GM-FREEIRELAND : NEWS





			NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • August 2009 2009: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul 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
For daily, weekly and monthly international media coverage of GM issues, we recommend you subscribe to the excellent GM Watch Newsletters at www.gmwatch.org/newsletters. You may also wish to check out our news feed for more related news. Disclaimer: The contents of this news section of our website are collected and published with great care to foster public awareness of GM food and farming issues from both sides of the debate. However, the GM-free Ireland Network does not accept any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any other quality of the information contained herein. 31 August 2009 When Cocaine and Monsanto's Roundup Collide, War on Drugs Becomes a Genetically-Modified War on Science Meg White Buzzflash News Analysis, 31 August 2009: http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/894 At the intersection of cocaine and Roundup in rural South America, Monsanto and the U.S. government are struggling to keep up appearances. That's becoming more and more difficult as the unanticipated hazards of genetic modification become clearer. Back in April, Argentinean embryologist Andrés Carrasco gave an interview with a Buenos Aires newspaper describing his recent findings suggesting the chemical glyphosate, a chemical herbicide widely used in agriculture as well as in U.S. anti-narcotic efforts, could cause defects in fetuses in much smaller doses than those to which peasants and farmers in his country were already being exposed. Loud calls for a ban on the substance were issued by Argentinean environmental lawyers, and the country's Ministry of Defense banned the planting of glyphosate-resistant soya crops in its fields. Then came the backlash. An article in an Argentinean paper recently reported that Carrasco was assaulted in a way he described as "violent" by four men associated with agricultural interests: Two of the men were said to be members of an agrochemical industry body but refused to give their names. The other two claimed to be a lawyer and notary. They apparently interrogated Dr. Carrasco and demanded to see details of the experiments. They left a card BasÌlico, Andrada & Santurio, attorneys on behalf of Felipe Alejandro Noel. It's still unclear who these people are. But the interest in keeping such information quiet or discrediting Carrasco and his findings are strongest with Monsanto, the agricultural company who first patented a glyphosate product (sold as Roundup) and also created genetically-modified crops specifically to resist the herbicide. GRAIN, an international non-profit supporting small-scale farmers and biodiversity in community agriculture, originally reported the story, evidently before the reports of threats against Carrasco were known. GRAIN has also done extensive reporting on Monsanto's genetically-modified soya crops in Argentina (which, according to the group, have increased five-fold since their introduction there, and have taken over more than half of Argentina's farmland) as well as on the use of glyphosate (which has increased fourteen-fold since its introduction, contrary to Monsanto's promises that its crop would decrease pesticide use). The so-called "Roundup Ready" crops have interbred with other plants, creating "superweeds" which in turn necessitate the use of other poisonous herbicides such as atrazine. The dangers of glyphosate are hotly debated. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does regulate the allowable amount in drinking water, but the data it has on the dangers of the chemical are all nearly two decades old, and many studies were sponsored by Monsanto. But rural agricultural workers across South America have been protesting the spraying for well over a decade, pointing to increases in local cancer rates and birth defects as proof. The Transnational Institute (TNI), a nonpartisan international group of scholars, has drawn attention to the inconsistencies and basic errors in studies refuting the dangers of glyphosate. This should come as no surprise, since Monsanto has been involved in several known cases of scientific fraud regarding the same chemical, wherein the EPA found multiple instances in which labs were paid to falsify preferred results for the company. Monsanto has also been charged in multiple jurisdictions for disseminating misleading information about its Roundup products. Yet, glyphosate is still the top-selling herbicide around the world. And it's not just used to kill weeds, either. The U.S. military sprays glyphosate from airplanes onto drug crops as part of its worldwide anti-narcotic strategy. The best known example of such an effort was named Plan Colombia by the Clinton Administration and persists today. But punishment is meted out unequally. Because glyphosate is an herbicide and is not specifically targeted to work against drug crops (as is easily deduced by the fact that it's used against cocoa and poppy plants as well as against household weeds in the U.S.), the spray kills legitimate crops, too. That is, unless you're growing Monsanto's specially-formulated "Roundup Ready" crops. The you can spray nearly unlimited amounts of the stuff, which is what it seems farmers (as well as the U.S. military) are doing. It seems that the whole operation may have backfired though, at least from the perspective of the governments that are promoting such a strategy. The effort has lead to cocoa growers cutting down national forests -- where such spraying is often against the law -- to produce their illicit crops. But Mother Nature may be rebelling against drug policy as well. Cocoa plants appear to be either evolving on their own (or with the help of cocoa farmers' active selection) -- or they are possibly crossing with Roundup Ready crops already on the ground -- to produce a glyphosate-resistant crop known as Boliviana negra. One TNI study looked at the political and commercial motives for continuing to spray the chemical on drug crops in South America regardless of findings that the effort is counterproductive at best: It is true that the United States is behind fumigation, backed by the economic interests of companies such as Monsanto and DynCorp, who share in this lucrative business -- which is one of the reasons it meets with opposition. But it is also true that the disastrous consequences of the current anti-drug policy, of which fumigation is but one component, are a reality that surpasses ideologies, and the nations that suffer its consequences firsthand must find a solution instead of becoming polarised... Colombia would not fumigate if it weren't for pressure from the US. It would be implementing other forms of eradication or offering alternative development programmes that provide income to the population. The group suggested that South American countries band together to refuse U.S. anti-narcotic spraying on environmental and human safety grounds, as has been done in Afghanistan. In 2004, Joshua Davis had the Boliviana negra plant tested to determine its provenance for Wired Magazine. He concludes that the glyphosate-resistant cocoa plant he found in Colombia was most likely developed in the fields by farmers grafting on chance genetic mutations. But the resulting article is perhaps most interesting for the taciturn response on all sides of the issue. Davis suggests that South American authorities don't want to talk about the situation because the revelation might cost countries that receive a large amount of U.S. aid to combat drug traffickers. The U.S. government doesn't want cocoa farmers who don't already know to find out about the new strain, because it can still eradicate old strains with glyphosate. And drug growers who do have the new strain certainly don't want the status quo to end, because currently the U.S. government is doing their weeding for free. But on the larger cost-benefit analysis, the biggest winner is Monsanto. The more Roundup Ready crops there are out there, the more Roundup farmers need to get rid of the weeds, as is evidenced by the GRAIN research in Argentina. The real foe of Monsanto is not drug cartels or government entities. It's scientists. When you put together the studies referenced above, which show that spraying glyphosate is harmful to humans and the environment and that it does not hamper the production of cocoa or weeds, the answer to almost everyone's problems is eliminating Monsanto. So while there's no solid proof that the men threatening Andrés Carrasco belong to the same corporation that falsified lab results on the harm caused by glyphosate or the group that told lies about Roundup, there's no doubt in my mind that they belong in the same sick club. _______________________ Food security matters but worry about food safety, says Cargill 21 Food & Beverage Online: http://www.21food.com/news/detail23364.html A senior vice-president of the American agribusiness giant says that export curbs are no solution to global crises Our government is in a flap about food; the world prices of staples such as wheat, rice, corn and milk powder doubled and tripled between 2007 and 2008, provoking food riots, hoarding and panic in developing countries, before tumbling back in the recession. Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, wants Britain to have a "food strategy". It does not impress Paul Conway, a senior vice-president and board director of Cargill, the American agribusiness giant. He reckons that governments are, as usual, getting it all wrong about food. In August, Mr Benn stepped into the media spotlight with his thoughts about food security. He wants us to think about producing more food in Britain and has launched a consultation: is our food supply adequate, is it sustainable and kind to the environment and do we waste too much food? The global food supply is the daily bread of Cargill, one of the world's top grain traders, alongside ADM, Bunge and Glencore. According to Mr Conway, this war-economy notion of growing more of our own food, of eating our plates clean, is a terrible muddle and causes more harm than good. The man from Cargill says that he is worried about food security but for Cargill, the big problem is not whether we will have enough food on the table, but whether it will be safe to eat. "What is unfortunate is that the discussion revolves around food selfsufficiency. We think the two things are different." Talk about self-sufficiency and government intervention, hoarding, market intervention and price controls, is, he thinks, "daft". Defra - the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - should not be tempted to tell farmers what to grow and how much. Nations should stick to growing what they are good at and trade surpluses. "This is a small and crowded island. The UK has a competitive advantage in dairy but for years it was not allowed to produce because of [European Union] milk quotas. One of the most popular vegetable oils in this country is sunflower oil. You don't grow a lot of sunflowers in Britain." Nor do we grow many olives. What keeps Mr Conway awake at night is the next outbreak of food contamination. He wants tighter rules and better enforcement and points to the recent melamine poisoning scandal in China. "That is the stuff we worry about - the supply chain, making sure every link is safe. Markets go up and down and we want to make more money, but the thing we worry about is safety." The upward escalator of 2007-08 made a lot of money for Cargill. The company earned $3.9 billion (£2.39 billion), the biggest profit in its 140-year history. Yet the subsequent market crash and banking crisis hurt Cargill's financial trading division and profit for the year to May fell to $3.3 billion on turnover of $116 billion. Rampant commodity prices pushed the shy grain merchants into the spotlight as the world fretted about food running out, the spectre of famine recurring in Asia and the need for a new Green Revolution if the world is to feed an extra 2.5 billion by 2050. Mr Conway found himself dragged at short notice into a video conference with China's central bank governors. "The questions were: what is causing this, what are other governments doing and what recommendations do you have for us?" It was a "perfect storm", Mr Conway told them, a confluence of events with no specific driver. Drought in Australia and Argentina, floods in Eastern Europe, government low-carbon diktats diverting grain into biofuel, expensive crude oil that drove up the cost of fertiliser and cheap money that fuelled hedge fund speculation. No single factor made all the difference. "Biofuels and cheap money had been around for a number of years. If you had to say what was the trigger, it was the weather issues - we saw a 50-60 million tonne drop in grain crops worldwide in one season." Stocks of grain had run down after years of weak prices and underlying it all was what Mr Conway calls a "good news story": hundreds of millions of people in developing countries with more money, eating a better diet, including more meat. The bad news, he says, is that some of the "good news story" has now gone away. Could this perfect storm recur? Yes, says the Briton who joined Cargill as a graduate trainee. It is happening in sugar, where a drought in India caused by the partial failure of the monsoon has severely cut sugar-cane production, causing financial disaster for peasant farmers. The price of raw sugar has run up 80 per cent since the beginning of the year, reaching a 28-year price peak. These intermittent crises provoke what Cargill believes are bad policy decisions - stockpiling, hoarding and export curbs. Whether it was EU butter mountains or the international agencies set up in the early 1980s to manage markets in commodities, such as cocoa and sugar, all came into disrepute, Mr Conway says. The reason they failed is that governments forgot the role of farmers. "When governments have held a lot of stock, such as in the Soviet Union, [price] signals did not get through to farmers. Last year, the Argentinian Government increased export tariffs, which meant there was no point in planting. You had grain rotting in some countries last year because governments banned exports." Instead of trying to manage food output, governments need to invest, he suggests, in infrastructure, irrigation, ports and, counterintuitively, he says that developing countries should sponsor futures markets. "To blame futures markets for causing problems is nonsense. What they do is give clear price signals. We are a great believer in giving price signals to farmers. A futures market is a tool, a bit like biotechnology. If there is a crisis, blaming the tool is not ... wise." It's a message that many don't want to hear - that futures markets are the answer, not the problem, that genetically modified food is part of the solution to feeding the extra billions. Cargill has a graph that shows the relative impact of improved yields and field acreage on global food production since 1975. Yield gains from improved seed and irrigation technology have almost doubled output, while the land under cultivation has barely changed. We may now have a problem. "We have started to see some drop in global yields," Mr Conway says. But there is a huge amount of uncultivated land in the former Soviet Union and in Brazil "without touching a single acre of rainforest". The other solution, he says, is GM. The Green Revolution of the 1970s, which brought high-yielding strains of wheat and rice to developing countries was largely funded by governments. Since then, governments have cut their funding to agricultural research. The revolution in biotechnology and GM crops has been funded privately by firms such as Monsanto and Syngenta, but it is not enough and governments need to return to the labs, Mr Conway suggests. "It is a tool. To ban it is daft." Cargill's early support of the case for bioengineered seed (although the company has no financial interest in GM) won the grain merchants no friends in Europe. It was "incredibly badly handled", admits Mr Conway, who remembers attending meetings at 10 Downing Street over the GM crisis. It will be fully accepted in Europe only when consumers see obvious benefits, which could take a decade - and Britain, he thinks, suffers from an almost philistine scepticism. "There is more distrust of science in Britain than in any other country in the world." Nor is he impressed with the nation's general understanding about where its food comes from. He was astonished to discover that staff at the Downing Street policy unit were unaware that Tesco did not own the factories that produced the grocer's own-branded products. Cargill may be partly to blame for ignorance about how the food chain works. It is the least-known of the world's top companies. More than willing to talk about the controversy over GM food and futures markets, Mr Conway becomes distinctly guarded over relatively simple questions about Cargill. Is Cargill the biggest of the grain traders? "We prefer to think of ourselves as the broadest in geographic cover and range of products." Asked about market shares in specific products, the conversation becomes even more tight-lipped. He suggests that he would be surprised if Cargill's share of