancer courtesy of the organic farming lobby'. (Eating Organically Grown Food Puts Consumers at Risk of Diseases)

It must raise questions about the extent to which PG Economics can be styled 'independent and objective consultants' when it comes to issues like the co-existence of GM crops with organic agriculture given that:

•

the clients for its co-existence reports are almost invariably the biotechnology industry or its close associates

•

much of Peter Barfoot's career has been spent in businesses dependent on the succes of the biotechnology industry, as well as in an entrepreneurial culture marked by extreme antipathy towards both organic farming and those who raise concerns about GM crops.

How to Rig a Monsanto GM trial
Take a look at Australia's latest

OpEdNews, 15 November 2008. By Linn Cohen-Cole

From a report by Julie Newman.

Media has devoted attention to Andrew Weidermann's GM trials in Australia, but has failed to notice that the trials had been manipulated in a series of ways to make the GM-canola look as though it outperformed normal canola.

Julie Newman, reporting on these trials, asks "Why has there been so much promotion of GM trials but little attention to detail?"

What details were overlooked?

"The non-GM varieties could not perform to their full potential because standard weed control was avoided."

She begins by noting that GM-canola offers no real "advantage" at all. Its only difference is that it was made resistant to Roundup Ready Glyphosate, Monsanto's pesticide. That is, the GM-canola is nothing special in terms of anything it has to offer about the canola. It is simply altered in tie it to Monsanto's own product.

"The agronomic difference between GM and non-GM herbicide tolerant canola is [only] the type of chemical that it is resistant to," Ms. Newman explains. She then suggests that a fair comparison between GM-canola and normal canola would be performance trials that compared weed control using different chemicals and at optimum times.

She said that the trials on Andrew Weidermann's property which were made much of by the media, completely failed to do that. (In fact, they did the opposite.)

The preferential treatment of the GM-canola

Only the GM-canola was treated as recommended and at the optimum times. She notes that "the recommendations for the Roundup Ready canola were followed well and spraying was done when weeds were manageable. Even so, despite ideal treatment, hogweed and vetch survived and there was a second germination of weeds (including hogweed)."

The step-child treatment of the normal canola

When it came to treating the normal canola, she explains that the standard practice for it would be to apply "a knockdown herbicide of glyphosate prior to sowing but this was not applied. In a blatent disregard for standard practise of triazine tolerant varieties, no pre-emergent triazine was applied which is essential to the success of TT varieties."

She goes on to add that the next application for the normal canola came two months after planting though ryegrass size already "exceeded label recommendation for control.... This weed control was well outside label recommendations and would have had a serious yield drag due to lack of weed control, particularly in early growth stages."

Oh, Monsanto, this is a low-down dirty trick, which would have been obvious to any farmer, yet one so easy to play on city reporters, don't you find?

Ms. Newman, not so easily taken in, notes that "It is not surprising that there was ryegrass survivors in the Clearfield varieties as again the herbicide recommendations were not followed."

Not only was the recommended timing not followed but an "excuse of "bad weather" was given for [the] delay to which Ms. Newman countered that "no rain was recorded at the optimum spraying time."

Reporters were not been present during the months of growing and spraying so were unable to observe that the ideal timing for treatment was followed for the GM-canola or that the recommendations for appropriate timing were not followed for the normal canola. Instead, they came to see the plants themselves and were subject to other tricks being played which they seem not to have been knowledgeable enough to discern.

1. "A tall variety (of the GM-canola) was planted to provide the impressive visual difference in height for those that were not aware that Australian plant breeders have been deliberately breeding for shorter varieties."

2. "For an additional visual extra, triazine tolerant varieties [the normal canola] were sown far thicker resulting in a spindly look ..." That is, normal plants were sown twice as close together which affected their robustness whereas the Roundup Ready varieties (the GM-canola) looked more robust because they were not crowded into splindliness.

Ms. Newman is quite direct about the false outcome.

"As treatment of non-GM seriously deviated from the norm, it is valid to say that trials have been manipulated to give a false benefit to GM varieties by compromising non-GM comparisons. It is a sad day when trials need to be rigged in a desperate attempt to avoid the truth that GM fails to live up to the hype that surrounds it."

*** These trials deliberately ignored the standard weed control used for non-GM varieties. No knockdown herbicide was used and no triazine was applied when sowing. TT varieties only received a half dose of Atrazine well after it should have been applied when the weeds were twice the size as the weeds in RR crops when they received their treatment. The delay in chemical application in Clearfield varieties resulted in weeds being 4 times the size of weeds when RR varieties were treated. Both Triazine Tolerant and Clearfield varieties were treated past label recommendations when weeds were too large for chemicals to be effective. ***

The statement from Andrew Leiderman, on whose property Monsanto's GM-canola trial was carried out: "Easy to do stewardship program as Monsanto give you the answer if you get it wrong."

For more detailed information on this study, please contact Julie Newman. Phone 08 98711562

The Future of Food in an Obama Administration

La Vidalocavore, November 15, 2008. By Jill Richardson.

Note: Jill Richardson is the editor of the popular website lavidalocavore.org and a member of the Policy Board of the Organic Consumers Association.

I've been enjoying all kinds of speculation going around about who Obama will pick as his Secretary of Agriculture (the link will get you to a list of proposed names for Ag Secretary with some information about each). But I don't think the "who" is nearly so important as "what" - as in what they believe.

What do they believe the role of the government is? Do they think corporations have a right to pollute the air, land, and water for their own profit? Do they believe all people have a right to healthy food? How much information do they believe people are entitled to about their food? Is it important for the animals we eat to live and die well? And - in my mind, the most important of all - what do they know (and care) about soil????

One alarming thing I've noticed about our USDA (and most likely other agencies as well) is that they like to pick the battles that they can win. I know, that's supposed to be the smart thing to do. But it can have disastrous consequences. It can result in government promoting non-solutions to serious problems so that they can appear to be doing something without actually offending business.

Examples?

The saddest one I can think of is the case of "Mad Sheep" (a book by Linda Faillace about her family's fight with the USDA). The Faillace family was extremely knowledgeable about mad cow disease because they lived in the UK during the mad cow scare. Linda worked in a laboratory studying mad cow, actually. Her husband was an animal expert with a PhD, although mad cow was not his area of specialty.

When they came back to the U.S. they did a bunch of research and determined that they had a fantastic business opportunity if they could import European breeds of sheep into the U.S. that were able to produce 10-25x as much milk as American breeds. They worked with the USDA and Senator Leahy and legally imported some sheep. The business took off - breeding and selling sheep, milking their sheep, making and selling cheese, and teaching cheese-making classes.

When the mad cow shit really hit the fan in the U.S., the Clinton USDA was looking to "do something" in a very visible way to protect American beef exports. But the beef lobby is powerful. The sheep lobby is less powerful. But - even better - what if they just took on imported sheep? They could just fight the Faillace family while leaving the rest of the cow and sheep people alone, AND have the appearance of taking swift and decisive action to keep mad cow out of our country.

The Faillace's sheep did NOT have mad cow disease and the American government (under both Clinton and Bush) knew it too. They had over 400 negative test results from the Faillace's sheep to prove it. The sheep didn't even have scrapie, the sheep version of mad cow. And the Faillaces had provided the government with feed records for the flocks that their sheep came from, proving that they did not eat anything that might have made them high risk.

Meanwhile, the rendering industry here in the U.S. was chugging along at full speed. Slaughterhouse waste, road kill, dead pets, and more get cooked up and turned into animal feed products. Yum. It was this practice that gave rise to the mad cow epidemic in the UK. The US dragged its feet about putting an end to it here, and then when they DID do something, they left a ton of loopholes. You can feed a cow to a pig and a pig to a cow. You can feed a cow to a chicken and chicken litter (including dropped bits of food) to a cow. These loopholes STILL exist.

But what's the easy fight to pick? The USDA murdered each and every last one of the Faillace's sheep. Then they banned any private testing for mad cow and made sure to test such a small number of cows for mad cow that it's virtually worthless. So voila, we can boast that we haven't found any mad cow in our country (*almost... about 3 cows have been found now).

The Battles We NEED To Fight

An Obama Ag Secretary needs to be willing to face the most important issues head on, regardless of the size of the battle. I'm not advocating for ignoring the political realities here, and having some sort of Clinton-gays-in-the-miliary debacle. Be smart about it, but be willing to fight for what's right. Here's where we need to go:

1.

Slow down the lines in slaughterhousees:
For food safety, for worker safety, and for animal rights. You've got a case where live cows are sometimes being cut up and skinned alive and guess what - they kick! Workers get hurt. The lines need to move slow enough for them to be effectively rendered unconscious (if not entirely dead) FIRST. That's the law, and it should also be what we enforce.

2.

More testing, less trusting:
Why is it that people can actually DIE from something they bought at the store that was supposedly safe to eat? Whether it's E. coli, salmonella, mad cow, or melamine, this is ridiculous. A recent poll by Consumers Union found that 2/3 of Americans would be supportive of the FDA doing monthly inspections of the food supply. Clearly, this is a signal that the food safety problems of the Bush administration are something we're all concerned about.

3.

School Food Should Be Healthy:
No brainer, right? There's a load of stuff to be addressed here, and it will actually be debated in Congress in the next year. For some background on the issue, I recommend Mother Jones. Currently the USDA has no ability to get vending machines and other junk out of schools even if it wanted to. That must change.

4.

Factory Farms Should Be Regulated (or Outlawed?):
I, for one, see no need for even having these enormous polluting operations in our country. But whether you get rid of them or just regulate the shit out of them, SOMETHING needs to be done. Obama already said he's going to do something about factory farms, but will it be enough? Food safety, animal rights, the health of human food, and the environment are all at stake here - and each in a very major way.

5.

Agriculture Can and SHOULD Be a Solution to Global Warming, Not a Cause:
There's a way to grow our food organically, boost yield, AND sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Studies are underway to determine if this also makes the food more nutritious but it's a virtual guarantee. We CAN do this - and fairly easily - all it requires is a government commitment to making it happen. Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, and other major companies are going to lose some business if we do this. Will the Obama administration be willing to have that fight?

These are just a few of the things I'm looking for from Obama's pick for Ag secretary and his other appointments in the USDA (and FDA and EPA). But a person who believes that toxic chemicals and pollution are necessary for food production and corporate profit will not be willing to have any of these fights. A person who believes that there's a certain amount of acceptable risk of unsafe food required if companies are going to make a profit won't have these fights. And a person who does not understand the vital role living soil plays in every part of life on this planet will never even dream of having these fights.

So, Obama, what will it be? Are you with us, or are you with Monsanto?

UPDATE: A friend reminded me about the importance of GMOs in the next administration. GMOs are an incredibly destructive technology and appointing a GMO-friendly SecAg would be a very bad idea.

Can science solve Africa's food shortage?

City Press (South Africa), 15 November 2008.

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has been given the go-ahead to undertake greenhouse trials on an enhanced super-sorghum with the goal of ending hunger in Africa. But is genetically modified food safe for human consumption, asks S'Thembiso Hlongwane.

FOR a casual visitor to Motlatsi Musi's farm in Olifantsvlei, south of Johannesburg, it's easy to think its just an ordinary farm.

But it's not - 90% of his crop is genetically modified (GM).

Musi (52) was introduced to GM farming eight years ago and today seems reluctant to return to conventional or organic farming methods.

When we meet, Musi is preparing to plough following the afternoon summer rains. "Come! Jump on and let me show you around my 21 hectares," he says with a proud smile.

His lush land runs near the Klip River that flows into the Berg River catchment. It is divided into three folds; seven hectares for ploughing GM crops, a hectare for conventional crops and 13 hectares for grazing.

He says GM technology has the potential to benefit future generations. "You know until someone shows me substantial evidence that GM technology is dangerous I will not sit back and watch other people enrich themselves."

Musi, a reserved man, says that in 2004 after purchasing the farm, he planted conventional maize. But his harvest suffered a stalkborer infestation. A stalkborer is a pest that penetrates the stalk and feeds on the cob.

"Back then I didn't have a boom spray - which costs R45 000 - to spray herbicides and kill those nuisance weeds. Eish! that year's crop yielded just 60%."

A neighbour introduced him to Africa Bio, a non-profit biotechnology organisation that researches GM products in southern Africa.

"During the summer of 2005 I planted Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). This type of maize eliminates the stalkborer problem and reduces the need for harmful pesticides. My yield that year was much healthier and more profitable," he says.

Musi shows us the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report that suggests the impact of the current financial crisis on the agricultural sector could mean a surge in food prices in the coming year.

FAO points out that the rise in food prices over the past year has increased the number of undernourished people in the world to an estimated 923 million - and this number could grow.

Another piece of scholastic literature seems to suggest that South Africa is the only African country commercially growing GM crops. Currently, more than 50% of the country's maize, 70% of its soya and 90% of its cotton is GM. Up to 1.8 million hectares of GM crops were planted in the country last year, an increase of 30% from 2006.

But GM opponents believe that eating GM products could be harmful to both people and the environment.

Dr Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in Scotland, says a cauliflower virus used in GM foods could increase the risk of stomach and colon cancers.

"I don't want to be scare-mongering, I want to be understated. I'm very concerned that people who rely on local produce might be endangering themselves," he told the Scottish Sunday Herald.

"It is possible GM DNA could affect stomach and colonic lining by causing a growth factor effect with the unproven possibility of hastening cancer formation in those organs."

Another piece of literature suggests that Bt maize's pollen can kill beneficial insects like the monarch butterfly. And that rats that eat Bt toxin develop unusual intestinal cell growth.

But Musi argues: "Who says that? I want all those who say it's dangerous to plant GM crops to come forward with empirical evidence."

Leslie Liddell of the environmental organisation Biowatch says GM food is not sustainable.

"It's expensive and undermines food sovereignty and security. This means farmers have to buy new seeds every year. Seed saving is essential to agriculture.

"This ultimately means that our food production system is being owned by multinational corporations and it ... creates a dependency on the multinational seed companies."

What are the imminent dangers of GM food to society?

Says Liddell: "There have been no independent studies done on the effects of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) on human and animal health but I have outlined the dangers above relative to our environment, food sovereignty, sustainability and crop diversity."

As the debate rages, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has received government approval to undertake greenhouse trials on GM sorghum.

It is estimated that thousands of people in sub-Saharan Africa die each year from starvation or malnutrition, as they suffer from serious health problems associated with vitamin and mineral deficiency.

Dr Rachel Chikwamba, a plant biologist who is heading CSIR's Africa Bio-fortified Sorghum (ABS) project, says they seek a breakthrough that can be a catalyst to ending hunger in Africa.

"The project seeks to develop a more nutritious and easily digestible sorghum that contains increased levels of essential amino acids, increased levels of Vitamins A and E, and more available iron and zinc," she says.

The project brings together seven African and two US organisations. South African organisations include the CSIR, the Agricultural Research Council and the University of Pretoria.

The project - which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the tune of R187 million - will run over the next five years. It seeks to provide a long-term solution by creating a "super-sorghum" that grows well in harsh climates but also contains increased levels of essential nutrients.

Says Chikwamba: "The result could improve the life and health of more than 300 million people."

She says GM technology will benefit future generations. "It's unfortunate that we should say we will only take our options against the European choices. Now people say Europe does not accept GM food but Europe does not have a food-shortage crisis. I think this view perpetuates a Eurocentric view.

"Africans need to take a step forward and look at their food needs. We are desperately, desperately short of food."

But as we leave Musi's farm, what is clear is that there are no clear-cut answers to the question: is GM technology a toxic invention or a sustainable choice?

Only time will tell ...

14 November 2008

French speed up GMO authorisation

GMO Compass, 11 November 2008.

The EU Council of Agricultural Ministers is due to vote on the authorisation of RoundupReady2 soybeans at their next session on 18 November. France, which currently holds the Presidency of the EU Council, added the authorisation of the GM soybeans to the agenda.

Following voting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health mid-September, the EU Member States were given three months time to concern themselves with the GM soybeans. They are not going to take the full 90 days, which allows the Commission the chance to give the green light still this year for the importation of RoundupReady2 soybeans.

The long road to authorisation:

Food and feed made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can only be allowed on the market once they have received authorisation. The authorisation process is carried out by the EU, and the resulting decision applies to all EU Member States.

The process for authorising a new GMO is based on the EU regulation on genetically modified food and feed (1829/2003).

Phase 1: Submitting an application

An application for authorising food or feed consisting of or made from a GMO must be submitted to authorities in a Member State.

The application must be accompanied by several supporting documents, including:

•

Studies showing that the GM food is not dangerous to health or the environment

•

Analyses showing that the GM food is substantially equivalent to conventional counterparts (e.g. by analysis of particular constituents / nutrients)

•

Suggestions for product labelling

•

Methods and sample material for detecting GM content

•

An application may include a proposal for post-market monitoring.

•

Summary of the application dossier

•

The federal agencies forward the application along to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which then notifies all of the Member States and allows them to access the application. EFSA makes the application summary available to the public.

Phase 2: Safety Assessment

After confirming that all required documentation is present, EFSA has six months to provide an opinion. The decision time can be extended if supplementary documentation is requested.

•

The basis for the EFSA opinion is a scientific evaluation from a panel of experts on genetic engineering (the GMO Panel is a committee that examines applications to determine if a GM product remains within the range variability naturally found within its conventional counterparts.)

•

If a product requires approval according to the directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (2001/18), it must be shown that all measures have been taken to prevent negative effects on human and animal health and the environment. Federal agencies of the Member States must be consulted.

•

EFSA calls upon the EU reference laboratory to evaluate the detection methods provided by the applicant.

Along with a scientific safety assessment, EFSA's official opinion includes:

•

A suggestion for product labelling

•

The recommendation may include restrictions or conditions such as post-market monitoring in response to results of the safety assessment

•

Detection methods confirmed by the EU reference laboratory

•

Environmental monitoring plan for the GM plant

EFSA submits its opinion to the European Commission and to the Member States. The opinion is made available to the public, except for certain aspects that could compromise the applicant's economic interests by disclosing techniques and sensitive information to competitors.

Phase 3: Final Decision

The European Commission has three months after receiving EFSA's opinion to produce a draft of a decision. If the European Commission's draft for a decision is different from EFSA's opnion, written justification is required.

The decision process is delineated in the Treaty on European Union and in other legal documents. This process applies not only to GMO regulation, it is the general process used in all legislative decision-making (regulatory proceeding according to article 5 of resolution 1999/468/EG).

•

The European Commission submits its draft for a decision to the "Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health". The committee consists of representatives from all Member States and may approve or reject the Commission's draft with a qualified majority.

•

If the Standing Committee on the Food Chain does not agree with the Commission's draft, or if a decision with qualified majority cannot be reached, the Commission must take its position to the European Council of Ministers and inform the European Parliament.

•

The Council of Ministers has 90 days to approve or to reject the draft for a decision with a qualified majority. If the Council rejects the Commission's draft, the Commission must revise its draft. If the Council approves the Commission's draft, or if the Council cannot reach a qualified majority, the Commission's draft for a decision comes into effect.

•

Qualified majority is defined in the Treaty of Nice. Each Member State is allotted a certain number of votes according to its population (e.g. Germany 29, France 29, Czech Republic 12, Malta 3). In order to reach a qualified majority, 232 out of 321 votes are needed. Additionally, a qualified majority must represent at least 62 percent of the EU population.

All authorisations are valid for ten years. Authorised GM foods are entered into a public register.

Approval procedures for genetically modified plants (according to the directive on deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms)

The same procedures apply to applications needing authorisation under the directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (2001/18). The basis for this authorisation is an environmental impact assessment.

The applicant can decide either to seek authorisation under the directives on deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms or only under the regulation for genetically modified food and feed (1829/2003).

If the applicant wishes to receive authorisation for a GMO both for release and for food and feed, the application is submitted to national authorities, which then carry out their own safety assessment. If other Member States or the European Commission voice objections, the application is passed along to the Commission for a new safety assessment. The process then continues according to the GM food and feed procedures described above. It is possible to submit both applications - for food and

feed and for deliberate release - for one, integrated safety assessment.

See also in GMO Compass

The European Regulatory System for GM Plants and GM Food and Feed
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/156.european_regulatory_system_genetic_engineering.html

__________

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The EU approvals system for GM food, GM animal feed and GM crops is legally, scientifically and democratically flawed.