wheat was "as high as 10 per cent" and its biggest products, corn and soybean, would be in the "teens". Mr Conway attributes Cargill's shyness to being private, with 90 per cent of the firm owned by the Cargill-MacMillan clan, the family descendants of the two founders. The remainder is held by senior management. The company is an intermediary and a processor, owning few consumer brands, but interest in it is intense among those who monitor the food industry. Cargill has been under US Government scrutiny on more than one occasion, first in 1938, when it was barred from futures trading in Chicago, accused of trying to manipulate the corn market. Ten years ago, the Department of Justice (DoJ) forced Cargill to make large divestments as a condition for its merger with Continental, then a leading competitor. At the time, the DoJ found huge market concentration with four firms - ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Continental - accounting for 70 per cent of all American corn exports and 62 per cent of all soybean exports. It is market power in the stuff of life itself and, as a law graduate, it fascinated Mr Conway, who remembers 30 years ago reading the recruitment brochure. "Across the page, a series of time clocks around the world and the anatomy of a trade. A piece of information picked up in Asia, translated to an office in Europe and translated to an office in Buenos Aires. I thought it was fascinating and I wanted to find out more." _______________________ Why Dennis Wolff Would Be a Bad Choice for FSIS Paula Crossfield Civil Eats [USA], 31 August 2009: http://civileats.com/2009/08/31/why-dennis-wolff-would-be-a-bad-choice-for-fsis/ On Saturday it was reported that Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff is stepping down from his position to "pursue opportunities in agriculture in the private sector." This is not surprising, considering that PA governor Ed Rendell was looking to get rid of Wolff. But now that Wolff is hunting for a job, we thought it valuable here at Civil Eats to revisit why Dennis Wolff is not qualified for the role as head of the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the USDA - a vital position overseeing America's meat, egg and dairy supply - where he has previously been floated as a candidate. The position has been vacant for months, perhaps because of the difficulties finding a candidate without lobbying ties that industry lobbyists won't kick up too much dust about. But food safety is one of the most pressing domestic issues our country faces, and meat specifically has seen massive recalls as of late. The head of FSIS will by necessity need to take a more regulatory position at the USDA - a place ridden with conflict of interest between promoting agriculture and regulating it - if we have hope of eating safer food. Therefore having someone in charge of this essential agency with experience and without industry ties is critical. Unfortunately Wolff is disqualified on both counts. Not only does he have no previous food safety experience, but Wolff also is best known for siding with Monsanto to push for a ban on labeling rBGH, a growth hormone, in milk (we've written more about the politics and health effects of rBGH here, here, and here). Tom Philpott wrote on the controversy:
	"In October 2007, [Wolff] moved to prevent his state's dairy farmers from labeling their milk free of an artificial, genetically modified growth hormone called rBGH, then marketed by Monsanto. The ban of rBGH-free labels came down after some dairy processors began to demand milk grown without the synthetic hormone. The act was widely read as a blatant attempt to protect his state's large-scale dairy farms that relied on rBGH, as well as the interests of the company that marketed it, Monsanto. The GMO giant had been lobbying for years for a nationwide ban on rBGH labeling; in Wolff, they finally had a taker, in an important dairy state. Wolff's official rationale: rBGH-free labels 'confuse the pubic.' In an article at the time, New York Times reporter Andy Martin took a long, hard look at Wolff's official reasoning. His conclusion: 'It's hard ... to find much merit in Mr. Wolff's arguments for the labeling ban.' The ban generated so much outrage (much of it from dairy farmers who rejected rBGH use) that within months, Pennsylvania Gov. Rendell intervened to reverse it."
The trend of resisting the ban on labeling of rBGH milk products has continued into other states, like Kansas and Ohio, part of a growing movement of consumers who prefer to know what is in their food rather than being left in the dark. Should Wolff be circulating as a candidate again at the USDA, the administration should take into consideration that posting him could unleash consumer outrage, and would fail to make our food system safer. Paula Crossfield is the managing editor of Civil Eats. She is also a regular contributor to the Huffington Post's Green Page and is a contributing producer at The Leonard Lopate Show on New York Public Radio where she focuses on food issues. She is currently tending a vegetable garden on her roof in the Lower East Side. You can follow her on Twitter. _______________________ 29 August 2009 Official start of NEMO project SenterNovem [The Netherlands], GAVE news, 29 August 2009: http://gave.novem.nl/gave/index.asp?id=25&detail=3156 The Finnish research institute reports that it has started the four-year NEMO project. NEMO stands for Novel high-performance enzymes and micro-organisms for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to bioethanol. This is a pan-European project and is mainly funded by the European Union. Approximately 19 institutes and companies are participating in this project, including three Dutch organisations: Utrecht University, the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen (Royal Dutch Academy of Science), and Dyadic Nederland BV. The project aims to develop techniques to produce biofuels from agricultural and forest waste, such as wood and straw cuttings as well as energy crops. The researchers are primarily concentrating on fermentation of woody, lignocellulose-based crops. They aim to develop a form of microbial metabolism that can economically and efficiently convert sugars into large amounts of ethanol. The project will conduct tests using various types of enzymes and yeasts. Results will later be tested for industrial suitability. The NEMO project will look for new methods of pre-treating raw materials. Genetically modified micro-organisms and enzymes should be able to break down the woody material, according to the VTT press release. The total costs of the research amount to 8.2 million euro, with 5.9 million of this being funded by the EU. Source: VTT _______________________ 28 August 2009 ëNon-GMO' Seal Identifies Foods Mostly Biotech-Free William Neuman New York Times, 28 August 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/business/29gmo.html?_r=5&partner=rss&emc=rss Alarmed that genetically engineered crops may be finding their way into organic and natural foods, an industry group has begun a campaign to test products and label those that are largely free of biotech ingredients. With farmers using gene-altered seeds to grow much of North America's corn, soybeans, canola and sugar, ingredients derived from biotech crops have become hard for food companies to avoid. But many makers of organic and natural foods are convinced that their credibility in the marketplace requires them to do so. The industry group, the Non-GMO Project, says its new label is aimed at reassuring consumers and will be backed by rigorous testing. "There's a vulnerability here that the industry is addressing," said Michael J. Potter, the founder and president of Eden Foods and a board member of the Non-GMO Project, the organization responsible for the testing and labeling campaign. As plantings of conventional crops with genetic modifications soared in recent years, Mr. Potter put in place stringent safeguards to ensure that the organic soybeans he bought for tofu, soy milk and other products did not come from genetically engineered plants. He even supplies the seed that farmers use to grow his soybeans. But many other companies have not been so careful, and as a result, Mr. Potter said, the organic and natural foods industry is like "a dirty room" in need of cleaning. "What I've heard, what I know, what I've seen, what's been tested and the test results that have been shared with me, clearly indicate that the room is very dirty," Mr. Potter said. Hundreds of products already claim on their packaging that they do not contain genetically modified ingredients, but with little consistency in the labeling and little assurance that the products have actually been tested. The new labeling campaign hopes to clear up such confusion. The initials GMO stand for genetically modified organism. Participants in the Non-GMO Project include major players in the organic and natural foods business, like Whole Foods Market. Whole Foods plans to place the project's seal on hundreds of products it markets under its "365" store brand. Nature's Path, a leading manufacturer of organic packaged foods like cereals, frozen waffles and granola bars, has also embraced the initiative. The project's seal, a butterfly perched on two blades of grass in the form of a check mark, will begin appearing on packaged foods this fall. The project will not try to guarantee that foods are entirely free of genetically modified ingredients, but that manufacturers have followed procedures, including testing, to ensure that crucial ingredients contain no more than 0.9 percent of biotech material. That is the same threshold used in Europe, where labeling is required if products contain higher levels. Dag Falck, a project board member who is the organic program manager of Nature's Path, said testing and labeling were needed to protect the industry from the steady spread of biotech ingredients. His company has been testing for such ingredients for several years and is strengthening those measures. "The thing is, if we have a contamination problem that's growing in organics, what will happen one day when someone tests something and finds out that organics is contaminated beyond a reasonable amount, say 5 or 10 percent?" he said. "Consumers would lose all faith in organics." While a consensus has developed among scientists that the genetically modified crops now in cultivation are safe, many biotech opponents say that questions remain over whether such foods pose health risks and whether the crops, and agricultural practices associated with them, could damage the environment. The genetic modifications used in major crops in the United States largely involve traits beneficial to farmers. Some make the plants resistant to insects while others allow them to tolerate sprayings of a common herbicide used to combat weeds. Plantings of crops with genetic modifications have risen sharply over the last decade, to the point that about 85 percent of corn and canola and 91 percent of soybean acreage this year was sown with biotech seed. Few food products in the supermarket lack at least some element derived from these crops, including oils, corn syrup, corn starch and soy lecithin. The most recent agricultural sector to convert is sugar beets. Once this year's crop is processed, close to half of the nation's sugar will come from gene-engineered plants. Monsanto, a major developer of such seeds, has said it plans to develop biotech wheat, and scientists are moving forward on other crops. Farmers who want to plant without using biotechnology are often surrounded by neighbors whose fields are sown with genetically modified crops. And manufacturers who want to avoid genetically engineered crops and their byproducts find that increasingly difficult to do. Pollen from a biotech field may be carried by wind or insects to fertilize plants in a nonbiotech plot. At harvest and afterward, biotech and nonbiotech crops and their byproducts are often handled with the same farm equipment, trucks and so on. If the equipment is not properly cleaned, the two types of foodstuffs can mix. While federal organic regulations bar farmers from planting genetically engineered seed, they are silent on what should be done about issues like pollination from nearby biotech crops. Few regulations govern foods labeled "natural," but retailers say consumers of those products want them to be free of genetically engineered ingredients. "There's some GMO presence in almost everything today," said Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain Company, in Cerro Gordo, Ill., which specializes in handling nonbiotech corn and soybeans. Mr. Clarkson tests every truckload that farmers bring him, rejecting 5 to 7 percent of corn and soybean loads because they contain more than 0.9 percent of genetically modified material. The Non-GMO project works with companies to test their ingredients and improve manufacturing processes. It will also spot test products in stores. Officials with the project would not provide details of the test results conducted so far under the program. Sandra Kepler, the chief executive of Food Chain Global Advisors, a consulting company that administers the project, said it was too early to draw conclusions and that much of the testing had been done on ingredients used by companies with safeguards already in place. The executives of several companies participating in the project, including Eden and Nature's Path, said their products had come up clean in the tests. But several executives also said they were aware of positive tests for other companies, which they would not identify. "People are going to be reluctant to say, ëMy brand of cereal, we found some contaminated products and we changed sources,' " said Michael S. Funk, a project board member who is co-founder and chairman of United Natural Foods, a major distributor. "Nobody wants to have that information out there." He said, however, that he believed the number of cases was small. Labeling of food products for biotech content, or lack of it, has long been controversial. The biotechnology industry fought off early efforts to require labeling of genetically modified foods. Then, when some natural foods makers began using labels saying they were free of biotech ingredients, the Food and Drug Administration criticized the labels as potentially misleading. Labeling remains a gray area, with a host of products continuing to make such claims. Supporters of the biotech industry questioned whether the new labeling campaign would pass muster with the F.D.A. "It's very important that the labels on those products are used for marketing and branding purposes and not to make statements about food safety," said Karen Batra, a director of communications of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group. The F.D.A. said it did not have authority to approve labels before they appeared in the marketplace. Once a label is in use, the agency could initiate a review if it received consumer complaints or had concerns the label was misleading. _______________________ Irish aquarium trade warned over GM fish imports Practical Fishkeeping [UK], 28 August 2009: http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=2204 Genetically modified danios appeared in the UK, and have now made it to Ireland. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has warned the aquarium trade in Ireland to be on the lookout for genetically modified fish after confirming a recent illegal import. In a statement issued via an advertisement in Practical Fishkeeping magazine, the EPA said that following a recent incidence of the importation of GM aquarium fish it was reminding importers in the Republic of Ireland that imports of the fish were in breach of National and European law. The EPA said that under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations of 2003, introduction of the fish into aquariums did qualify as a form of deliberate release and was subsequently illegal. The EPA's statement said that importers who had received shipments of Zebra danios (Danio rerio) or Glowlight danios (Danio choprae/choprai) from outside the EU, particularly Indonesia, should "check whether the particular product has the capacity to fluoresce, ie. 'glow under darkness.'" However, genetically modified fish do not actually fluoresce unless they are held under a specific type of aquarium lighting, such as black light or actinic, which means dealers could potentially still miss the fish. While genetically modified Zebra danios are typically pink in colour, the Glowlight danio, which is a wild-type variety, is naturally a pinkish-orange in colour, despite not being genetically modified. Practical Fishkeeping is not aware of the existence of genuine Danio choprai carrying a fluorescence gene, but a spokesman from the EPA confirmed that the names published in its statement reflected the names used elsewhere to import fish that later turned out to be GM. _______________________ DuPont, Monsanto trade barbs over competition Chuck Neubauer Washington Times, August 28 2009: https://panel.dreamhost.com/?tree=mail.list¤t_step=Index&next_step=ShowSend&address=gmwatch-daily&domain=gmwatch.eu Agribusiness giant DuPont, charged by its chief rival Monsanto of being "dishonest, disingenuous and downright deceitful" in a literal food fight over control of the seed business, has accused Monsanto of unfairly attempting to "distract attention" from a public battle over competition in the crop biotechnology business. In an Aug. 25 letter to Hugh Grant, Monsanto's chairman, president and chief executive officer, Thomas L. Sager, DuPont's senior vice president and general counsel, dismissed allegations by Monsanto earlier this month that DuPont had engaged in covert attacks on its seed business practices. Mr. Sager said Monsanto was trying to raise "two-year-old accusations that were all proven false," adding that DuPont's right to speak out was "constitutionally protected." He said DuPont would "welcome and encourage broad participation" in a wide-ranging public debate over competition in seed production and biotechnology. Monsanto and DuPont have maintained high profile positions in the seed industry and each has sought to keep from falling behind. DuPont has recently been concerned that Monsanto had moved to gain an unfair advantage in selling genetically engineered seeds to better protect crops from insects and weeds. DuPont has provided support for a farm advocacy group called the Organization for Competitive Markets, which has been critical of Monsanto for what it has described as a "virtual monopoly" of the seed business. The group sponsored a conference earlier this month on "confronting the threats to market competition" where Monsanto and other agribusiness issues were discussed. The Agriculture and Justice departments will hold public workshops on the concentration in agriculture early in 2010. "All interested parties have a constitutionally protected right to be heard,and Monsanto should not discourage those who disagree with you from participating in this dialogue," Mr. Sager said, acknowledging DuPont's support of the Organization for Competitive Markets "just as we support dozens of organizations whose views coincide with ours." Earlier this month, Mr. Grant accused DuPont in a separate letter of using third parties to attack Monsanto, activities which he said "were misleading to the public and a serious breach of business ethics far beyond honest competitor behavior." He demanded a special committee be named to investigate a pattern of covert attacks on Monsanto's business practices by DuPont. He made the request for an investigation by DuPont's independent directors in a letter to Charles O. Holliday Jr., chairman of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. In May, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against DuPont for patent infringement and DuPont countersued, accusing Monsanto of being anti-competitive. The case is pending before a federal court in St. Louis. Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles said the DuPont letter was not responsive to the Monsanto request. "Unfortunately, this response does not address the core issue raised in our letter - that DuPont is investing in a strategy of attacking a competitor rather than delivering better products for farmers," Mr. Quarles said. "It is also regrettable that DuPont makes no commitment to review legitimate questions about its campaign of defamation against Monsanto." He said, "The single most important thing in their response is that it further attempts to distract people from the real motives behind all of this - specifically that their product does not work and their continued belief that they can use our product without our authorization. ... We look forward to a trial in court as soon as possible." DuPont spokesman Anthony Farina said several companies, farmers, nonprofit groups and government authorities are "active participants in the important public discussion about competition in agriculture. "Our response to Monsanto's latest lawsuit makes clear why Monsanto's business practices are illegal and why Monsanto's anti-competitive business practices hurt farmers, hurt consumers and hurt independent seed companies," he said. "We will not try these important issues through the media and we look forward to having these issues decided in court - where Monsanto initiated this." The dueling letters are the latest skirmish in a bitter battle between Monsanto and DuPont for control of the crop biotechnology business. Both companies accuse the other of waging misleading campaigns. In 2006 and 2007, DuPont tried unsuccessfully to block Monsanto from buying the nation's largest cotton seed supplier, Delta & Pine Land Co. --- Related articles: 18 cattle die near Idaho mine; selenium suspected Associated Press, August 14 2009 http://www.capitalpress.com/idaho/AP-Cattle-deaths-081409 Livestock deaths may impact talks on Monsanto mine By Carol Ryan Dumas Capital Press, August 27 2009 http://www.capitalpress.com/idaho/CRD-monsanto-follow-new-main-082809-w-art _______________________ International Paper Treads Monsanto's Path to 'Frankenforests' Jack Casey Bloomberg, 28 August 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aEHNB_XJRWGU International Paper Co., the world's largest pulp and paper maker, plans to remake commercial forests in the same way Monsanto Co. revolutionized farms with genetically modified crops. International Paper's ArborGen joint venture with MeadWestvaco Corp. and New Zealand's Rubicon Ltd. is seeking permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell the first genetically engineered forest trees outside China. The Australian eucalyptus trees are designed to survive freezes in the U.S. South. Plantations of engineered trees would give International Paper a competitive advantage by providing a reliable supply of lower cost wood at a time when timberlands are dwindling because of development, said David Liebetreu, the Memphis, Tennessee- based company's vice president of global sourcing. Opponents are concerned that alien genes may contaminate natural forests, echoing objections to modified crops that Monsanto still faces. "There is a potential to explode once they get these trees approved," said David Knott, who manages $1.3 billion as chief executive officer of Dorset Management in Syosett, New York. He said he increased his stake in Rubicon to 70.5 million shares this year to bet on ArborGen because it has a customer base of large landowners and little competition. "This could take off faster than Monsanto." Monsanto's genetics, which were first sold in herbicide- tolerant soybeans in 1996 and insect-resistant corn the following year, were used in 88 percent of the world's 309 million acres of biotech plantings last year. Monsanto's sales of seeds and genetics quadrupled since 2002 to $6.4 billion last year. ArborGen Sales ArborGen may boost yearly sales to $500 million in 2017 from $25 million by following Monsanto's blueprint for commercializing engineered plants, said Stephen Walker, head of asset management at New Zealand-based Goldman Sachs JBWere Ltd., which owns Rubicon shares and holds no stock in International Paper or MeadWestvaco. The partners eventually might sell shares of ArborGen to the public, International Paper's Liebetreu said. The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may approve sales of freeze-tolerant eucalyptus trees by late 2010, ArborGen Chief Executive Officer Barbara Wells said. The company also is developing trees that are easier to pulp and that grow twice as fast, said Wells, a former Monsanto executive who has a doctorate in agronomy. ArborGen's eucalyptus would become the first engineered forest tree sold in the U.S., where disease-resistant plum and papaya trees already are permitted, according to a USDA database. China has planted about 1.4 million biotech black poplars since commercialization in 2002. Increasing Risk Engineered eucalyptus trees could be an ecological disaster, bringing increased fire risk and extraordinary water consumption to a new environment, said Neil J. Carman, an Austin, Texas-based member of the Sierra Club's genetic engineering committee. Easier-to-pulp trees will be weak, and hurricanes will spread their pollen and contaminate native forests, he said. "These are Frankenforests," Carman said. "You are tampering with Mother Nature in a big way by putting genetically engineered trees out there." The group won a court order in 2007 requiring Monsanto to pull modified alfalfa plants from the market while the USDA reviewed their environmental impact more thoroughly, and Carman said a similar strategy may be used against modified trees. ArborGen says that genes won't spread because its trees grow on plantations, not in forests, and are engineered to be infertile with impaired pollen production. Tree Plantations About 4 percent of the world's 8.5 billion forest acres are plantations, and 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres) of new plantations are added annually, according to the United Nations. "It's through plantation forests and increased productivity that you protect native forests," ArborGen's Wells said. "We pursue products that we know are environmentally safe." ArborGen, based in Summerville, South Carolina, was created in 2000 when the three partners pooled their tree-research assets and intellectual property. The venture sells about 300 million conventional tree seedlings a year to 2,000 customers in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Rubicon derives most of its value from ArborGen, one of two ventures it owns. International Paper and MeadWestvaco, a cardboard maker, are so large that their 33 percent stakes in ArborGen aren't material to earnings, the companies said. Sustainable Hardwood Source The papermaker's main interest in ArborGen is the potential of modified trees such as cold-tolerant eucalyptus to provide a sustainable source of hardwood for pulp, Liebetreu said. That becomes more important as the U.S. starts to make biofuels from timber, which may double harvest pressure in the U.S. South, International Paper said in a June 9 letter to USDA. "If you could go back and buy Monsanto when it was just starting to develop genetically modified seeds, would you do it?" said Walker of Goldman Sachs JBWere. "I think so." Parallels with Monsanto aren't a coincidence. Wells, 54, spent 18 years at that company, including four years introducing modified soybeans in Brazil. ArborGen Chief Science Officer Maud Hinchee and James Mann, vice president of business development, also worked at St. Louis-based Monsanto. ArborGen Pricing ArborGen may charge 20 times more for its engineered trees than its cheapest seedlings and two to three times more than its best conventional products as it claims a share of the revenue landowners gain from growing high-quality wood faster, according to Rubicon's July update. Monsanto's modified corn and soybean seeds are priced to grab as much as half the increased income farmers realize from higher yields and lower pest-control costs. ArborGen became the world's largest seedling producer when it bought assets from its parent companies in 2007, making it the only tree developer with its own market channel for genetic technology, Wells said. Others developing gene-modified trees, including FuturaGene Plc in the U.K. and SweTree Technologies in Sweden, lack seedling businesses and aren't yet pursuing permission for commercial sales. Monsanto's research into genetically modified trees is limited to a Brazilian collaboration on eucalyptus and citrus trees at Alellyx SA, which Monsanto acquired in November after the project began, spokeswoman Kelli Powers said. Faster-Growing Trees ArborGen next plans to seek U.S. approval to sell loblolly pine, used for lumber and paper, engineered to mature in 18 years rather than 26. In Brazil, ArborGen plans to seek approval for eucalyptus that matures in four years, rather than seven, and eucalyptus with reduced lignin. Extracting lignin, a brown polymer that hardens trees, is one of the most expensive and polluting parts of making pulp, said Graeme P. Berlyn, professor at Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. "They definitely will find a market if they can do what they claim," Berlyn said. There is a small chance some modified trees will produce pollen and fertilize conventional relatives, Berlyn said. Populations contaminated with low-lignin traits could be weakened and vulnerable to breakage for thousands of years before evolution eliminates the inferior genetics, he said. "All of this is a bit troubling," said Berlyn, who edits the Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Expanded Testing While ArborGen awaits approval to sell cold-tolerant eucalyptus, it also is seeking USDA permission to expand a 57- acre test of the trees to 330 acres, mainly in Texas, Florida and Alabama. ArborGen is working with different eucalyptus species than those that have become pests in California, and the biotech trees are "unlikely" to prove invasive in the U.S. South, according to the USDA. The draft environmental assessment on expanded field testing drew thousands of comments opposing the USDA's conclusion that the research poses an insignificant risk. The proposed field tests involve 260,000 experimental trees and are tantamount to commercial approval, the Sierra Club's Carman said. If the field tests are approved, the Sierra Club may sue the USDA to compel a more thorough study, known as an environmental impact statement, he said. In 2007, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ordered the USDA to conduct such an assessment of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa and blocked further sales after the Sierra Club and organic farmer groups challenged the plant's approval. The USDA hasn't yet released an assessment of ArborGen's application to commercialize modified eucalyptus. Approval would set ArborGen on a path to sell 275 million engineered seedlings a year by 2018, assuming its first five modified trees are permitted, contributing to after-tax cash flows of as much as $700 million, according to an April report commissioned by Rubicon. To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in New York at jkaskey@bloomberg.net. --- Take action: Please click here to take action against ArborGen's plan to plant 260,000 GM-trees: http://globaljusticeecology.org/stopgetrees.php QUOTE: "Here's a great idea: Let's bring into our country a genetically-engineered, non-native tree that is known to be wildly invasive, explosively flammable, and insatiably thirsty for ground water. Then let's clone thousands of these living firecrackers and plant them in forested regions across seven Southern states, allowing them to grow, flower, produce seeds, and spread into native environments. Yes, this would be irresponsible, dangerous, and stupid - but apparently "Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid" is the unofficial slogan of the U.S. Department Agriculture." - Jim Hightower http://jimhightower.com/node/6900 Listen to Jim Hightower's commentary: http://jimhightower.com/sites/jimhightower.civicactions.net/files/28_17_rnc.mp3 For updates and action items, visit http://www.nogetrees.org. _______________________ 27 August 2009 Risks involved with transgenic fish Alpha Galileo / University of Gothenburg [Sweden], 27 August 2009: http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=60378&CultureCode=en Fast growing transgenic fish can revolutionise commercial fish farming and relieve the pressure on overexploited fish stocks. But what happens in the natural environment if transgenic fish escape? Researchers at the University of Gothenburg have studied transgenic fish on behalf of the EU and are urging caution:
-	Until further notice transgenic fish should be bred in closed systems on land, says Fredrik Sundström at the Department of Zoology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
By furnishing fish with genes from other organisms, so-called transgenes, researchers have succeeded in producing fish that grow considerably faster or are more resistant to diseases. Fish can also be modified to cope better with cold, which facilitates breeding in colder conditions. There are major benefits for commercial fish farming as transgenic fish are expected to deliver higher production and better yields. However, transgenic fish can also entail risks and undesirable effects on the natural environment. More resistant to toxins For example, transgenic fish can be more resistant to environmental toxins, which could entail the accumulation of toxins that ultimately end up in consumers. There are also misgivings that the higher level of growth hormone in the fish can affect people. Researchers at the University of Gothenburg have therefore been commissioned by the EU to study the environmental effects of GMO (genetically modified organisms) within fish farming. The results of the studies show that the genetically modified fish should be treated with great care. Simulated escapes Fredrik Sundström, PhD at the Department of Zoology, has studied transgenic salmon and rainbow trout to ascertain what ecological risks they might constitute for the natural environment. The study, which simulated escapes in a laboratory environment, shows that transgenic fish have a considerably greater effect on the natural environment than hatchery-reared non-transgenic fish when they escape. For example, genetically modified fish survive better when there is a shortage of food, and benefit more than non-transgenic fish from increasing water temperatures.