The main problems are:

•

EFSA has been widely criticised – by the European Environment Commissioner, Stravros Dimas, and many other critics – for failing to conduct proper risk assessments, routinely relying on safety claims made by the applicant companies, failing to take into account the opinions of independents scientists and member states, denying scientific evidence of health dangers, ignoring environmental and social impacts, and repeatedly approving GMOs against the wishes of the majority of citizens of EU member states.

•

The majority of member states currently debating GMOs at Council level also agree that EU risk assessment must be strengthened.

•

In 2008, the Commission's health and environment director-generals wrote to EFSA's executive director urging the authority to also assess the health and environmental impacts from the increased use of herbicides because of GM crops.

•

EFSA has admitted it will not have the scientific capacity to conduct proper GMO risk assessments until 2010.

•

When EU member states fail to reach a Qualified Majority Vote for or against GMO approvals, the European Commission automatically approves them because of its official "positive but precautionary" policy on GMO food and farming.

For more information see:

•

Friends of the Earth Europe web page on GMOs:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Index.htm

•

Zero tolerance - acting to prevent widespread GMO contamination:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html

•

Joint NGO briefing on 'zero tolerance' and 'asynchronous approvals'
A response to the orientation debate where Commissioner Vassiliou (DG Health) was asked for proposals for technical solutions. Briefing (May 2008)
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal%20feed/Briefing_animal_feed_GMOs_May_2008.pdf

•

An analysis of the DG AGRI report on the economic impact of unapproved GMOs
(May 2008)
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/position_papers/Analysis_DG_AGRI_report_May2008.pdf

•

Joint NGO response to Plenary oral question on animal feed price rises and Europe's GM policies.
Letter (April 2008)
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/joint_NGO_letter_feedprice_EUGMOpolicy.html

See also this from Greenpeace:

Greenpeace calls on Commission to shut down EFSA GMO panel

Greenpeace, 31 October 2008.

Belgium -- The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should be banned from issuing opinions on genetically modified crops until it is able to assess the long-term impact of GM technology on health and the environment, said Greenpeace today following EFSA's opinions on three highly controversial GM crops. While the EU is in the middle of a crucial debate on the reform of its authorisation system for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), EFSA has issued positive opinions on a Syngenta pesticide-producing maize (Bt11) and a Pioneer-Dow pesticide-producing and herbicide-tolerant maize (1507). EFSA has also stated that there is no scientific evidence to justify the French ban on Monsanto pesticide-producing maize (MON810).

"EFSA is becoming the laughing stock of the scientific community. Rubber-stamping anything the agro-biotech industry puts forward, with the blessing of the European Commission, is destroying its credibility," said M·rta Vetier, Greenpeace EU GMO campaigner.

For two of these GM crops (Bt11 and 1507), EFSA had already issued positive opinions. Nonetheless, these were sent back to the authority in May 2008 after the Commission found that essential elements were missing from the risk assessment. But nothing has been done yet to improve the system.

EFSA's opinions reject recent scientific evidence highlighting the negative impact caused by GM crops on biodiversity and the environment (1).

The Commission's health and environment director-generals recently wrote to EFSA's executive director urging the authority to assess health and environmental impacts related to the increased use of herbicides because of GM crops (2). In April this year, EFSA also agreed with the Commission to spend two years improving its capacity to assess the long-term and indirect impacts of GMOs (3). The majority of member states currently debating GMOs at Council level also agree that EU risk assessment must be strengthened.

"Greenpeace calls on the Commission to shut down the EFSA GMO panel until it is able to function properly under EU law," said Vetier.

Notes to Editor

(1) http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/GM-crops-too-many-risks-to-ignore

(2) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902125247.htm

(3) http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionDetailsRO.jsf

Contact information

Márta Vetier - EU GMO campaigner, +32 (0)2 274 1920, marta.vetier@greenpeace.org

Environmental impacts statements; Notice of Availability

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 14 November 2008.
Citation: "73 FR 67511". Document Number: "ER-FRL-8587-5". Page Number: "67511"
"Notices"
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-1399 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements. Filed 11/03/2008 through 11/07/2008. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 20080457, Final EIS, APH, 00, PROGRAMMATIC--Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs, Implementation, Wait Period Ends: 12/15/2008, Contact: David A. Bergsten 301-734-6103.

Green groups attack decision to lift GM crop moratorium

ABC News, 14 November 2008.

Conservationists have attacked the Western Australian Government's decision to allow genetically modified (GM) cotton to be grown in the Kimberley.

The WA Conservation Council says the decision will pave the way for the introduction of other GM crops.

The Minister for Agriculture, Terry Redman, has given the green light to the commercial production of GM cotton in the Ord River Irrigation Area.

The decision comes after 10 years of extensive GM cotton trials in the Ord Valley.

Mr Redman says the GM cotton industry could be worth more than $50 million a year to the East Kimberley and could secure the future of the Ord as a major agricultural region.

But Mr Redman would not give a firm commitment to lifting the ban on other GM crops.

"This is just an announcement today of commercial growing of GM cotton specifically in the Ord River Irrigation area, but I have highlighted publicly that we are determining a pathway towards commercial trials of GM canola," he said.

"I haven't made any decision in that regard yet."

Trojan horse

However, Conservation Council spokesman Piers Verstegen says today's decision shows the government is open for business with the GM industry.

"Bringing GM cotton into the ord is no doubt a trojan horse for bringing other GM food crops into the state," Mr Verstegen said.

He says the Government can not give consumers any assurance that cottonseed oil from genetically modified crops will not end up on supermarket shelves.

He is calling for the urgent implementation of compulsory labelling of GM products.

Farmers' approval

Farmers in the Kimberley have welcomed the decision.

They say they will not be producing large volumes of cotton in the short term but grower Fritz Bolton says he is grateful for today's announcement.

"It gives us more flexibility and it's very, very important to be flexible so we can not only move with what's required environmentally, but also economically," he said.

'Frankenfoods' plan

AFP, 13 November 2008.

Vietnam plans to test genetically modified (GM) agricultural crops from now until 2010 and then grow them on a large scale, media reports said yesterday.

Agriculture Minister Cao Duc Phat announced the plan in a National Assembly session this week, said the state-run Vietnam News Agency.

Under the government plan, Vietnam would from 2011 plant GM species of maize, cotton and soybean, said the news site Vietnamnet quoting experts attending a recent biotechnology workshop.

The Ho Chi Minh City Biotechnology Centre plans to grow a GM maize variety from the Philippines on a trial basis, the report said.

GM technology has been highly controversial, praised by some for increasing yields and improving varieties, and condemned by others for creating "frankenfoods" that pose dangers to the environment and people's health.

Environmental group Greenpeace has called for a worldwide recall of GM foods, with a spokesman saying this week that distributing them was "like playing Russian roulette with consumers and public health".

Western Australia lifts ban on GM cotton

Western Australia Business News, 14 November 2008.

The state government has announced it will lift the moratorium on the commercial production of genetically modified cotton in the Ord River irrigation area, boosting the prospects for a major expansion of the region.

Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman made the announcement in Kununurra today, breaking Western Australia's moratorium on all large-scale growing of GM cotton.

Mr Redman said the decision had been taken after extensive GM cotton trials in the Ord River area during the last decade, under the supervision of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Department of Agriculture and Food and CSIRO.

"The trial crops have been very successful from a production point of view, yielding almost 11.5 bales a hectare," he said.

"Over the years, trials of GM cotton in the Ord have frequently out-yielded Australian production by about 10 per cent.

"These trials have shown that there are no agronomic problems, including the control of insects, in growing GM cotton in the Ord. Importantly, there have been no environmental concerns with the crops."

The Minister said the issue of GM cotton had been widely canvassed by Governments with consultative processes within industry, the community and traditional owners of the land, the Miriuwung Gajerrong people.

"The go-ahead for GM cotton adds further impetus to the potential for an expanded Ord irrigation area. Irrigation and land planning issues have been very carefully considered," he said.

"The Government is currently looking at the East Kimberley Development package which includes expanding the Ord irrigation area from 13,000ha to more than 50,000ha of cropped land in the long term."

More than 90 per cent of Australia's cotton production was already GM.

"In the 1970s, WA tried growing non-GM cotton and it was a disaster, with the plants infested with pests," the Minister said.

"Growers had to spray pesticides up to 40 times each season. In comparison, our GM cotton trials have only required two spray applications with insecticides that are far more environmentally-friendly than the now banned DDT used in the 1970s."

Mr Redman said GM cotton should become a major new profitable industry for WA.

"The previous State Government-appointed reference group on GM crops released a report last year which estimated that GM cotton could be worth more than $50million a year to the East Kimberley, generating more than 200 full-time jobs," he said.

"GM cotton is an alternative crop option which could help secure the future of the Ord as a major agricultural region. Cotton growers facing severe water shortages in the Eastern States will also have an alternative site that is well supplied with water all year round and we may see some of their operations move to the Ord, providing relief to the Murray Darling system.

"Today's decision to allow commercial production of GM cotton in the Ord provides growers with a new opportunity to re-launch the cotton industry for this State, this time with the likelihood of much better outcomes.

"I recognise the complexity of issues surrounding the introduction of GM crops and I believe in the delivery of market choice. The Government is continuing to look at the risk management issues surrounding GM canola, with no decision to allow trials as yet.

"Labelling is clearly one aspect of ensuring consumers are provided with adequate information to enable them to choose between GM and non-GM food products.

"Australia has a rigorous food safety system that stipulates labelling requirements for GM foods. However, I am keen to investigate whether there is opportunity for improvements to the current labelling laws and compliance of those laws to better assist in consumer choice."

13 November 2008

Tumbling Soybean Prices Worry Brazilian Farmers

Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, 13 November 2008. By Tyler Bridges, McClatchy Newspapers.

PRIMAVERA DO LESTE, Brazil-- This place used to be the middle of nowhere. Then Brazilians desperate to escape poverty settled the region beginning in the late 1970s. They cut down the trees and scrub bushes that covered the land. First, they planted rice. Then they hit pay dirt with soybeans.

Within a decade, settlers founded the town of Primavera do Leste and rode a soybean boom that's turned Brazil into a leading breadbasket to the world. Primavera do Leste swelled to 60,000 residents and is expected to double in size within 10 years.

However, soybean prices have cratered in the past three months. Credit has disappeared.