-	It is probably due to the fact that genetically modified fish have a greater ability to compete and are better at converting food, says Fredrik Sundström.
Natural breeds are under threat If transgenic fish become established in natural stocks they would be able to outcompete the natural breeds. However, conducting studies in a laboratory environment that imitates nature is complicated, which makes it difficult to predict how escaped transgenic fish affect the natural environment. Fredrik Sundström's conclusion is that international consensus is required before commercial farming can be permitted, and that a precautionary principle must be applied.
-	One option is to farm the transgenic fish on land, which would make escape impossible. At least fertile fish should be kept in a closed system, says Fredrik Sundström.
As of yet no country has permitted commercial farming of transgenic fish, but several applications for such operations are under consideration by authorities in both the USA and the EU. http://www.science.gu.se/aktuellt/nyheter/Nyheter+Detalj/Risker_med_genmodifierad_fisk_.cid889631 _______________________ Three companies dominate Romanian grain trade All About Feed, 27 August 2009: http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/three-companies-dominate-romanian-grain-trade-3523.html The local branches of international giants Alfred C Toepfer, Cargill and Glencore have less than 300 employees together but posted one billion-euro turnover in Romania from grain trade last year. Alfred C Toepfer's worldwide trading business amounts to €8 billion, Cargill's to €3.3 billion, while Glencore's stands at €120 billion euros. The three privately held companies are very discreet, however, and none of them wishes to talk about its business in Romania. "Grain prices were very high in Romania last year, 50% higher than now. International traders buy from producers and sell right away after adding a mark-up. The producers are 'harassed' into selling the crop at low prices when harvesting it because they have no choice, they have no place to store it and the fact that sales in Romania are made as circumstances dictate gives traders an edge. We made them big with our weakness," explains a Romainian grain grower. Double trade revenues Alfred C. Toepfer, whose business stood at €332 million in 2008, and Cargill, which posted more than €310 million turnover doubled their revenues compared with the previous year. Glencore Protein, with its 12 employees, posted €2.8 million profit in 2008, which means each employee contributed 233,000 euros. As for Alfred C Toepfer, each employee generated about 65,000 euros in profit. Local producers posted cumulated turnover worth 800 million euros last year, and almost €35 million profit. The total number of their farming operations employees stood at about 3,000. The business of grain traders was higher than the results posted by the Romanian producers last year, as the former took advantage of the high prices and of the exchange rate trend, say the representatives for local trader Comcereal Constanta. This company operates in the same field but does not do business with the big traders, which prefer to deal with producers. _______________________ 26 August 2009 Ecologist founder Edward Goldsmith dies at age 81 The Ecologist [UK], 26 August 2009: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/309152/ecologist_founder_edward_goldsmith_dies_at_age_81.html Edward Goldsmith, the founder of the Ecologist and one of the world's foremost green thinkers, has died at the age of 81 Goldsmith - known almost universally as 'Teddy' - had been suffering from a long-term illness and died peacefully in his sleep on Friday 21st August. He is survived by his second wife, Katherine Goldsmith, and five children. Teddy's long and eventful life saw him found the Ecologist in 1970 and edit it for twenty years, run as a 'People Party' (later to become the Green Party) political candidate for Suffolk in the general election of 1973, and publish a string of books - the most well known of which is A Blueprint for Survival, written in collaboration with the first Ecologist editorial team and published in 1972 to great acclaim. Teddy's signature legacy has been to promote the importance of systems- and ecological thinking within the environmental movement, and to highlight the importance of learning from indigenous peoples and tribal societies - ideas that were considered highly heretical when he mooted them in 1970s. His later books, including what some consider to be his magnum opus, The Way - an Ecological Worldview, attempted to fuse anthropology, religion and science to develop a hybrid understanding of man's relationship to the natural world. Teddy's nephew and director of the Ecologist, Zac Goldsmith said:
	'Teddy was a huge figure for me personally, and a key figure historically. A pioneer of the green movement, he was responsible perhaps more than anyone else for waking us up from our collective slumber. He was determined, brave, utterly inspiring, stubborn and more often than not, he was right.'
Colin Hines, a contemporary of Teddy and a pioneer of the localisation movement, said:
	'My abiding memory of Teddy was of his good nature (most of the time!), his wonderful storytelling and the fact that he was innately a 'gentleman' in all the best senses of that word - a word of another era - as in a way was he.'
Mark Anslow, editor of the Ecologist, said: 'We live and breathe Teddy's legacy every day. His rigorous thought processes and endlessly interrogative approach to environmental issues help guide the Ecologist's editorial process: never taking developments at face value, and always asking the bigger, wider questions. He will be fondly remembered, and sorely missed.'
See also
•	An in-depth interview with Teddy, written by former Ecologist deputy editor Paul Kingsnorth in 2007: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/309113/teddy_goldsmith_godfather_of_green.html
•	The complete Blueprint for Survival online in our archive: http://www.theecologist.org/back_archive/19701999/
_______________________ Nearly 100 more cancer lawsuits filed against Monsanto By Chris Dickerson - Putnam Bureau The Record (West Virginia's legal journal), 26 August 2009 : http://www.wvrecord.com/news/220760-nearly-100-more-cancer-lawsuits-filed-against-monsanto WINFIELD - Three weeks after an original 50 were filed, nearly 100 more lawsuits have been filed alleging Monsanto and related companies are responsible for causing cancer. Like the other 50 filed earlier this month, the 97 newest complaints filed Aug. 24 in Putnam Circuit Court say Monsanto and its successor companies caused cancer by exposing the plaintiffs to dioxins/furans contamination of the air and property in and around Nitro. The cases mention the "negligent and otherwise unlawful release of dioxin from defendants' waste disposal practices on properties ... located in and about Nitro, West Virginia." These individual cases, filed by Stuart Calwell and The Calwell Firm of Charleston, are not part of an ongoing class action involving thousands of current and former Nitro residents alleging Monsanto polluted the area with dioxin. The class action case specifies no specific damages, and the class-action plaintiffs seek medical monitoring. The plaintiffs in the 147 new cases, also represented by Calwell, are residents and former residents of Nitro or one or more of several surrounding communities of the now defunct chemical plant located near Nitro. They lived, worked or attended school in Nitro. Some of the plaintiffs are deceased, and those suits are filed by family members. Monsanto owned and operated the plant from 1934 to 2000. From 1949 to 1970, the company produced an herbicide that was heavily contaminated with dibenzo dioxins and dibenzo furans. The complaints say the company disposed of the dioxin-contaminated waste in a way which caused dioxins to escape into the air. The plaintiffs say their property and soil was contaminated. "During the years that Old Monsanto was operating it's trichlorophenol plant, it adopted an unlawful practice of disposing of dioxin waste materials by a continuous process of open 'pit' burning," the complaints state. "This practice was largely denied by Old Monsanto whose representatives characterized the practice as an 'incineration process' when asked by regulatory authorities. "Old Monsanto and its successors - failed to adequately control the dioxin contaminated soils and other dioxin contaminated waste materials both on and off the plant site. Dioxins/furans continued to be re-deposited and re-distributed from the plant site and the off-site dumps so as to continue the process of air and property contamination." The complaints say the defendants knew of the dangers. The defendants "should have known of the highly toxic properties of dioxin and that dioxin was and is a known promoter of cancer and that dioxin was and is a known human carcinogen," the complaints state. The defendants "knew that the area around the Monsanto plant was populated with permanent residents who would likely live out their lives in the area contaminated." The complaints also detail the history of Monsanto and the company's knowledge regarding dioxin. The Nitro plant produced herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals, including Agent Orange. Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility and suppressed immune functions. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for medical bills past and future, lost wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. They also seek punitive damages for the "willful, wanton and reckless" actions of the defendants "evidencing a callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of the residents of the Nitro area." Putnam Circuit Court case numbers 09-C-243 through 09-C-282 and 09-C-315 through 09-C-411 _______________________ Monsanto and Dioxins SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto%2C_Agent_Orange_and_Dioxins (Note: much of the following is extracted from The Monsanto Investigation by William Sanjour, Policy Analyst at the EPA [*]) "The story starts in Nitro, West Virginia at a Monsanto chemical plant which was manufacturing the herbicide 2,4,5-T (the principal ingredient of Agent Orange, which contains traces of dioxin). In 1949, a runaway reaction at the plant caused an explosion releasing reaction material, resulting in many workers being doused with dioxin. In 1978 when concern about dioxin was on the rise and EPA was considering banning 2,4,5-T, Monsanto sponsored several studies of the long range health effects of the workers exposed to dioxin ... These studies were published in medical and scientific journals between 1980 and 1984. Publication of the first study, in 1980, coincided with a time when Monsanto was defending itself in three different legal actions relating to dioxin exposure from their products. Monsanto issued a press release headlined 'Study Fails to Link "Agent Orange" to Deaths of Industrial Workers'. All of these studies showed no statistically significant increase in cancers among the exposed workers. Because of the high exposures, these studies contributed to the conclusion drawn in EPA and elsewhere that: '[T]he human evidence supporting an association between 2,3,7,8-TCDD [dioxin] and cancer is considered inadequate.' Monsanto's studies would promote the idea that human beings, unlike other animals, are relatively immune to this man-made chemical". Then in Sturgeon, Missouri in 1979 "a freight train derailment caused the spill of a tank car, containing 19,000 gallons of a Monsanto chlorophenol intermediate called OCP-crude,used in making wood preservatives and contaminated with dioxin. Francis Kemner and others exposed to the spill filed a suit in Missouri state court in 1980 (Kemner et al v. Monsanto Company). The trial lasted three years and eight months", which Sanjour later explains was "the longest running trial in history at the time". And while in the end "the jury did not believe the plaintiffs had proven that they had suffered any harm to date ... they were outraged at the egregious behavior of the Monsanto Company". Among the allegations made by the plaintiff's attorneys was:
•	Monsanto failed to notify and lied to its workers about the presence and danger of dioxin in its chlorophenol plant, so that it would not have to bear the expense of changing its manufacturing process or lose customers,
•	Monsanto knew how to make chlorophenol with significantly less dioxin content but did not do so until after the Sturgeon spill.
•	Monsanto knowingly dumped 30 to 40 pounds of dioxin a day into the Mississippi River between 1970 and 1977 which could enter the St. Louis food chain.
•	Monsanto lied to EPA that it had no knowledge that its plant effluent contained dioxin.
•	Monsanto secretly tested the corpses of people killed by accident in St. Louis for the presence of dioxin and found it in every case.
•	Lysol, a product made from Monsanto's Santophen, was contaminated with dioxin with Monsanto's knowledge. Lysol is recommended for cleaning babies' toys and for other cleaning activities involving human contact.
•	The manufacturer of Lysol was not told about the dioxin by Monsanto for fear of losing his business.
•	Other companies using Santophen, who specifically asked about the presence of dioxin, were lied to by Monsanto.
•	Monsanto was aware that dioxin contaminated their lawn care products (which were eventually banned by EPA).