Many farmers face selling their crop next year at a loss, and they wonder how they'll pay off loans taken out during the 2007-08 bumper harvest. In a town that's dependent on soybean's fortunes, fear and worry have replaced optimism and hopefulness.

"It's a coming storm," said Milton Rossetto, who's about to become the president of a local farmers group. "Everybody is apprehensive."

What's happening in Primavera do Leste is playing out across soybean country in Brazil and indeed in rural towns elsewhere that depend on other crops. Prices for wheat, corn and rice also have plummeted in recent months. This comes on top of a general weakening of the Brazilian economy.

All across South America, a continent that's prospered thanks to record high commodity prices, uncertainty abounds with the crashing prices.

Oil-dependent Venezuela suddenly faces a bleaker future. The decline in copper prices is reducing government income in Chile. Bolivia's economy will grow less with the drop in tin and zinc ore prices. The decline in soybean prices also affects soy farmers in Argentina and Paraguay.

It also will hit Flabio Pawlina, a farmer in Primavera do Leste.

Balding and potbellied, Pawlina, 42, has 16 farm hands who work the fields for him.

Pawlina came to Primavera do Leste 20 years ago and bought 300 acres of frontier for a pittance. Running water, paved roads and telephones didn't exist.

Pawlina now owns a 1,000-acre farm that's worth $1.6 million. He rents another 3,000 acres.

His bill this year for imported fertilizer was $675,000, $100,000 higher than he expected thanks to the recent rise of the dollar against Brazil's currency, the real.

"I'm planting knowing that I'm going to lose a lot of money," Pawlina said as workers nearby poured fertilizer into a cultivator as an attached tractor sat idling. "But I have to plant. I need income to pay the loan for that tractor."

No one in Primavera do Leste saw the trouble coming.

The 2007-08 soybean harvest may have been the best ever. Marcos Freu opened Armazem, a restaurant where waiters slice meat and chicken from cooking skewers brought to a customer's table. Sales of groceries and sundries at Supermercados Paranaense rose 26 percent. Sales at the local John Deere equipment dealership soared by 30 percent.

That was then.

Now Freu worries that business at Armazem will drop next year. Supermercados Paranaense is expecting growth to be halved in 2009. Sales at John Deere have begun to slip in the past 20 days with the credit crunch, local general manager Loercio Vincentin said. He's ordering fewer tractors and combines for next year.

"We're preparing for the crisis," Vincentin said.

Soybean prices peaked at $16.40 a bushel in July and now hover around $9, said Richard Brock, a U.S.-based agriculture consultant.

Soybean production in Brazil had nearly doubled over the past 10 years.

The country now vies with the United States to be the world's biggest soybean exporter. Soybeans have become Brazil's biggest farm export, worth $16.5 billion for the first 10 months this year, according to Agriculture Ministry figures. Growing demand by China and improving production have driven Brazil's soybean industry.

However, Brazilian soybean production is expected to fall slightly for the 2008-09 harvest, said Edilson Guimaraes, the undersecretary of the Agriculture Ministry.

"The lack of financing is serious," Guimaraes said in an interview. He said that soybean farmers would have access to a portion of the $2.5 billion that the government is making available for loans to Brazilian companies that need financing.

To be sure, some farmers expect to make money this harvest.

Paulo Cesar Borghetti came to Primavera do Leste in 1980 and now farms 10,000 acres. As a hedge, he locked in a lower sale price when prices were high this year.

"I don't see the soybean crisis as being that serious," Borghetti said, standing by his swimming pool.

Who Owns Nature?
New report warns of corporate concentration, commodification of nature;
highlights global resistance grounded in "Food Sovereignty"

ETC Group news release, 13 November 2008.

•

Download this news release in PDF format: http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/706

•

Download the full report: http://www.etcgroup.org/_page24?pub_id=707

ETC Group today releases a 48-page report, "Who Owns Nature?" on corporate concentration in commercial food, farming, health and the strategic push to commodify the planet's remaining natural resources.

In a world where market research is becoming increasingly proprietary and pricey, ETC Group's report names names, discloses market share and provides top 10 industry rankings up and down the corporate food chain. Not all the corporations identified in ETC Group's new report are household names, but collectively they control a staggering share of the commercial products found on industrial farms, in our refrigerators and medicine cabinets.

An international advocacy organization based in Canada, ETC Group has been monitoring corporate power in the industrial life sciences for the past 30 years. The report reveals that:

•

From thousands of seed companies and public breeding institutions three decades ago, 10 companies now control more than two-thirds of global proprietary seed sales

•

From dozens of pesticide companies three decades ago, 10 now control almost 90% of agrochemical sales worldwide

•

From almost 1,000 biotech start-ups 15 years ago, 10 companies now account for three-quarters of industry revenues

•

The top 10 pharmaceutical companies control 55% of the global drug market

With collapsing systems - eco, climate, food and financial – as the backdrop, Who Owns Nature? warns that, with engineering of living organisms at the nano-scale (a.k.a. synthetic biology), industry is setting the stage for a corporate grab that extends to all of nature.

"About one-quarter of the world's biomass has already been commodified," explains ETC Group's Pat Mooney. "With extreme genetic engineering, we're seeing new corporate strategies to capture and commodify the three-quarters of the world's biomass that has, until now, remained beyond the market economy."

Advocates of synthetic biology – the creation of designer organisms built from synthetic DNA – are promising a post-petroleum future where fuels, chemicals, drugs and other high-value products depend on biological manufacturing platforms fueled by plant sugars. In the 21st century "sugar economy," industrial production will be based on biological feedstocks (agricultural crops, grasses, forest residues, plant oils, algae, etc.) whose sugars are extracted, fermented and converted into high-value products. Synthetic microbes will become "living chemical factories" that require massive quantities of plant biomass. ETC Group warns that corporations are poised to appropriate and further commodify biological products and processes in every part of the globe – as well as destroy biodiversity, deplete soil and water and displace marginalized farmers.

ETC Group's report highlights similarities between the current financial and food crises. "Corporate-controlled food systems, suffering from decades of deregulation, have resulted in a cornucopia of calamities making us sicker, fatter and more vulnerable," says ETC's Research Director Hope Shand. Ongoing food contamination scandals, the global obesity burden and ocean "dead zones" caused by fertilizer pollution are among the food chain disasters cited in Who Owns Nature? "Unhealthy and hazardous food products are constant reminders of a corporate food chain broken to bits," adds Shand.

Governments are working hand-in-hand with corporations to deny the root causes of the crises and sidestep structural reforms. "Despite the implications for democracy and human rights, no international body exists to monitor global corporate activity and no UN body has the capacity to monitor and evaluate emerging technologies," says ETC Group's Kathy Jo Wetter. "The ongoing food emergency and imploding global economy testify to the need for monitoring and oversight of corporations, as well as social control of powerful new technologies."

Who Owns Nature? reports on daunting trends in corporate concentration and technology convergence, but it also points to a very different reality and a powerful contrast to the corporate-controlled life sciences. Although a single company – Monsanto – accounts for almost one-quarter of proprietary seed sales, about three-quarters of the world's farmers routinely save seed from their harvest and grow locally-bred varieties. Wal-Mart may be the world's largest buyer and seller of retail food, but 85% of global food is consumed close to where it is grown – much of it outside the formal market system.

"There is vast and growing resistance to the dislocation and devastation caused by the agro-industrial food system," points out Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group. "In the global struggle for Food Sovereignty, the playing field isn't level, but the scope of resistance is massive – peasant farmers, fisher people, pastoralists and allied civil society and social movements are fighting for locally controlled and socially just food and health systems."

To download the full report: http://www.etcgroup.org/_page24?pub_id=707

For more information, contact:

Pat Mooney, ETC Group etc@etcgroup.org, mobile: +1 613 261-0688
Hope Shand, ETC Group hope@etcgroup.org, +1 919 960-5223
Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group kjo@etcgroup.org, +1 919 960-5223
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group silvia@etcgroup.org, +52 55556326 64

ETC Group is an international civil society organization based in Ottawa, Canada. We conduct research, education and advocacy on issues related to the social and economic impacts of new technologies on marginalized peoples - especially in the global South. We look at issues from a human rights perspective but also address global governance and corporate concentration. All ETC Group publications are available free of charge on our website: http://www.etcgroup.org

Genetically engineered Taro banned on Big Island

The Hawaii County Council has voted to uphold a ban on genetically modified taro and coffee.

Mayor Harry Kim initially vetoed the ban.

Thursday the council voted seven to zero to override that veto.

The decision makes it illegal to grow genetically engineered taro and coffee crops.

Anyone caught could face a $1,000 fine.

Those supporting the ban say they want to preserve the brand-name value of their crops.

"We have a unique crop that needed to be protected and certainly Kona coffee farmers deserved that protection as well as well as other farmers in Hamakua, Kona, in Puna, in North Kohala, they all deserve that protection," said Hawaii County Councilman Dominic Yagong.

Councilman Yagong says he polled about 89 coffee farmers and most were in favor of the ban.

Why Obama Appointing Former Iowa Governor Vilsack for USDA Head is a Terrible Idea

FoodConsumer.org, 13 November 2008.
By National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture & the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), 13 November 2008.

•

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn: http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn102302.cfm

•

The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=2001_0920_01

•

When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

•

Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

•

Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.

•

Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.

GMOs, Food and Farming campaign
Working for healthier, tastier food that is good for the environment and people

Friends of the Earth Europe, November 2008.

Note: for latest updates on the following see http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/GMOs_highlevel_discussion.html

EU debates GMOs at the highest levels

The two high level working groups are those of the French Presidency and of President Barroso.

1. French Presidency working group on GMOs

The French Presidency has set up a working group to look at a broad range of issues around how to improve the risk assessment for GMOs. The group will be looking at a range of questions and suggestions for improvements and is set to make its proposals to the Environment Council in December. The issues are:

•

improving the environmental assessment;

•

taking into account socio-economic criteria;

•

widening the scientific expertise to evaluate risks; and

•

taking into account certain sensitive and/or protected areas as GM Free Zones.

In addition the group will discuss seed thresholds for adventitious and technically unavoidable GM content.This group could represent an opportunity to address failings in the implementation of EU GMO laws.

Download Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace's recommendations here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GP_FoEE_200808_Briefing_Adhoc_GMO_workinggroup_FINAL.pdf

It is unclear what progress this group is likely to make. Some Member States are very pro-GM whilst others are more cautious. There is a danger that this group will fail to agree. This failure could be aided by Mr Barroso's initiative, outlined below.