•	Monsanto sold these and many other consumer products knowingly contaminated with dioxin without warning the public for over thirty years.
•	Shortly after a spill in the Monsanto chlorophenol plant, OSHA measured dioxin on the plant walls. Monsanto conducted its own measurements, which were higher than OSHA's, but they issued a press release to the public and they lied to OSHA and their workers saying they had failed to confirm OSHA's findings.
•	Exposed Monsanto workers were not told of the presence of dioxin and were not given protective clothing even though the company was aware of the dangers of dioxin.
•	Even though the Toxic Substances Control Act requires chemical companies to report the presence of hazardous substances in their products to EPA, Monsanto never gave notice and lied to EPA in reports.
•	At one time Monsanto lied to EPA saying that it could not test its products for dioxin because dioxin was too toxic to handle in its labs.
At the trial a Monsanto executive argued that it did not report what it considered very low levels of dioxin to EPA because it would merely "add fuel to the media fires." "Monsanto fought these charges with the best lawyers and expert witnesses that money could buy. They had to; the downside risk to Monsanto was enormous. If the plaintiffs in the Kemner case could collect damages, then every user of Lysol, Weed-B-Gone, and dozens of other consumer products using chemicals containing traces of dioxin might collect damages and put Monsanto and other chemical companies into bankruptcy". "Despite Monsanto's parade of expert witnesses, the jury expressed its opinion of Monsanto's honesty and integrity by the unusual award of more than sixteen million dollars in punitive damages." However, the "Plaintiffs lost on appeal on the technical legal ground that a punitive award could not be made in the absence of actual damages regardless of the facts in the case". Several years later, Cate Jenkins, a PhD chemist at EPA, became convinced that Monsanto had deliberately manipulated studies showing that dioxin was a human carcinogen [8][9]. Greenpeace also "issued a detailed 44 page critique of the Monsanto studies by Joe Thornton entitled 'Science for Sale'" [10] (1). Whether this was a case of fraud or not, it wouldn't be unusual for Monsanto [11] "On February 23, 1990, Jenkins sent a memorandum to the EPA Science Advisory Board entitled 'Newly Revealed Fraud by Monsanto in an Epidemiological Study Used by EPA to Assess Human Health Effects from Dioxins', attaching a copy of part of the Kemner Plaintiffs-Appellees' brief dealing with the Monsanto studies. She requested that the Board or the EPA Office of Research and Development, audit the records of these studies to see if they were flawed". Ironically, rather than investigate the Monsanto studies the EPA launched what Sanjour says was a harrassing investigation of Jenkins. "Within days of learning that the Office of Enforcement [which "began to look into the criminal aspect of the fraud charges"] had initiated a criminal investigation of Monsanto based on Jenkins' allegations, her job duties were withdrawn without warning. She was not given any assignments from August 30, 1990 until she was reassigned on April 8, 1992 to a job which was primarily administrative or clerical." "Dr. Jenkins filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming that she was being harassed for carrying out perfectly legal activities". The Labor Department investigated and found in Jenkins favor. The EPA appealed three times all the way up to the Secretary of Labor but each time the Department came down in favor of Jenkins finding that "None of the rationales [explaining her transfer] given by EPA ... appear valid". "In August of 1992, EPA quietly closed the criminal investigation without ever determining or even attempting to determine if the Monsanto studies were valid or invalid, let alone fraudulent.... There was no public announcement that the investigation was closed. Dr. Jenkins didn't learn about it until fifteen months later. Yet Monsanto knew within a few days of EPA's closure". According to John Thomas Burch, Jr., an attorney, a Viet Nam veteran and the chairman of the National Viet Nam Veterans Coalition, "Dr. Jenkins' memos about the Monsanto studies 'broke a roadblock' to additional legislation in Congress which 'meant thousands of [veterans] getting medical care who wouldn't have gotten it otherwise.' For this she was awarded a plaque for exemplary service to Viet Nam veterans". "Although she had committed no crime, Jenkins had been vilified and harassed for the sin of wanting to protect the public from dioxin. Many wrongs, including violations of EPA's own regulations, were committed by those who illegally harassed her, but no one has suggested punishment for them. And while many EPA officials were willing, even anxious, to apologize to Monsanto, none has come forward to apologize to Dr. Jenkins". Sanjour concluded by saying that "This kind of cold-blooded analysis is bad enough when the product is used by the general public, but it is insufferable when used on our own armed forces who were exposed in combat.... The issue wasn't false science, but allegedly using false science to cover-up a callous hard-hearted decision to continue poisoning our GIs and their children because it was cheaper to do so." [* http://www.greens.org/s-r/078/07-49.html] _______________________ Africa's alliance for a green revolution a hoax Gertrude Kabusimbi New Vision (Uganda), 26 August, 2009: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/459/692492 THE term "Green Revolution" was coined in 1968 by then director of the United States Agency for International Development. He coined it to describe the so-called success in India and South East Asia, of an agriculture model that increased crop production in wheat, maize and rice. The model comprised a package of inorganic fertiliser, herbicides, pesticides, laboratory development, hybrid seeds, mechanisation and extensive irrigation projects. This Asian Green Revolution is celebrated by its proponents as having brought sufficient and affordable food to the poor. What with the total food available per person in the world rising by 11% and the estimated number of hungry people falling from 942 million to 786 million, a 16% drop? However, if China, where the number of hungry people dropped from 406 million to 189 million is eliminated from the equation, the number of hungry people in the rest of the world actually increased by more than 11% from 536 million to 597 million. In South Asia, there was 9% more food per person by 1990, but there were also 9% more hungry people. The success, the chest-thumping Rockefeller Foundation, was and is still celebrating, therefore, was not theirs because there were two revolutions taking place at the same time, the successful one being the Chinese. Despite the claims of increased food production, widespread hunger still persists in countries such as India that have food surplus for significant export. With the Green Revolution people have argued, lamely, that increase in population will not increase the number of hungry people in the world. Let us face it, the expensive package of inorganic fertilisers, improved seeds and pesticides favoured a minority of economically privileged farmers. However, it dispossessed the majority small-holder farmers who had acquired loans to keep in step with the revolution, but had to sell off their land to repay their loans. The farmers were rendered destitute in the end. Those with too much pride to beg opted for suicide, as reported in The New York Times in October 2006, and those without, migrated to towns to live on streets. In September, 2006, the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations teamed up to form the "Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa" (AGRA). After forming the alliance they declared it was Africa's turn to benefit from the Green Revolution. However, to date Africa has not benefited from the Green Revolution alliance. First and foremost, it is a well known fact that Bill Gates has substantial private investments in genetic engineering. Together with powerful transnational corporations such as YARA Foundation; MONSANTO Corporation; SYNGENTA; their antennae have picked the signals that organic products rule in the developed North. They are now desperately attempting to shift their markets to the weak economies in the South such as Africa. Even the blind can see the well-calculated move to take control of and make profit from every step of the African small holder production process. Secondly, organic agricultural produce is attracting premium prices and can lead to tremendous transformation in the economies of African countries. The International Trade Centre has projected that by 2010 the organic agriculture market could reach $46 billion in Europe, $45b in the US and $11b in Japan. Africa, with her soils largely uncontaminated by chemicals, is poised to reap big and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa do not want that to happen. Another target of the proponents of AGRA is the African safety net of an abundance of crop varieties and the wisdom to intercrop several varieties on one piece of land so that an attack of pests and diseases will not wipe out an entire harvest. With the monoculture type of farming and Africa's multitude of crop varieties narrowed down to a few developed in the lab, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa is exposing poor people to the possibility of 100% crop failure in a single season in the event of an attack of pests and diseases. It happened in the US in the 1970s when leaf blight ( a bacterial disease) caused a 15% loss of the high yielding corn hybrids. That is of course, not to mention the repeated attack of diseases like fusarium oxysporum and yellow sigatoka on banana plantations in Costa Rica. Furthermore, the Green Revolution packages require heavy irrigation, yet there are already reports of declining water levels in Lake Victoria thanks to climate change. Digging boreholes to access water for irrigation will definitely exacerbate the draw down irreversibly. AGRA's strategy called "There Is no Alternative" might be well-meaning, but erroneously conceived. Food sovereignty is the more prudent strategy and not corporate dependency. The writer is the executive director of Support for Women in Agriculture and the Environment _______________________ Feed prices up now EU sticks to GM zero tolerance policy All About Feed [The Netherlands]: http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/feed-prices-up-now-eu-sticks-to-gm-zero-tol erance-policy-3520.html The concession that feed groups have been clamouring for to restart US soybean shipments to Europe has been put on hold raising the prospect of rocketing feed prices. The European Commission has sidelined a proposal to soften its zero tolerance on imports of unapproved genetically modified crops, for fear of the controversy such a measure would cause, an insider told Agrimoney.com. "Even if it was agreed at commission level, the difference of opinion [over GM] in EU member states would make this very difficult," the source said. "It has been put on the backburner for the foreseeable future." The move dashes the hopes of feed groups who had viewed some tolerance of genetically modified crops as the best way of lifting the threat of a "total loss" of US soybean imports to Europe after traces of an unapproved GM corn were found in shipments to Germany and Spain. Traces not to avoid "What is zero - that is what this boils down to," Alexander Döring, the secretary general of Fefac, the European Compound Feed Manufacturers' Federation, said. "GM crops are so widespread through the world. Whether through [contamination through] agriculture practices or transport, if you want to look for traces of it, you will find it." He said that he was hoping that the EU would repeat for GM crops concessions made to banned veterinary antibiotics, which were now allowed at trace levels. Attempting to get legislation through could take two years, which was untenable given the need to secure feed supplies before animals are taken in for the winter. Soybean meal is the "lifeline" of Europe's livestock industry, Döring said, warning that without it there would be "no" compound feed. _______________________ Pefect storm of media spin GM Watch, 26 August 2009: http://www.gmwatch.org If anyone doubts that a deliberate and carefully coordinated campaign is underway to promote GM, they need only look to the material popping up in the UK media this week. Exhibit 1 is yesterday's print supplement in The Guardian titled "Agriculture". It was placed and produced by the Lyonsdown media group, who specialise in producing "informative and engaging special interest supplements... geared to the respective publication's readership." http://www.lyonsdown.co.uk/how_we_work.php Lyonsdown don't say which of their corporate clients they produced the Guardian supplement for, but with its focus on Africa, and content from the UK's pro-GM Environment Minister Hilary Benn, Dominic Dyer of the Crop Protection Association (read pesticide lobby), and Derek Burke - the "Godfather" of the UK's GM lobby, it's not exactly hard to figure. http://ngin.tripod.com/articleBurke.htm On the same day that Dyer of the CPA was appearing in the Guardian's "special interest" supplement, he was also given a showcase for his views by BBC News. In his "Viewpoint" piece on how "False fears threaten food supplies", Dyer noty only defends pesticides but promotes GMOs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8218364.stm Dyer's pitch is that with a coming food crisis we cannot afford to restrict pesticides and if we do then the only way we'll survive will be thanks to GMOs! Given that the pesticide manufacturers that constitute the CPA's biggest members are also GM firms - this is a perfect "Heads we win, tails you lose" line of argument. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8218364.stm Meanwhile, the current issue of the food industry publication, the Fresh Produce Journal, which targets retailers, food service companies, importers, wholesalers and producers, has a special feature on "The great GM debate" authored by Bayer's Julian Little. Little, of course, isn't actually billed as a Bayer employee but as the Chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC). It doesn't say that the ABC is a PR front in the UK for the major biotech corporations. It's run by PR firm Lexington Communications, who alo run the GM lobby group CropGen, and have very close ties to New Labour. http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Lexington_Communications Little's article is a quality compilation of carefully crafted spin - "The use of GM technology in agriculture has been an astonishing success", "there is no silver bullet, no quick fix and no magic wand - but it can play a key role in helping to stabilise global food supplies". It attacks the EU's "dysfunctional regulatory system" while blameing concern about GM on public ignorance. It promotes GM to the food industry in terms of growers, producers and consumers all deserving to have the GM choice. http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/great_gm_debate Also yesterday, BBC News ran a piece on researchers at Rothamsted, the avidly pro-GM agricultural research institute, quoting Professor Keith Goulding saying, "it's frustrating that GM is not more acceptable." This BBC piece is actually quite enlightening on part of the PR plan aimed at making GM more acceptable. Titled, "Averting a perfect storm of shortages", the BBC's environment correspondent, David Shukman notes, "The warning of a 'perfect storm' is partly intended to focus attention on the positive role that science can play - and to galvanise politicians to support it." In fact, pro-GM lobbyists have for some time been seizing on both the recent food crisis and concerns over the agricultural impact of the climate crisis to promote GM as an urgent necessity both in Europe and the developing world. In Europe, farmers' concerns over the cost and availability of animal feed, first triggered by the "biofuels" boom, have also been used to put pressure on the institutions and governments of the EU to speed up GM crop approvals and weaken safeguards, eg on thresholds for tolerance of unapproved GMOs that may contaminate grain shipments. At the same time, within the UK, there has also been a coordinated campaign to use reports coming out of the Government's departments for food and the environment (DEFRA) and international development (DfID), as well as ones due from the Royal Society and Foresight, amongst others, to promote GM crops and secure greater political and media acceptance, plus of course new funding for GM crop development. To date, the media has largely been drawn in to this spin campaign uncritically, with an almost complete failure to look beyond the "perfect storm" rhetoric in order to examine the actual facts on GM crop development, and how this technology compares in terms of productivity and economic value, never mind safety, with the alternatives. As Doug Gurian-Sherman has noted, while public plant and animal breeders are working in relative obscurity, their programmes are also losing critical support and funding as attention and resources are diverted to high cost and less productive GM approaches. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11350:boost- funding-for-public-good-plant-breeding http://tiny.cc/VcC1W See also: lhttp://www.bangmfood.org/feed-the-world/17-feeding-the-world/14-non-gm-breakthroughs _______________________ GM feeds world? Don't fall for spin Elisabeth Winkler Real Food Lover, August 26 2009: http://realfoodlover.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/gm-feeds-world-dont-fall-for-spin/ Did you see yesterday's print supplement to the Guardian? Titled Agriculture, produced by the Lyonsdown media group, it was basically a huge advert for intensive farming. Including promoting the use of GM crops in Africa. Warning! Spin-alert! Don't fall for the propoganda even if (indeed especially if) it comes with a nice liberal paper like the Guardian. It is a blatant calculation to appeal to caring Guardian-reader types. What makes me so cross is that Africa is used in the sales talk. For goodness sake, let us get one thing straight. There is NO GM crop being grown commercially that improves yield. The only ones being grown are designed to make intensive farming easier. Currently, GM plants are engineered to be resistent to pesticide-spraying. A farm can spray a whole GM crop with a pesticide and the GM plants don't die. How this is supposed to help a farmer in Africa? All it does is increase dependency on agrichemical companies. The farmers have to buy the GM seed (which cannot be saved) AND the pesticides to go with it, and the licence to use it all. One of the authors in the supplement was Professor Derek Burke who was on the government's advisory committee for novel foods and processes. He writes how organic farmers are a "wealthy lobby group" preventing GM progress. See pic above for evidence of this so-called "wealthy lobby group." Am I supposed to believe that a section representing 2% 0f the UK food industry, and is made up of mainly small family farms, is the only thing in the way of GM world domination? No mention of the European public which does not want GM. No mention of the African farmers who do not want GM. And strangely, no mention of the marketing budget of agrichemical corporations such as Monsanto and Bayer which are pushing their risky, unproven GM technology. I wonder what the PR spend is on a supplement such as the one in the Guardian? I don't think a multinational GM company is short of a bob or two for its PR war. _______________________ 25 August 2009 US slams Brussels over dearth of GM approvals AgriMoney.com [USA], 25 August 2009: http://www.agrimoney.com/news/us-slams-brussels-over-dearth-of-gm-approvals--641.html US officials have slammed Brussels for putting Europe's livestock industry at risk by letting political considerations override scientific arguments in favour of genetically modified crops. The data comes as Europe's feed industry is preparing to issue a revised report on the costs of a go-slow on US soybean imports to Europe following the discovery of GM contamination, Agrimoney.com has learned. A briefing drawn up by 20 US foreign staff from around Europe said that Brussels was continuing to "wrestle with a regulatory structure that is subject to political decision-making rather than being based solely on sound science". The European Commission's reluctance to approve GM crops beyond an insect-resistant brand of Monsanto corn, which is currently awaiting 10-year reauthorisation, had placed the region's livestock farmers "under constant threat" of losing access to imported oilseeds. Europe's livestock farmers rely on foreign shipments for 80% of vegetable protein needs, according to the European Feed Manufacturers' Federation (Fefac). GM retreat The report from the US - a major grower and exporter of GM crops - comes amid an apparent retreat of the technology in Europe. Plantings of GM crops - principally Monsanto's insect-resistant 810 corn variety - dropped to 86,300 hectares this year among current EU states from a peak of nearly 200,000 hectares three years ago. The reversal had been caused in the main by Romania's accession to the EU, which had prevented it continuing to grow GM soybeans which Brussels has not approved, but also reflected reduced plantings in France, which banned the Monsanto corn last year. Although Brussels has taken some action against national bans, 12 member states, led by Austria and the Netherlands, have voted in favour of crystallising domestically power over GM decisions. Shipping troubles Meanwhile, shipment hold-ups after traces of an unauthorised GM corn variety were found in US soybean cargoes to Germany and Spain have prompted Fefac to campaign for Brussels to take a lighter touch on the technology. The commission currently imposes zero-tolerance on traces of unapproved GM crops, which has left shippers reluctant to carry US soybeans for fear of further contamination being detected and cargoes being rejected. Fefac, which in July pegged the cost of the shipping slowdown at E20 per tonne of soybeans in the form of a "risk premium", was on Tuesday discussing a further statement on costs of the furore. Key meeting A European Commission spokesman said that Europe did have a system for approving GM crops, based on "strict" criteria, with many varieties approved on an import-only basis beyond the one Monsanto corn approved for growing. "The system does work, although maybe not as quickly as some people would like," he said. He added that the Commission was aware of the livestock industry's concerns, which was why the issue of vegetable protein imports bad been placed on a meeting of European agriculture ministers next month. _______________________ Lyme/Autism Group Blasts Genetically Modified Foods as Dangerous Jeffrey Smith The Huffington Post [USA], 25 August 2009: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/lymeautism-group-blasts-g_b_268580.html Stop eating dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods! That's the upshot of the Lyme Induced Autism (LIA) Foundation's position paper released today (http://www.lymeinducedautism.com/gmopositionpaper.html). The patient advocacy group is not willing to wait around until research studies prove that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cause or worsen the many diseases that are on the rise since gene-spliced foods were introduced in 1996. Like the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) earlier this year, the LIA Foundation says there is more than enough evidence of harm in GM animal feeding studies for them to "urge doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets" and for "individuals, especially those with autism, Lyme disease, and associated conditions, to avoid" GM foods. Dr. Jannelle Love, founder of the Autism Relief Foundation, is quoted in Kimberly Wilcox's excellent article:
	"It is known that children on the Autistic Spectrum suffer from fragile immune systems, significant digestive and brain inflammation, and the environmental toxin overload. Putting foreign entities such as GMO foods into such a fragile child may indeed cause further deterioration and perhaps block the delicate biochemical pathways needed for appropriate functioning and possible recovery."
The LIA Foundation calls for physicians and patient advocacy groups to explain to patients the role that GM foods may play in disease and to distribute non-GMO educational materials, including the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, which makes it easier to find brands without GM ingredients. (See www.nonGMOGuide.com). They also called for a moratorium on all GM foods and for "Research to evaluate the role of GM foods on autism, Lyme disease, and related conditions." GMOs: pervasive and high-risk The five main GM foods are soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets. Their derivatives are found in more than 70 percent of the foods in the supermarket. The primary reason the plants are engineered is to allow them to drink poison. They're inserted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of poisonous herbicide. Biotech companies sell the seed and herbicide as a package deal. Roundup Ready crops survive sprays of Roundup. Liberty Link crops survive Liberty. US farmers use hundreds of millions of pounds more herbicide because of these herbicide-tolerant crops, and the higher toxic residues end up inside of us. The LIA position paper acknowledges that "Individuals with infections that compromise immunity... and/or high toxin loads may also be especially susceptible to adverse effects from pesticides." Some GM corn and cotton varieties are also designed to produce poison. Inserted genes from a soil bacterium produce an insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin in every cell of the plant. Bt is associated with allergic and toxic reactions in humans and animals, and may create havoc in our digestive system (see below). All GM crops, in fact, should be considered high-risk. Irrespective of which gene you insert, the process of genetic engineering itself results in massive collateral damage within the plants' natural DNA. This can result in new or higher levels of toxins, carcinogens, allergens, or nutrient-blocking compounds in our food. Because of a corporate takeover at the FDA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/obamas-team-includes-dang_b_147188.html), they don't require a single safety test on GMOs -- so almost none of the potential side effects are evaluated before the crops are approved for sale. The few animal feeding safety studies that have been conducted, however, show serious problems. It's obvious why those suffering from autism, Lyme, or any ailment, would want to stop being used as a guinea pig in this massive GMO feeding experiment. AAEM physician Amy Dean, a board certified internal medicine specialist, says:
	"GMOs have been shown to adversely affect the digestive and immune systems of animals in laboratory settings. Lyme and autism, on the rise in the US, are also associated with digestive and immune system dysfunction. Therefore, patients with Lyme and autism should avoid GM foods."
Autism, food allergies, and GMOs It is noteworthy that children with autism are often allergic to corn and soy. Both are genetically engineered. Many are also allergic to dairy. The LIA press release (http://www.lymeinducedautism.com/gmopositionpaper.html) points out, "dairy cows are usually fed GM feed and sometimes injected with GM bovine growth hormone." Although no studies have looked at the impact of eating meat or milk from GM-fed animals, secret FDA documents (http://biointegrity.org/list.html) made public from a lawsuit revealed that their Center for Veterinary Medicine was very concerned that toxins from GM foods might bioaccumulate in the livestock (http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/08/view1.html). If so, their milk and meat may be even more dangerous than the GM plants. Studies on the impact of bovine growth hormone (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/governor-sebelius-must-ve_b_183838.html) on the cows' milk are less ambiguous. The dairy products from treated cows contain higher amounts of puss, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). The last on the list is considered most dangerous. IGF-1 is linked to a much higher risk of cancer, and according to one study, may also be responsible for the high rates of fraternal twins born in the US. GMO health risk sampler Our Institute for Responsible Technology's Campaign for Healthier Eating in America (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/CampaignforHealthierEatinginAmerica/index.cfm) has been very busy distributing our Non-GMO Shopping Guide to doctors around the nation, who are quite concerned about the impact of GMOs on their own and their patients' health. They are also giving patients our small pamphlet (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/HealthRisks/HealthRisksBrochure/index.cfm) that summarizes the health dangers of GMOs. This helps to inspire people to use the Shopping Guide. Some of the health risks are included below. (Citations are posted (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/HealthRisks/HealthRisksBrochure/index.cfm).) See if you're also "inspired." Digestive disorders According to GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai, PhD, the digestive tract is the first and largest point of contact with GM foods and can reveal reactions to various toxins. Lab animals fed GM feed developed lesions in the stomach, damage intestines, and abnormal and proliferative cell growth in the walls of the stomach and intestines. Toxic intestinal bacteria The beneficial bacteria living inside our digestive tract is used for digestion and immunity. Excessive herbicide residues on herbicide-tolerant GM crops may kill beneficial gut flora. More importantly, the only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have dangerous GM proteins continuously produced inside us. Consider, for example, if the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were also to transfer. It might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories. Compromised immune system Virtually every animal feeding study that looked for immune changes from GMOs found them. GM-fed animals had a sluggish immune responses, damaged organs associated with immunity, altered parameters in the blood, and dangerous inflammatory and immune reactions. Allergies No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol, GM soy and corn fail those tests--because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens. Soon after GM soy was introduced in the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. A skin prick allergy test verified that some people react to GM soy, but not to natural soy. GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen. Both GM soy and corn contain at least one new unexpected allergen, not found in natural crops. The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to natural Bt spray had allergic and flu-like symptoms. Now, farm workers throughout India are getting those same symptoms from handling Bt cotton. Likewise, mice fed natural Bt had powerful immune responses; now mice and rats fed Bt corn also show immune responses. GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods Since GMOs were introduced in the US, food allergies have become a huge problem, especially for kids. Some of the foods that trigger reactions, however, are not genetically engineered. But studies show how GM foods might create sensitivity to other foods, and may in fact be contributing to this national epidemic. GM soy, for example, drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If our ability to breakdown proteins was impaired, we could become allergic to a wide variety of foods. Mice fed Bt-toxin not only reacted to the Bt itself, they started having immune reactions to foods that were formerly harmless. The Bt-toxin in the corn we eat may have a similar impact. Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other "safe" foods. The allergen responsible for this reaction may be found in GM foods on our supermarket shelves. GMOs and liver problems The liver is a primary detoxifier. Its condition can indicate if there are toxins in our food. Mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes in their livers. In some cases, livers were smaller and partially atrophied. Some were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed. And certain cellular changes indicated a toxic insult from the GM diet. Reproductive problems and infant mortality Both male and female animals showed horrific problems when fed GM soy. More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to 10 percent of the non-GM soy controls. The GM babies were also considerably smaller, and were unable to conceive in a subsequent study. Male rats and mice fed GM soy had changed testicles, including altered young sperm cells in the mice. And when both mouse parents ate GM soy, the DNA of their embryos functioned differently. GM corn also had an impact. The longer mice were fed the corn, the fewer babies they had and the smaller their babies were. Livestock sterility, disease, and death Many of the problems seen in laboratories are also reported by farmers and investigators in the field.
•	Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and serious reproductive problems.
•	Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.
•	About two dozen US farmers report that GM corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.
Ready to change your diet? Inspired? How about alarmed? Choosing non-GMO diets is not only a good idea for those suffering from disease, but for anyone wanting to eat healthy and prevent disease. Safe eating. International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/Home/index.cfm). His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating (http://www.chelseagreen.com/index/bookstore/item/seeds_of_deception/), is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (http://www.chelseagreen.com/index/bookstore/item/genetic_roulette/), documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. Both are distributed by Chelsea Green Publishing (http://www.chelseagreen.com). Follow Jeffrey Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyMSmith _______________________ Greenpeace campaign starts in Luxembourg CheckBiotech.org, 25 August 2009: http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/greenpeace_campaign_starts_luxembourg Greenpeace launched their European campaign against genetically modified rice in Luxembourg last Friday. The aim of the campaign is to reject the European Commission's proposal to authorise pharmaceutical giant Bayer's genetically modified rice LL62. The rice is resistant to glufosinate, a pesticide which is produced by the same company. The product is highly toxic and the new European reform on pesticides plans to ban the use of glufosinate once the current authorisation expires. Greenpeace also mentioned that most commercial distributors like supermarkets and restaurants are reluctant to sell genetically modified products. Luxembourg's public opinion is also hostile to genetically modified food: 140,000 people already signed a petition on the organisation's website. The organisation's campaign started with the screening of 3 films on the walls of the Bock in the old city. More demonstrations are planned all over Europe to raise awareness. For more information, please visit http://www.greenpeace.org/luxembourg _______________________ CHOICE links to list of beers, spirits and wines that are free of genetically modified ingredients Consumers International, 25 August 2009: http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=99903%20&int1stParentNodeID=89655&int2ndParentNodeID=94065&int3rdParentNodeID=94065&int4thParentNodeID=94065&int5thParentNodeID=94065&int6thParentNodeID=94065&int7thParentNodeID=9406 Genetically modified (GM) ingredients are slipping under the radar and into some foods - possibly your favourite glass of red, says CHOICE Australia. CHOICE reports on the launch of a pocket-sized guide listing alcoholic drinks free of GM ingredients, produced by Greenpeace Australia, with the support of farmers, chefs and well-known food industry figures. Is your drink GM-free? The alcoholic drinks edition of Greenpeace Australia's True Food Guide has a green and red list of alcoholic drinks, indicating those brands available in Australia that reject GM and others that may contain GM-derived ingredients respectively. Brands on the green list include:
•	Asahi Superdry
•	Beck's
•	Hoegaarden
•	Kirin Ichiban, and
•	Windy Peak.
Some brands on the red list include:
•	Absolut
•	Corona
•	Fosters
•	Jim Beam, and
•	Smirnoff.
Environmental issues 'Genetic engineering of grape vines and yeasts, currently being researched, is not the answer to challenges facing Australia's wine industry,' said leading Australian wine writer Max Allen. 'The environmental issues are becoming increasingly important for consumers.' According to Greenpeace, once GM crops are released they cannot be recalled and there are no long-term studies looking into the impacts of GM food. Wines While most Australian wines are GM-free, Greenpeace campaigner Holly Shiach says ingredients derived from GM soy, maize (corn), canola and cottonseed are used by some brewers, distillers and winemakers in Australia and overseas. 'Genetically engineered maize is the main source of contamination in beer, through the use of imported flaked or cracked maize, corn syrup, glucose, maltodextrin and dextrin,' says Shiach. Spirits and liqeurs Greenpeace says spirits, liqueurs and pre-mixed drinks are susceptible to GM contamination where imported corn and soy derivatives are used. Top distillers are adopting non-GE policies for their spirit brands, for example, Lion Nathan rates GM-free for Bacardi. Imported drinks Drinks imported into Australia are more susceptible to contamination from GM-derived ingredients, especially where the US is the country of origin. Brands such as Miller Draught, Corona and Jim Beam may contain GM-derived ingredients. Labelling laws Current labelling laws mean Australian consumers can't tell which foods contain ingredients derived from GM products. Highly refined GM ingredients such as corn syrup and canola and cottonseed oils don't need to be labelled as genetically modified at present. 'These GM ingredients may be in margarine spreads, confectionery, biscuits, cakes, crisps, cooking oils, mayonnaise and even drinks but consumers wouldn't be able to tell,' says Senior Policy Officer Clare Hughes. The CHOICE view CHOICE believes food labelling laws should require more information about GM foods. 'We know consumers want information about what is and isn't in their foods. The new alcoholic beverages guide helps them make an informed decision about what they are eating and drinking,' says Hughes. The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council will soon launch a review of Australia's food labelling laws and policy, which will consider all aspects of food labelling, including GM labelling laws. Read more...
•	To see which of your favourite brands make the GM-free list, download the full True Food Guide - Alcoholic Drinks Edition 2009 http://www.truefood.org.au/documents/True%20Food%20Bev_Full.pdf (pdf).
•	Find out more about genetic engineering, GM and GM-free food from Australia at the True Food website http://truefood.org.au/.
This news item has been provided by a CI member. It does not necessarily reflect CI policy. _______________________ 24 August 2009 Interview with Dr. J¸rgen Hambrecht [Chairman of BASF] PR Domain Business Register, 24 August 2009: http://www.prdomain.com/companies/B/BASF/newsreleases/200982575913.htm Excerpt: The German weekly newspaper Wirtschaftswoche [Business Week] published an interview with BASF's Chairman Dr. Jürgen Hambrecht. In the interview, Hambrecht spoke about a number of topics including the global economy, short-time work, agricultural business and plant biotechnology. ... Question: You have a partnership with the U.S. company Monsanto. BASF pays 50 percent of the costs, but only gets 40 percent of the profit. How come BASF is being squeezed like this?
	Monsanto and BASF both conduct their research independently. The two partners put their best research findings into joint, i.e., 50-50, development. Monsanto is contributing its valuable seed bank and carrying out the field testing. However the marketing, with all the costs that involves, is being done solely by Monsanto. That's why the profits are being allocated accordingly.
Monsanto is treating BASF as a junior partner.
	That's nonsense. This is one of the best partnerships we have ever had.
You could hardly have found a partner with a worse reputation. Monsanto has a name for giving farmers a hard time and being very aggressive with people opposed to biotechnology.
	Monsanto did not always handle its communications so well in the past. But things have changed.
You have also been fighting for years for Amflora genetically modified potatoes, which BASF thinks will give the industry a boost.
	The way the E.U. has handled this is outrageous. We have been submitting filings for Amflora for 13 years. Thirteen years! Just recently we had yet another confirmation of safety, but Amflora has still not been approved.
What consequences will you draw from that?
	If Amflora is not approved, we will consider withdrawing from plant biotechnology in Germany and Europe. Such a decision would be negative, politically driven and devoid of any scientific sense.
Do you think that you will see Amflora approved while you are still chairman? After all, your contract ends in early 2011.
	I very much hope so, and despite everything I remain optimistic.
Maybe you might have to extend your contract if you want to see Amflora thriving while you are still in this job.
	For me, 2011 marks the end of the road.
--- Comment from GM Watch: If you look at the full interview, you'll see the complete absence of any reference to the success (or otherwise) of BASF's previously much hyped GM "blight resistant" potato. This silence, when BASF's boss is asked about what GM crops are coming soon, may speak volumes about how effective the (now apparently halted) research actually was. _______________________ Cargill: A Threat to Food and Farming Food & Water Watch, August 2009: http://fwwatch.org/food/pubs/reports/cargill View report online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470879/Cargill-A-Threat-to-Food-and-Farming Download: http://fwwatch.org/food/pubs/reports/cargill/download?id=pdf In 2008, Cargill reported profits of almost $4 billion, its sixth straight year of record-breaking earnings, even as much of the rest of the world economy started to collapse. How does the largest privately owned company in the U.S. impact you? Plenty. You may not realize how much you buy at the grocery store has been imprinted by the agribusiness giant Cargill, but Cargill ingredients are everywhere in your supermarket. There isn't any Cargill-brand food but its hidden food products are probably on your dinner table tonight. Cargill's dominant role in the food system can affect your nutrition, the safety of your food, and the sustainability of food production. Here's why Cargill matters to shoppers :
•	Recalls: Cargill has recalled more than 20 million pounds of beef and poultry products tainted with E. coli and Listeria bacteria, respectively since 2000. This recalled meat has been linked to foodborne illness outbreaks, miscarriages, and several deaths.
•	Unsustainable practices: Cargill has turned a blind eye to environmental destruction and labor abuses taking place as a result of its operations around the world.
•	Food Stranglehold: In 2008, High prices for the food that Cargill exported worldwide coincided with low prices for the tropical crops that Cargill purchases - benefiting Cargill - and making the ability to purchase food beyond the reach of many rural communities in developing countries.