2. Barroso's sherpas

This summer, President Barroso of the European Commission wrote to the Heads of State and Governments of all Member States asking them to send a representative to Brussels to be a part of a political working group, also known as the Sherpa group. This group consists of high ranking officials and is chaired by Barroso's Head of Cabinet, Mr Joao Vale de Almeida. The membership of this group is not public, nor is its workplan or objectives, nor the outcomes of its meeting. However Friends of the Earth Europe has obtained these documents that can be downloaded below.

The President of the Commission has basically bypassed not only his own Commissioners for Environment, Agriculture and Health but also National Ministers who are responsible for the GMO issue.

The sherpa group is looking at speeding up the approvals process for GMOs and bringing it more into line with the US. The US has complained that the 2.5 years the EU takes to approve a GMO is too slow whilst the biotech industry and other GM proponents in Europe say that the long time means that the EU lagging behind the rest of the world. However, Europe is far from the slowest in the world. It is the US which is considerably faster than any other major GMO growing country:

•

The US takes 15 months to approve GMOs, but a safety assessment is only carried out if the company presents evidence that this is needed. Unsurprisingly no company has done this to date. GMO commercialization in the US therefore happens under a total absence of health and safety procedures.

•

China follows a strict precautionary approach on GMOs, much closer to the EU system and also takes about 2.5 years for approval.

•

Argentina takes on average 3 years to approve GMOs, and

•

Brazil takes longer still, from 3 to 5 years on average, and has a regulatory procedure closer to the EU than the US.

The sherpa's second meeting ended with a clear steer for participants to talk to their Heads of State and Government to 'have a richer debate'. Participants were reminded that Environment Ministers from the member states were meeting in October and December, in a move that seems to invite the participants to go back to their Heads of Government to tell the Environment Minister what to do in order to allow GMOs in to Europe.

Mr Barroso's office has also decided:

•

That the public is just "ill informed" about GMOs.

•

EU That GMO laws for imports and the rate of GMO approvals are a "threat to agriculture". This ignores all evidence to the contrary, more information here: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html

•

That there is a "growing interest in using GMOs inside the EU". This is despite five countries, most recently France, having banned the only GMO (Monsanto's maize) authorised for cultivation in the EU. GMO cultivation in 2007 happened on a mere 0.119% of agricultural land in Europe.

Mr Barroso's office will now write to Heads of State and Governments in November, just before Environment Ministers meet to conclude on the French Presidency group's discussions, to tell them what the Commission plans next.

Download

•

The list of sherpas here:
[the Irish sherpa, appointed by An Taoiseach Brian Cowen, is Barry Tumelty in the Department of Foreign Affairs]
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/sherpas/Sherpa_GMOs_meeting_list.pdf

•

The Chairman's conclusions from the first meeting on 17 July 2008 here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/sherpas/Sherpa_meeting_17july_conclusions.pdf

•

and from the second meeting on 10 October 2008 here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/sherpas/Sherpa_meeting_10oct_conclusions.pdf

This determination to get GMOs into Europe comes from the Commission's close links to the industry itself. The WTO GMO dispute panel's final ruling did not put Europe's biosafety rules into question, nor the right of individual GMOs to be banned by Member States. The European public has repeatedly stated it does not want to eat GMOs. The American public is also beginning to call for more information, and labelling, which suggests that the tide is turning against GMOs even in the US. It seems that as the biotech industry is losing popularity in the US it is trying even harder to force its products into Europe.

Friends of the Earth has previously published research on the Commission's links to the industry, available here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/pdf/too-close-for-comfort.pdf

Other resources

Read the Soil Association's recent briefing on the growing American rejection of GMOs here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/documents/Land_of_GMfree_Report.pdf

Read FoE Europe's analysis on zero tolerance and asynchronous approvals, here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html

GM-Oh, no!
Long-term study: GMOs lower fertility in mice

Gristmill, 13 November 2008. By Tom Philpott.

Under President Clinton, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered the U.S. food supply with very little public input or independent testing. The precautionary principle crumbled under the weight of industry influence; Clinton staffed the FDA with biotech-industry insiders like Michael Taylor, who has spent his long career bouncing between the government payroll and Monsanto's.

The official attitude toward testing the health implications of GMO food has been: let the industry conduct the studies. Not so shockingly, industry-funded studies have found no health problems associated with GMO foods. Today, upwards of 90 percent of U.S. soy, and 60 percent of U.S. corn, come from GMO seeds. Those crops suffuse our food supply; by some estimates, as much as 80 percent of processed food available in the United States contains GMO ingredients.

Meanwhile, there has been precious little independent research on GMOs and health. As Nancy Scola showed in a Gristmill post early this year, public funding for agriculture research has largely dried up, and Monsanto and other big agribusiness firms have filled the void, funneling fat grants to willing researchers.

But independent study of GMOs hasn't ended completely. The government of Austria recently released the results of a long-term study showing that mice fed GM corn had lower birth rates and fewer offspring than their control-group peers.

From the Daily Mail:

The Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials with laboratory mice over a course of 20 weeks. One of the studies was a so-called reproductive assessment by continuous breeding (RACB) trial, in which the same parent generation gave birth to several litters of baby mice. The parents were fed either with a diet containing 33 percent of GM maize, a hybrid of Monsanto's MON 810 and another variety, and a normal feed mix. The team found changes that were 'statistically significant' in the third and fourth litters produced by the mice given a GM diet. There were fewer offspring, while the young mice were smaller. Prof Zentek said there was a direct link between the changes seen and the GM diet.

For years, the industry has fought back suspicion of GMO-linked health trouble by essentially saying: Hey, hundreds of million of Americans eat GMOs every day -- if there were a problem, don't you think we'd know it by now?

The GMO industry was essentially allowed to conduct an uncontrolled experiment on a population already consuming a highly processed diet low on key micronutrients and full of pesticide residues. Chronic diet-realted maladies were already on the rise.

I can see how adding yet one more toxic element to the diet could largely escape notice. The Austrian study should sound a warning call: It's time to fund serious independent research of GMOs.

Let's hope Obama keeps key federal agencies like FDA, EPA, and USDA free of GMO industry influence.

Comment by "Avelingst" on Grist website:

Well, duh.

Prez-elect Obama will have his work cut out for him if he is to choose folk to head these agencies that have not been co-opted by corporations plumping GMOs. After all, as the article points out, funding for research in agriculture has been choked off, leaving academia to whore itself to the GMO dream. Public-policy folk, too, live in a world that relies on corporate largesse, and the folks with the money are the folks with the patented seeds that can survive when exposed to their patented chemicals.

I guess I'll stick with my tried and true motto: Local and wholesome makes you love longer.

Professor looks at morality of food

Bayshore Broadcasting News Centre (Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada), 13 November 2008. By Jim Birchard

More and more people are thinking about the food they eat these days and its not just because of food safety concerns.

University of Western Ontario Professor of Bioethics Ken Kirkwood says people are considering ethical implications of the food they consume.

He says there is a certain morality to eating meals these days because the food we buy can and does have an impact on not only our own lives but the lives of people who produce it whether locally or in another country.

Kirkwood says making a decision to purchase food at a local farmers market means you have made the decision to support local producers as opposed to a large factory farm operation that have a negative impact on the environment.

He also says when consumers go shopping they can read the labels and determine if what they are buying has a local connection, and if it has been imported from a distance they can decide not to buy it.

Kirkwood says one of the major problems Canadian consumers have today is there is no way they whether or not the food they are purchasing has been genetically modified.

He says there are no requirements that food labels in this country tell people what if any of the product is composed of GMO food.

Kirkwood says as a consumer people would at least like to have to right to know whether their food has been modified or not.

Scientists call for more nanotechnology testing

Associated Press, 13 November 2008.

LONDON (AP) - Products made with nanotechnology - ranging from sunscreens to socks - are being sold to consumers without adequate scientific research or regulation, British scientists warned Wednesday.

Britain joins a host of other countries calling for more research into the safety of nanotechnology, which allows scientists to manipulate materials at the molecular level. Some fear that nanoparticles, which can often be smaller than viruses, could be unsafe for human consumption.

"There is virtually no data on chronic, long-term effects on people, other organisms or the wider environment," wrote John Lawton, author of the government-backed report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Nanosilver - which can be used to keep clothes odor-free - could kill aquatic organisms if released into water supplies, Lawton said. Similarly, carbon nanofibers that are used to strengthen car tires could damage lungs, he added.

Lawton said past generations had used materials like asbestos and leaded gasoline without understanding their impact on human health and the environment.

Scientists say the small size of nanoparticles could pose new hazards.

"Nanoparticles are tiny and can break through most barriers," Fabrizio Cleri, professor of biophysics at the University of Lille in France, said in a telephone interview. "Carbon nanotubes can break into cell membranes and nuclear membranes and can touch the DNA. There are studies on them, but my feeling is the studies are very specific and do not look at all risks."

The debate on nanotechnologies in Britain has been growing stronger over the years.

Prince Charles raised fears about the new technology in 2003 and was mocked for expressing fears about "grey goo."

"The average Joe doesn't yet know that there are nano particles in sunscreen, but at some point, this will become a public debate in the way the whole issue of genetically modified foods did," said Daniel Frankel, a nanoscience researcher at the University of Newcastle in northern England.

"We have to be able to communicate better with the public and assure them this technology is safe, if we want it to become commercially successful," he told The Associated Press.

Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been pushing for better regulations on nanotechnology.

There are currently no specific regulations for nanotechnologies in Europe.

Nanomaterials are covered by existing regulations on the use of chemical substances, but scientists say chemicals behave differently when reduced to their nano-level and the current regulations do not take these changes into account.

The dignity of your green beans

The Common Room (USA), 13 November 2008. G.K. Chesterton would be a good tonic for this sort of thinking:

A molecular biologist at the University of Zürich recently sought permission to field test wheat that had been genetically modified to resist a particular kind of fungus. He not only had to prove that the test wouldn't have unintended environmental consequences, he also had to "debate the finer points of plant dignity with university ethicists." Then, he had to satisfy government officials that the trial "wouldn't 'disturb the vital functions or lifestyle' of the plants."

Dignity? Lifestyle? Of plants? Like many a farcical road, this one was paved with good intentions. In the 1990s, Switzerland amended its constitution to require that "account to be taken of the dignity of creation"–Switzerland's word, not mine–"when handling animals, plants and other organisms."

Then, last spring, the parliament asked a panel of "philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians" to determine how this requirement applies to plants. The panel's report concluded that people do not have "absolute ownership" over plants and that "individual plants have an inherent worth." Therefore, they concluded, "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger."

Plant community?

As ethicist Wesley J. Smith has pointed out, phrases like "plant community" and the "dignity" of plants is evidence that our rejection of the biblical worldview "is driving us crazy." Having rejected the "unique dignity and moral worth of human beings," it was logical that "we would come to see fauna and flora as entitled to rights."

12 November 2008

Austrian Government Study Confirms GM Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety
Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops

FoodConsumer.org, 13 November 2008.

Los Angeles, CA. -- A long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.

Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, t here was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.

In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.

The corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal toxin, as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto's herbicide Roundup.

A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning. Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.

The principle GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. GM sugar from sugar beets will also be introduced before year's end.

Mr. Smith, who is also the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology says, "GM foods are likely responsible for several negative health trends in the US. The government must impose an immediate ban on these dangerous crops." He says, "Consumers don't need to wait for governmental action. They can download a free Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.HealthierEating.org."

Monsanto press offices in the UK and USA were unable to provide a comment on the findings for journalists yesterday.

The Institute for Responsible Technology's Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.

The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs and provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.

The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world about the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.

Contacts

Institute For Responsible Technology
Media Contact: NJ Jaeger
Expert Contact: Jeffrey M. Smith
Email: njmail@cox.net
Phone: +1-310-377-0915

Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety
Corporate Communication: Univ.-Doz. Ingrid Kiefer
Tel: +43 50 555-25000; E-Mail: ingrid.kiefer@ages.at

New biological "machines fight disease, produce power

National Geographic News, 12 November 2008. By Brian Handwerk.

Using bits of DNA like pieces in an erector set, synthetic biologists have created microscopic fuel cells, transformed harmful bacteria into intestinal helpers, and developed pill-size dialysis machines that patients could someday swallow.

These projects were all part of the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition, an annual gathering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Held this past weekend, iGEM drew 84 largely undergraduate teams from 21 nations across North America, South America, Asia, and Europe to showcase the power of human-engineered biological "machines."

Synthetic biologists use pieces of DNA, which they call "parts," as building blocks for useful new organisms.

It's a bit like computer programming, only instead of code, synthetic biologists add genetic material to alter existing organisms like bacteria, yeast, and even mammal cells.

iGEM teams designed and built their biological systems from the same free kit of parts, plus new parts they engineered on their own.

Their goal is the Stanley Cup of synthetic biology–a large aluminum "BioBrick" symbolizing the biological building block parts used in the competition and inscribed with names of past winners and handed on from year to year.

Worthy Finalists

With difficulty, a panel of experts narrowed the 2008 field to six finalists for the Grand Prize.

The California Institute of Technology team redesigned the often harmful E. coli bacteria to fight pathogens, treat lactose intolerance, and produce essential vitamins.

"It's natural for us to envision engineering bacteria in the gut, because bacteria already live there," explained team member Fei Chen.

"Natural bacteria in the gut help us with digestion, are essential for development of the immune system, and crowd out harmful bacteria," CalTech's Doug Tischer added.

"But using bioengineering we can make a good strain of E. coli that can perform beneficial, but unnatural, functions," he said.

Harvard's "Team Bactricity" used the bacterium Shewanella oneidensis (affectionately dubbed "Shewie") to create a microbial fuel cell.

Some bacteria produce electricity naturally, but to control the current the team had to engineer some new genetic circuitry.

One possible use: These bacteria could sense changes in chemical composition to monitor water quality. They would then convey the changes to a computer by shifts in electrical output.

National Yang Ming University of Taipei, Taiwan's BacToKidney project presented a bacteria that could serve as an internal dialysis machine for people suffering from chronic kidney failure.

The organism, which could work as a capsule delivered through the stomach to the small intestine, "could improve the quality of life of people suffering from chronic renal failure, who are often bound to dialysis machines," team member Chun-Ju Yang said.

Contributions from two other finalists may give researchers groundbreaking new tools to expand the realm of what's possible in synthetic biology.

The University of California, Berkeley, team's Clonebots project employs parts to help synthetic biologists develop other parts.

The University of Freiburg, Germany, team created a system to control certain proteins key to the formation of multicellular organisms. Their work could eventually help scientists to program cells to perform a variety of functions.

Quest for a Cure

The Grand Prize winners, from Slovenia, may have developed something with much more immediate human impact–a vaccine against the bacteria Helicobacter pylori.

The bacterium infects about half the world's population and is particularly prevalent in the developing world. Though many of the infected show no symptoms, others develop peptic ulcer disease or one of several types of cancer.

They team has already produced two vaccines and begun testing them on lab mice. One vaccine modifies the bacterium to make it "visible" to the immune system; the other makes the immune response more efficient.

Summing up this year's achievements, MIT researcher Randy Rettberg, iGEM's director, said the question that launched the competition five years ago has, happily, become moot.

"Can simple biological systems be built from standard, interchangeable parts and operated in living cells?" he asked. "Or is natural biology too complicated and unique?

"The answer is starting to become obvious."

Modified genes spread to local maize:
Findings reignite debate over genetically modified crops.

Nature 456, 149 (2008) doi:10.1038/456149a, published online 12 November 2008. By Rex Dalton.

Transgenes from genetically modified (GM) maize (corn) crops have been found in traditional 'landrace' maize in the Mexican heartland, a study says. The work largely confirms a similar, controversial result published in Nature in 2001 [1] and may reignite the debate in Mexico over GM crops.

The paper reports finding transgenes in three of the 23 locations that were sampled in 2001, and again in two of those locations using samples taken in 2004. Written by a team led by Elena Álvarez-Buylla of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City, the study will be published in the journal Molecular Ecology.

In 1998, the Mexican government outlawed the planting of GM maize to protect its approximately 60 domesticated landraces and their wild relatives. But newspaper reports suggest that farmers have planted at least 70 hectares of GM maize crops in the northern state of Chihuahua, and it is unclear what repercussions this may have.

Only about 25% of the maize planted in Mexico comes from commercially sold seed; the majority is saved from harvest to harvest. That's why, says Álvarez-Buylla, researchers need to pin down whether transgenes really have made it into local crops. "It is urgent to establish rigorous molecular and sampling criteria for biomonitoring at centres of crop origination and diversification," the team writes.

Allison Snow, a plant ecologist from Ohio State University in Columbus, led a team that reported [2] in 2005 it could not detect transgenes in maize from regions sampled by the original Nature paper. She calls the new work "a very good study, with positive signs of transgenes".

"It is good to see this," adds Ignacio Chapela, the ecologist from the University of California, Berkeley, who was senior author on the Nature publication. "But it took seven years."

Testing times

The original paper caused a storm of controversy [3,4,5]. Critics pointed out some technical errors, including problems with the type of PCR used to amplify the genetic sequences, although Chapela and his co-author David Quist stood by their conclusions [6]. Others questioned whether the critics were influenced by their association with the biotechnology industry, which they denied. In the end, Nature published an editor's note saying there was insufficient evidence to justify the original publication. Advocates of GM crops widely, and erroneously, called this a retraction.

A second round of criticism was sparked in 2005, after the Snow paper reported no evidence for transgenes in Mexican maize. Some criticized this article as being statistically inconclusive and lacking representative samples [7], which the authors disputed [8].

Álvarez-Buylla's team set out to resolve the issue by conducting genetic tests on thousands of maize seed and leaf samples for evidence of two transgenes: a gene promoter from the 35S cauliflower mosaic virus, and the nopaline synthase terminator, NOSt. The team found transgenes in about 1% of more than 100 fields it sampled, including some sampled by Quist and Chapela in 2001.

Jose Sarukhán, a biologist at the UNAM and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, recommended the Álvarez-Buylla article for publication in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was rejected; in a letter to the authors on 14 March this year, the journal's editor-in-chief Randy Schekman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote that the biology and genetics didn't warrant publication, and that a reviewer had pointed out the report could "gain undue exposure in the press due to a political or other environmental agenda". Sarukhán responds: "I saw no reason why it should not be published."

Norman Ellstrand, a plant geneticist at the University of California at Riverside, called the study intriguing. "The importance of the study is not in the impact of the transgenes themselves," he says, "but in the fact that their spread has occurred so easily in a country where the planting of transgenic maize has not occurred for several years."

However, the new paper doesn't confirm an important conclusion from the original Nature paper - whether the transgenes had been integrated into landrace genomes and passed along to progeny plants. Álvarez-Buylla suspects this may be the case, but she's not interested in pursuing another round of politically charged battles - and will leave that work to others.

References

1.Quist, D. & Chapela, I. Nature 414, 541à543 (2001).

2.Ortiz-Garcia, S. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 12338à12343 (2005).

3.Suarez, A. V. et al. Nature 417, 897 (2002).

4.Metz, M. & Futterer, J. Nature 416, 600à601 (2002).

5.Kaplinsky, N. et al. Nature 416, 601à602 (2002).

6.Quist, D. & Chapela, I. Nature 416, 602 (2002).

7.Cleveland, D. A. et al. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4, 197à208 (2005).

8.Ortiz-Garcia, S. et al. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4, 209à215 (2005).

Comment by GM Watch:

The above article in the journal Nature reports on research confirming that Mexico's ban on GM maize has not stopped transgenes getting into traditional 'landrace' maize crops in the Mexican heartland.

The original research exposing this GM contamination scandal was published by Nature back in 2001, but on publication the researchers David Quist and Ignacio Chapela from the University of Califonia, Berkeley, became the focus of a ferocious campaign of vilification aimed at discrediting them and their research.

The following piece (below) is George Monbiot's Guardian article exposing Monsanto's PR firm's covert involvement in this campaign. The investigation into this dirty tricks campaign was coordinated by GM Watch.

We eventually exposed that the campaign to discredit the researchers originated with Monsanto itself, as part of a much wider smear campaign against the company's critics. For more on this see MONSANTO's WEB OF DECEIT: http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit_index.html

What's disturbing is the evidence in the current Nature article (above) that factors other than science are still coming into play in relation to the publication of research that's problematic for the biotechnology industry. Note how a reviewer of the new paper apparently sought to block publication on the grounds that the researcher could "gain undue exposure in the press due to a political or other environmental agenda".

The fake persuaders:
Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet

The Guardian, May 14 2002. By George Monbiot

Persuasion works best when it's invisible. The most effective marketing worms its way into our consciousness, leaving intact the perception that we have reached our opinions and made our choices independently. As old as humankind itself, over the past few years this approach has been refined, with the help of the internet, into a technique called "viral marketing". Last month, the viruses appear to have murdered their host. One of the world's foremost scientific journals was persuaded to do something it had never done before, and retract a paper it had published.

While, in the past, companies have created fake citizens' groups to campaign in favour of trashing forests or polluting rivers, now they create fake citizens. Messages purporting to come from disinterested punters are planted on listservers at critical moments, disseminating misleading information in the hope of recruiting real people to the cause. Detective work by the campaigner Jonathan Matthews and the freelance journalist Andy Rowell shows how a PR firm contracted to the biotech company Monsanto appears to have played a crucial but invisible role in shaping scientific discourse.

Monsanto knows better than any other corporation the costs of visibility. Its clumsy attempts, in 1997, to persuade people that they wanted to eat GM food all but destroyed the market for its crops. Determined never to make that mistake again, it has engaged the services of a firm which knows how to persuade without being seen to persuade. The Bivings Group specialises in internet lobbying.

An article on its website, entitled Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World, warns that "there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved... it simply is not an intelligent PR move. In cases such as this, it is important to first 'listen' to what is being said online... Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party... Perhaps the greatest advantage of viral marketing is that your message is placed into a context where it is more likely to be considered seriously." A senior executive from Monsanto is quoted on the Bivings site thanking the PR firm for its "outstanding work".

On November 29 last year, two researchers at the University of California, Berkeley published a paper in Nature magazine, which claimed that native maize in Mexico had been contaminated, across vast distances, by GM pollen. The paper was a disaster for the biotech companies seeking to persuade Mexico, Brazil and the European Union to lift their embargos on GM crops.

Even before publication, the researchers knew their work was hazardous. One of them, Ignacio Chapela, was approached by the director of a Mexican corporation, who first offered him a glittering research post if he withheld his paper, then told him that he knew where to find his children. In the US, Chapela's opponents have chosen a different form of assassination.

On the day the paper was published, messages started to appear on a biotechnology listserver used by more than 3,000 scientists, called AgBioWorld. The first came from a correspondent named "Mary Murphy". Chapela is on the board of directors of the Pesticide Action Network, and therefore, she claimed, "not exactly what you'd call an unbiased writer". Her posting was followed by a message from an "Andura Smetacek", claiming, falsely, that Chapela's paper had not been peer-reviewed, that he was "first and foremost an activist" and that the research had been published in collusion with environmentalists. The next day, another email from "Smetacek" asked "how much money does Chapela take in speaking fees, travel reimbursements and other donations... for his help in misleading fear-based marketing campaigns?" The messages from Murphy and Smetacek stimulated hundreds of others, some of which repeated or embellished the accusations they had made. Senior biotechnologists called for Chapela to be sacked from Berkeley. AgBioWorld launched a petition pointing to the paper's "fundamental flaws".

There do appear to be methodological problems with the research Chapela and his colleague David Quist had published, but this is hardly unprecedented in a scientific journal. All science is, and should be, subject to challenge and disproof. But in this case the pressure on Nature was so severe that its editor did something unparalleled in its 133-year history: last month he published, alongside two papers challenging Quist and Chapela's, a retraction in which he wrote that their research should never have been published.

So the campaign against the researchers was extraordinarily successful; but who precisely started it? Who are "Mary Murphy" and "Andura Smetacek"?

Both claim to be ordinary citizens, without any corporate links. The Bivings Group says it has "no knowledge of them". "Mary Murphy" uses a hotmail account for posting messages to AgBioWorld. But a message satirising the opponents of biotech, sent by a "Mary Murphy" to another server two years ago contains the identification bw6.bivwood.com. Bivwood.com is the property of Bivings Woodell, which is part of the Bivings Group.

When I wrote to her to ask whether she was employed by Bivings and whether Mary Murphy was her real name, she replied that she had "no ties to industry". But she refused to answer my questions on the grounds that "I can see by your articles that you made your mind up long ago about biotech". The interesting thing about this response is that my message to her did not mention biotechnology. I told her only that I was researching an article about internet lobbying.

Smetacek has, on different occasions, given her address as "London" and "New York". But the electoral rolls, telephone directories and credit card records in both London and the entire US reveal no "Andura Smetacek". Her name appears only on AgBioWorld and a few other listservers, on which she has posted scores of messages falsely accusing groups such as Greenpeace of terrorism. My letters to her have elicited no response. But a clue to her possible identity is suggested by her constant promotion of "the Centre For Food and Agricultural Research". The centre appears not to exist, except as a website, which repeatedly accuses greens of plotting violence. Cffar.org is registered to someone called Manuel Theodorov. Manuel Theodorov [aka Emmanuel Theodorou] is the "director of associations" at Bivings Woodell.

Even the website on which the campaign against the paper in Nature was launched has attracted suspicion. Its moderator, the biotech enthusiast Professor CS Prakash, claims to have no connection to the Bivings Group. But when Jonathan Matthews was searching the site's archives he received the following error message: "can't connect to MySQL server on apollo.bivings.com". Apollo.bivings.com is the main server of the Bivings Group.

"Sometimes," Bivings boasts, "we win awards. Sometimes only the client knows the precise role we played." Sometimes, in other words, real people have no idea that they are being managed by fake ones.

For more on MONSANTO's WEB OF DECEIT: http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit_index.html

GeneØOK defends its scientific integrity from falsehoods of Swiss scientist
Demands public apology and retraction

GENØK, 12 November 2008

http://english.genok.org/news_cms/2008/november/gen_k_defends_its_scientific_integrity_from_falsehoods_of_swiss_scientist._demands_public_apology_and_retraction./66

Klaus Ammann, retired from the University of Berne, Switzerland, and guest professor at Delft University of Technology gave a presentation entitled "Do GM crops pose risks to the environment?" at the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) in Cork, Ireland during August 24-27, 2008. The power point file of the talk is available on-line at: (http://www.botanischergarten.ch/ABIC/Ammann-ABIC-Cork-20080826.ppt). In this talk, Klaus Ammann made several public accusations of scientific fraud and misconduct against GenØk - Centre for Biosafety.

GenØk is a government-mandated research centre that studies the potential risks of genetically modified foods and vaccines for human health, the environment and food safety. No one from GenØk was attending ABIC.

In our humble opinion, it behoves anyone interested in fairness and accuracy to apply at least basic standards of information gathering and evidence verification from first hand sources before making such serious accusations. Klaus Ammann has made no attempt to obtain such direct evidence from anyone at our institute. Regrettably, this unfortunate situation of unfounded allegations could have been avoided, and Klaus Ammann's confusion resolved, if basic scientific standards of evidence gathering, fitting of any responsible scientist, had been exercised (if, in fact, the quest for science and truth is the primary motivation).

Klaus Ammann is a well-known advocate of the biotechnology industry (see e.g. http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/experts.asp?id=KlausAmmann). Since we became aware of Dr. Amman's accusations against us, we have subsequently learned that he has engaged in similar irresponsible behavior directed at individuals and organizations that do not share his political or scientific views.

While it is unusual for GenØk to address groundless claims made by individuals, on this occasion Klaus Amman has crossed a line by directly slandering and defaming GenØk as an institution at a public international conference. We, therefore feel compelled to respond directly to his accusations, which are in our view irresponsible, and undermines efforts of the whole scientific community to achieve conscientious and constructive scientific discourse on the responsible use of biotechnologies in medical and agricultural applications.

We, therefore, find it necessary to respond publicly to each of his accusations. We believe that Klaus Ammann should be held accountable for his deliberate scientific misconduct.

In his presentation Klaus Ammann displayed slides stating:

•

"GENOK: How you can tell lies with a slide.." "GENOK Slide Fraud" (repeated twice)

•

"False Information replacing original legend"

•

"Semi-holistic, grossly misleading approach"

•

"An alarmist paper on the 35S promoters activities..."

Below, each of these allegations is refuted. Following that, we will discuss Klaus Ammann's apparent incompetence at evaluating evidence and sources.

1. Accusations of "Lies", "Fraud" and "False Information".

These dramatic allegations can be tracked back to a table appearing in an article by Kuiper et al. from 2001(Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant Journal 27: 503-528). In the article the table looked like this: [see http://english.genok.org/news_cms/2008/november/gen_k_defends_its_scientific_integrity_from_falsehoods_of_swiss_scientist._demands_public_apology_and_retraction./66 ]

In his talk, Klaus Ammann has labelled his versions of the table as "GENOK SLIDE FRAUD" and has given them numbers 17 and 18 in his Powerpoint series.

The "GENOK SLIDE FRAUD" that Klaus Ammann referred to is a low resolution approximation of an image apparently copied from a pdf provided in some years of our Biosafety capacity building courses. Klaus Ammann has never participated in any of these courses and therefore was not a witness to either how the material was presented or what the material looked like in its original form as a Powerpoint slide. The slides he bases his false accusations upon have been handed to him through unknown routes and from unknown sources. He did not even take the care to find out who gave the presentation that he was so upset about, nor did he bother to verify it authencity by asking GenØk. We will here explain the history of this slide so the truth can be aired.

Together with her partners INBI of New Zealand and TWN of Malaysia, GenØk runs an annual course called "Holistic Foundations for Assessment and Regulation of Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms" for professionals (scientists, regulators and civil society leaders) from developing countries. The course has so far been running for 6 years, lasts two weeks, and has become tremendously popular. We receive approximately 400 applications each year, and can only accept 40 participants due to economic and lab space restrictions. The course is designed and conducted by a faculty of 20 internationally recognized resource persons. The participants' course evaluations have been highly favourable throughout all the years. The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Minister for International Development and Cooperation and later on Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation) have been covering all expenses, and we have never received funding from any other source for this course. In 2004, Norad appointed an independent, external expert committee to evaluate the course. The conclusions of this external review were very positive, and the committee urged us to continue with the "core" course and to launch both regional versions of the course and also more specialized courses, requests that we have later turned into reality (for further details, see http://english.genok.org/courses).

It is the normal practice of our leading lecturers to provide course notes to accompany their lectures. These are provided either as powerpoint slides or as pdf versions of the powerpoint presentations, sometimes also annotated with extensive notes beneath the slides. The first slide that Ammann refers to features of a table reproduced with acknowledgements from a paper written by Kuiper et al. 2001. In the extensive notes beneath the image, but NOT shown by Klaus Ammann, were all relevant footnotes of the table.

This is the context and the version for presentation of the Kuiper et al. 2001 table in the GenØk course. [for details see http://english.genok.org/news_cms/2008/november/gen_k_defends_its_scientific_integrity_from_falsehoods_of_swiss_scientist._demands_public_apology_and_retraction./66]

This particular lecture's outline was (i) Genetic modification process, (ii) Safety of new proteins, (iii) Occurrence and implications of unintended effects. The table from Kuiper et al., which Klaus Ammann is referring to, was clearly labelled in the original Powerpoint presentation and in the pdf notes as indicating that different proteins that are subject to risk assessments are subjected to a non-uniform array of tests, so that few tests have been done on all commercial products and few or no commercial products have benefited from all possible tests (as listed in the table). When turning to the Notes Page, which was part of the hand-out for the presentation, (all the original footnotes from the Kuiper publication were included) nothing is hidden away from the audience including the original footnotes. Furthermore, it becomes evident that Klaus Ammann's allegations of "Oral interpretation: No [number] of reported cases showing acute oral toxicity" and "Later exaggerated to No [number] of deaths reported due to Bt toxicity in UNEP classes", are wholly inaccurate. For clarity, the notes provided to the participants accompanying the Kuiper et al. table are reproduced here de toto:

"Safety of new proteins"

New proteins in GMOs may come from the products of introduced genes (discussed in this slide), new products of existing genes created by insertion mutations or other effects (next slide), and existing proteins that take on new characteristics because of a change in the cellular environment (slide 3 in this series).

There are no uniform standards for testing new proteins in GMOs. The table indicates the variety and inconsistency in approaches to assessing toxicity and allergenicity, for example.

Table from {Kuiper, 2001 #1175}: "AO, acute oral toxicity; AI, acute intravenous toxicity; BI, binding to mammalian intestinal tissues; HP, haemolytic potential; ID, in vitro digestion; IR, immune response; SC, sequence comparisons with allergens and toxins; SE, sensitization, oral and intraperitoneal,.; SO, subchronic oral toxicity."

Neither in the text nor during the oral presentation has the lecturer ever referred to any "reported cases showing acute oral toxicity" or to "number of deaths reported due to Bt toxicity". This is absolutely absurd, and all that Klaus Ammann builds on is hearsay and unverified second hand information or it is the product of intentional invention by Klaus Ammann himself.

Furthermore, Klaus Ammann claims that information from the table was obscured purposefully to hide that information from the audience. In Klaus Ammann's reproduction, there is a black stripe on the slide. In the original powerpoint, that stripe is transparent highlighting used as an animation. When the slide was converted to a pdf, the conversion obscured that column. This clearly indicates that the slide Klaus Ammann used was from a second hand source. One can only guess what his intent was, in taking one visually obscured slide out of the lecture context to launch an unfounded attack of 'fraud' against GenØk, decorated with additional inventions of a supposedly 'oral presentation' of whatever source.

Given these unfortunate revelations, it is clear to us that Klaus Ammann has demonstrated evidence gathering skills that are clearly below the standard of a research-level academic and has seriously eroded any credibility of his status as a scholar.

2. Statements of "Grossly Misleading Approach" and "An Alarmist paper"

Klaus Ammann refers to a peer-reviewed article based on experimental studies performed in the GenØk laboratories (Myhre et al. The 35S CaMV promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. Eur Food Res Technol 222: 185-193, 2006).

It is quite apparent to any reasonable individual that Klaus Amman could not possibly have drawn his conclusions without taking the statements in the article intentionally far out of context. The article is based on quite common experimental approaches and designs, and draws no definite conclusions about any food or feed risks related to the reported findings. Klaus Ammann has drawn his own conclusions that are extreme and unusual.

Our peer-reviewed article demonstrated that the 35S CaMV promoter drives transcription of two different reporter genes in cultures of human enterocyte-like cells. These cells were, of course, selected for the experiments because they are related to key cells at the portal of entrance for food into the human organism. In the discussion, we comment on the findings in the following ways:

"But, irrespective of how careful and considerate selection of cell cultures has been performed, the paramount difference between in vivo and in vitro situations cannot be over-emphasized. Hence, well-designed cell culture experiments may give lead for, but never replace, in vivo studies."

"But so far, uptake of fragments containing the intact 35S promoter has not been directly demonstrated in any species."

In his ABIC talk, Klaus Ammann's bias is clearly revealed in his discussion of our published research by calling it:

"Semi-holistic, grossly misleading approach. An alarmist paper on the 35S promoter activities on animal cell cultures not mentioning that we eat this promoter daily with our normal Food without ANY harm".

Firstly, our research findings made no claim of harm to people. Secondly, Klaus Ammann's statement to support the safety of the 35S promoter is without scientific basis as it relies on assumptions and lack of knowledge rather than scientific facts (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of an effect).

Nobody is purposefully eating 35S promoters. Instead, people and animals eat plant materials that occasionally contain the Cauliflower Mosaic VIRUS (CaMV) (the source of the 35S promoter). The amount of intake will depend on how much Brassicaceae (e.g. Chinese cabbage, kale, cauliflower, cabbage) are in the diet and whether and to which extent the plants are indeed CaMV infected in that particular part of the world. So, while individuals are occasionally exposed to 35S promoters in their natural context, there are various peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that when it comes to uptake of a given DNA fragment in an organism, different contexts give different opportunities for such uptake. Hence, it is disingenuous to extrapolate, as Klaus Ammann does, from one context to another, e.g. from 35S promoters as integral parts of viral genomes, to integral parts of plant genomes.

Concluding remarks

We would like to draw attention to the misconduct definition of the US National Academy of Sciences (1992); "Misconduct in science is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research. Misconduct does not include errors of judgement; errors in recording, selection, or analysis of data; differences in opinions involving the interpretation of data; or misconduct unrelated to the research process".

Viewing the ABIC presentation by Klaus Ammann, we noticed that about 1/3 of his 42 displays were attacks on scientists engaged in GMO biosafety research. We also could not help but notice that much of the biased inferences made in his presentation were largely based on a selective use of literature references, and not fitting of a reasoned scientist. All in all, we conclude that the title of the presentation was misleading, the author did not try to answer the questions he was posing ("Do GM crops pose risks to the environment"), but instead he resorted to slandering rather than scholarship to sway his audience.

In addition to the claims we have rejected here, Klaus Amman also used two slides to discuss what he called "Inhaled Bt Pollen Fraud". This referred to the findings by GenØk researchers of antibodies against Bt toxin in blood sera from villagers on the Philippines.His claims in this case are as incorrect as in the others discussed in this document. However, we will return to that case in a specific paper currently being prepared at a later date.

In conclusion, GenØk maintains that:

1.

Klaus Ammann's reckless and unsupported claims of fraud are not only unconscionable, but slanderous and should not be tolerated by members of the scientific community. We at GenØk demand a public apology and retraction for his unsubstantiated claims.

2.

Klaus Ammann's supporting institutions (University of Berne and Delft University ) should make clear whether his behaviour is in accordance with the scientific as well as ethical standards that professional institutions should uphold.

Comment from GM Watch:

For more on Klaus Amman see http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=8&page=A

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The ABIC 2008 conference held at University College Cork was widely denounced as a gross abuse of Irish tax-payer's money for GM industry propaganda masquerading as science. The Chairman of the Geen Party, Senator Dan Boyle, described the event as "far from... intellectually honest" while Senator Deirdre de Burca slammed it as "a propoganda exercise for the biotech multi-nationals". For details see:

•

"Irish Government slammed for GM food conference" GM-free Ireland press release, 24 August 2008:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI41.pdf

•

related media coverage in August 2008: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2008/aug.php.

•

related media coverage in September 2008: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2008/sept.php.

The controversy centered on the following issues:

•

The conference claimed to provide a "balanced and scientific" discussion of GM issues, even though its agenda failed to address the agronomic, ecological, health, economic, legal, political, and food security dangers of GM food and farming.

•

It was organised by a Canadian foundation with funding from the Canadian Government, industry lobby groups, corporate agri-biotech giants Monsanto, BASF, Bayer CropScience, and BP Bio fuels, and the Gowlings law firm (which aided Monsanto's notorious GMO patent infringement lawsuit against the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who lost ownership of his seeds and crops after being contaminated by Monsanto's patented GM seeds.

•

Seven Irish Government and semi-state bodies abused Irish tax-payer funds to co-sponsor the event: Teagasc (the Agriculture and Food Authority), Science Foundation Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, the Marine Institute (Foras na Mara), the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, and Sustainable Energy Ireland. Senator Dan Boyle declared that this state agency funding of "an event that is unbalanced is wrong. The Programme for Government states quite emphatically that an all-island GM free zone is to be negotiated. This should inform the thinking of State agencies."

•

After all the negative media coverage and protests, University College Cork retroactively modified its website in a desperate attempt at damage control. Following the sentence "The ABIC programme is highlighting biotechnology advances across the agriculture, food, plant, animal, marine and pharma sectors", they added (with emphasis in bold typface) "The conference covers both GM and non-GM agricultural biotechnologies." This was patently misleading.

•

The conference organisers also falsely pretended to have invited participation from both sides of the GM debate. Shane Morris - a UCC "science communication" student employed by the Canadian government to harass the GM-free Ireland campaign (see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris) tried to get Trinity College Dublin's Science Gallery to host a last-minute "public debate" at the close of the ABIC conference in UCC. The theme ("Future Food: Organic, Biotech or Both") was logically absurd, and the set-up a joke: a single spokesperson from the GM-free side would have been given 3 minutes to speak against a line-up of conference speakers from the pro-GM side! After Morris failed to get anyone from the GM-free side to take part, he falsely claimed (in a letter published in the Irish Examiner on 29 August), that "anti-GM speakers pulled out of a public debate planned in UCC". In reality no anti-GM speaker was invited to the