Know who has an invisible hand in your food. Read the full report http://fwwatch.org/food/pubs/reports/cargill. What you can do Avoid genetically modified, irradiated and carbon monoxide treated foods and tell retailers you don't want them. Buy local foods. Demand stronger oversight and enforcement." http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/t/5985/content.jsp?content_KEY=6162 _______________________ GMO-Free Brand. "In South Tyrol we started in 2001" Green Planet, 24 August 2009: http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/838-gmo-free-brand-in-south-tyrol-we-started-in-2001.html South Tyrol claims its leadership among GMO-free regions. Now that Germany has decided to adopt a brand to ensure the absence of GM products and ingredients in foods, the agricultural commissioners of the Bolzano province are eager to highlight that they are already applying that since 2001. "We are proud to note that a highly agricultural Country as Germany has decided to introduce a GMO-free label, following the same path that South Tyrol has started several years ago - declared commissioners Hans Berger and Michl Laimer. This means that the policy pursued in the Province of Bolzano, which aims at a drastic cut of GMOs, is the right one." The positive feedback that the South Tyrol's GMO-free label is recording among producers also confirms the success of the initiative, promoters highlight. However, they specify, "to increase consumers' trust in this quality brand, controls about its correct use should be expanded". Apart from Germany and South Tyrol, national governments' standpoints on the sensitive GMO issue are slowly changing, increasingly supporting the ban on the use of GMO products. The debate on the topic reveals a twofold goal, according to the Bolzano's commissioners: "On the one hand - Berger and Laimer explain- ensuring transparency to consumers; secondly, enabling local producers to get a strong characterization on the market. This is the only way to be successful in a highly competitive sector." _______________________ Finland found illegal GM in two food products FoodNavigator.com, 24 August 2009: http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Finland-found-illegal-GM-in-two-food-products Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira has said found non-authorised genetically modified material in two of 29 randomly tested products in 2008. Finland carries out random testing for GM material each year. Last year's samples were from soy and maize-containing foods and Chinese and American rice products. The testers found unauthorized GM BT63 rice in one sample of rice vermicelli; the product was withdrawn, destroyed, and consumers were informed. A rapid alert notification was also issued. The other product, a soy bean jelly, contained GM material in excess of 0.9 per cent, the level at which it has to be noted on the label by law. In this case, the importer was told to change the labelling, and control authorities were asked to look more closely at the importer's controls. The 2008 study also tested for GM in organic foods, in which no GM material is permitted. None was found in the samples analysed. _______________________ Agency Rejects US GMO Soybean, Honey • The agency even revoked the distributor license. VIVAnews [Indonesia], 24 August 2009: http://en.vivanews.com/news/read/84990-agency_rejects_us_gmo_soybean__honey The Food and Drug Monitoring Agency (BPOM) rejected the imported soybean which contains genetically modified organism. The agency even revoked the distributor license. "If the imported commodity has issues, we reject, like the GMO imported soybean," said the head of BPOM Husniah R. Thamrin in Jakarta on Monday, Aug. 24. The genetically modified soybean using various bacterias which make plant survive the herbicide is dangerous for the people's health because it is poisonous. BPOM sent the suspected dangerous imported goods to the biological safety commission to be analyzed its safety. BPOM will issue a permit based on the commission's recommendation. Similar to the soybean, the agency also rejected honey product which contains chloramphenicol, coming from several countries like the US, Japan, and China. "We will reject every product [that does not comply to the regulations]," said the head. _______________________ Morocco, Indonesia to bolster cooperation in agriculture field Agence Maghreb Arabe Presse, 24 August 2009: http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/economy/morocco_indonesia_t/view Rabat - Ways of boosting further cooperation ties and partnership in the field of agriculture were reviewed at a meeting held, here Monday, between Moroccan agriculture minister, Aziz Akhanouch and a visiting high-level Indonesian delegation representing the agriculture sector. Talks between the two sides also covered the exchange of experiences and expertise in date palm cultivation, palm tree species, and the improvement and control of genetically modified organisms. Morocco and Indonesia signed several agreements in 2008 which meant to bolster cooperation relations between the two countries in the economic, scientific and technical fields. _______________________ PepsiCo Chooses to Continue Using GE Ingredients Despite Evidence of Harm Dave Gabriele CheckBiotech.org, 24 August 2009: http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/pepsico_chooses_continue_using_ge_ingredients_despite_evidence_harm PepsiCo's 2009 shareholder proxy report contains a proposal (pg. 61) that paints a clear picture of the company's use of genetically-engineered (GE) food ingredients and its attitude toward this issue. The proposal describes a loose plan to remove GE ingredients from Pepsi's products in order to maintain "Company product integrity." The concern, archived for public record in the report, is that Pepsi products contain "potentially GE" corn, rice, canola, soy and sugar. The controversy of GE crops is not a new one. For years, proponents of the biotech industry have maintained that GE crops are completely safe for human consumption and will benefit the world, while campaigners against GE foods have contended that the long-term dangers of this branch of science are unknown and uncontrolled. We now know that GE crops can pose extreme dangers for human consumption, animal consumption and for the biodiversity of the environment. The report cites twelve well-documented incidences or studies in which the dangers of GE crops are clearly demonstrated. The evidence includes a 2007 study conducted in Paris, France, where rats were fed GE corn made by US biotech giant Monsanto. The results, which were published in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, were very unfavorable for the corn. The rats showed "signs of toxicity" in the kidneys and liver and developed problems in those organs. In 2005, a GE pea developed by Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization provoked a strong immune response in laboratory rats when tested by scientists from the John Curtin Medical Research School in the city of Canberra. The tests carried out on the pea were of the kind normally undertaken on drugs, not on food. US law does not require this kind of testing and so it is highly probable that the pea would have been approved if it were tested in the US. The findings were published in The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2005). The study concluded that, "These investigations, however, demonstrate that transgenic expression of non-native proteins in plants may lead to the synthesis of structural variants with altered immunogenicity." In other words, GE plants can lead to unpredictable immune responses in humans. In another 2005 incident, Syngenta admitted that it had accidentally sold unapproved genetically modified seed corn (Bt 10) in the US for four years (2001-2005). The mistake resulted in about 15,000 hectares planted with the unapproved variety and about 133 million kilograms of the corn making its way into the food supply. The evidence in Pepsi's proxy report represents a fraction of the evidence available yet it alone sends a clear message that GE foodstuffs are potentially dangerous. The proposal clearly presented this information to Pepsi and its shareholders and recommended that GE ingredients be removed from Pepsi's products. To quote Pepsi's response to the proposal: "We believe that genetically-modified products can play a role in generating positive economic, social and environmental contributions to societies around the world; particularly in times of food shortages." Pepsi's Board of Directors recommended that the shareholders vote against the proposal. PepsiCo products include: - Mountain Dew - Amp energy drink - Aquafina - Sun Chips - Lays potato chips - Doritos - Tostitos - Tropicana juices - Dole juices - Quaker Oats - Aunt Jemima Syrup - Rice-A-Roni - Gatorade Source: Natural News _______________________ 23 August 2009 GM Feed in the EU: Policies and Principles The Cattle Site, 23 August 2009: http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2100/gm-feed-in-the-eu-policies-and-principles As the price of non-GM feed soars, the European meat industry - bound by strict regulations - struggles to compete both in global and domestic markets, writes Adam Anson, TheCattleSite. The Evolving Situation of Global GM Markets Fuelled by high demand and cheap production costs, many varieties of genetically modified (GM) crops are thriving in demand. Engineered to be hardier in the presence of poor conditions, stronger in the fight against disease and more resilient against the threat of insects, for many, GM crop varieties are an obvious choice. Many critics have objected to GM food on several grounds, including perceived safety issues, ecological concerns, and economic concerns, yet the growth of this new market has expanded exponentially since it was first conceived in 1994. GM feeds were developed soon thereafter and for many countries became a more economical replacement for non-GM feed. However, the EU has applied stringent regulations on GM feed, forcing EU livestock producers to continue buying the evermore expensive non-GM feed. Passing the buck from farmer to consumer is not always possible as domestic meat products already face stiff competition from foreign countries which accept the use of GM feed. Many farmers argue that by the time their products reach the supermarket shelves they are already too expensive. In the money-conscious aftermath of the recent recession, demand for the higher-priced European product is further weakened. Trends and Scenarios In response to further concerns raised in the UK government's Food Matters report, published in July 2008, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in conjunction with the the UK Food Standards Agency recently produced a follow-up report examining the potential scenarios and impacts of European GM policies. The report reflects concerns that the rate of EU approvals for GM products, coupled with the absence of any tolerance for low levels of unauthorised GM material, could prejudice UK food and feed imports. Also, the report produced an analysis of the extent to which changes in the market are putting a strain on the regulatory system for GM products (including animal feed) and the implications for UK consumers. Of particular concern, the report identified the threat of a situation known as 'asynchronous approval'. This occurs when significant GM producers (USA, Brazil, Argentina) authorise and cultivate new types of GM crop before they are cleared for EU import. "Where a non-EU authorised GM crop is grown, there is potential for an adventitious presence of this crop to arise which may disrupt imports of that commodity from the country concerned, both non-GM (conventional) and EU-approved GM varieties," says the report. But, counter to the threat of asynchronous approval runs the belief that Brazil and Argentina will not adopt new strains before they are approved by the EU. However, the report also notes China's rapidly growing demand for GM feed. With an established Chinese market, EU demand will no longer dictate what kind of feed these countries produce. Concerns arise because the UK is currently dependent on soya feed from Brazil and Argentina. 90 per cent of UK feed comes from companies in these regions, totalling three million tonnes over 2007/2008. However, the current trend of these feed producers is towards the GM market. Already, 94 per cent of Argentinean soya is GM and in Brazil that figure is 65 per cent and quickly rising. There is also a risk that as a new GM soya variety is used in the US it might lead to trace levels being detected in supplies from other countries. The premium for non-GM feed can vary greatly, between US$5 a tonne and US$80 a tonne. Currently, the cost of maintaining these non-GM feed supplies is absorbed by the meat industry, but back in November 2008, it was considered that the premium for non-GM feed for UK agriculture could rise from £24 million to £45 million per year. Such a rise may have a disastrous impact on UK livestock farmers. As there is no legal requirement for labelling meat produced with GM-feed accordingly, consumers can find it difficult to differentiate between GM and non-GM products. The possible economical benefits of non-GM production is thereby often lost. The Next Step The Defra/FSA report makes it clear that that despite of the current problems they remain in favour of a strict and robust set of EU regulations. However, the pace at which GM feeds are evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) - which has the final say in what can and cannot be imported into the EU - could be hampered by unsatisfactory and over-stretched resources, suggests the report. A greater investment in this area would quicken inspections of new GM products and eliminate the threat of asynchronous approval. The report also questions the idea of a 'technical solution', which would allow a low presence of unauthorised GM feeds to pass through regulation in the event of contamination. This suggestion flies in the face of EU's current zero tolerance approach to GM food. The report argues that it would fail to protect the consumer from non-GM food and may lead to a consumer backlash. Such a scenario would raise media attention and public awareness of other GM products currently available in the EU. European citizens are highly sensitive to GM development in all sectors. Environmental claims lie on either side of the argument, as do humanitarian ones. Many are concerned that by accepting GM feed in EU markets they are effectively kow-towing to the demands of biotechnology companies, which dominate the GM market with limited competition. Such sectors lead to monopolisation - as the saying goes: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Critics fear that any gifts that farmers may garner from GM feed may be taken back once the market is globally established. The EU Commission was recently assigned to look into the matter of GM feed in Europe in further detail. Evaluation began in April 2009 and will be finished 12 months later. --- Comment by GM-free Ireland: The article falsely implies that the so-called "asynchronous approval" of GM crops between the USA and the EU is simply a matter of timing. This is not so.
	•	USFDA classifies new GM food, feed and crops as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe), and thus "deregulates" their placing on the market on the say-so of the applicant companies by rubberstamping their approval with virtually no oversight, no labelling, no traceability - and thus no possibility of epidemiological studies, and no liability!
	•	The EU has a more responsible approach: new GM products require a positive risk assessment opinion from EFSA, followed by approval by the Council of Ministers or the Commission, and must be labelled to inform consumers (although a giant loophole still allows meat, poultry, fish and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed to be placed on the market without a GM label). The EU's leading retailers and food brands refuse to sell GM-labelled food, and voluntary GM-free labels for such animal produce are now used in Austria, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and other countries.
The implication that most new US GM products will eventually be approved in the EU - and that the problem is only a matter of asynchronous timing - is thus utterly deceitful. Moreover, the claim that EFSA "has the final say in what can and cannot be imported into the EU" is absolutely false. EFSA only provides an opinion, but the Council of Ministers or the European Commission decides. For details see our interview with former EFSA Chair Prof Patrick Wall at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/efsa/index.php That said, EFSA's risk assessment protocol for the safety of GM feed and food is widely regarded as a farce, because it relies on secret data provided by the applicant companies, prevents transparent peer review, fails to consider the eco-social impacts, and regularly downplays or ignores the opinions and warnings raised by independent scientists and member states. The Council of Ministers recognises this and has told EFSA to stop giving positive opinions on new GM products until such time as it is prepared to exercise due diligence. The article makes no mention of the rapidly growing EU market for meat, poultry, fish and dairy produce from livestock produced on certified Non-GM feedstuffs - and the extra premia for farmers who respond to this consumer demand. This provides an opening for hard-pressed Irish cattle and sheep farmers who - because they use less imported soy and maize feed than many of their EU competitors, and benefit from the island's geographic isolation, absence of GM crops, and famous green image - have a lead start in the transition to a safe GM-free food chain, and can thus secure an unique sellling point: the most credible safe GM-free food brand in the EU. Needless to say, the article also fails to mention the growing body of peer-reviewed scientific litterature on the health dangers of GM feed and food. For example:
	•	Effects of GMOs and pesticides systematically understimated CRIIGEN appeal to public authorities Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, July 2009: http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/pressrelease-ijbs_080709.pdf
	•	Check-list of scientific papers on the health dangers of GM food and farming: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php
Despite the disinformation, the article ends with a glimmer of truth: "Many are concerned that by accepting GM feed in EU markets they are effectively kow-towing to the demands of biotechnology companies, which dominate the GM market with limited competition. Such sectors lead to monopolisation - as the saying goes: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Critics fear that any gifts that farmers may garner from GM feed may be taken back once the market is globally established." _______________________ BASF chief says hostile takeover bid possible: report AFP, August 23 2009: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/BASF-chief-says-hostile-takeover-bid-possible-Report/articleshow/4925496.cms Berlin - The head of Germany's BASF, the world's top chemicals group, said today a hostile takeover bid for his troubled company was possible but added that the firm was preparing defensive measures. "Certainly an attack is possible, there is no question about it," Juergen Hambrecht, chief executive officer, told business weekly Wirtschaftswoche in an interview due to appear tomorrow. "Our shares have been widely scattered. But like other companies, we have already considered the possibility and drawn up a defensive plan with the help of advisors," Hambrecht said. The group has been hit hard by the crisis and last month said its net profit slumped by 74 per cent in the second quarter of 2009. At the same time, the firm, which employed nearly 100,000 people at the end of 2008, warned that it expected a significant drop in sales and earnings this year. Nevertheless, Hambrecht was upbeat for the future of BASF's genetically-modified crops business, saying its co-operation with US GMO firm Monsanto could net"considerably more than a billion euros"by 2020. "Our agricultural business will grow fast. Green gene technology will become a big part of our business,"he said. "Together with our partner Monsanto, we are working on plants that produce a more bounteous crop and can survive in dry, salty soils." _______________________ It's time to play God • If Craig Venter's research leads to engineering new forms of life, mankind has hope for the future Johnjoe McFadden The Guardian, 23 August 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/23/venter-artificial-life-genetics The poet Joyce Kilmer wrote, "Poems are made by fools like me, / But only God can make a tree". New research by Craig Venter, one of the main scientists behind the human genome sequencing project, may change all that. His latest research, published in Science, has succeeded in making a new form of life in the laboratory. The hope is that this "synthetic life" will eventually lead to custom-made organisms engineered to tackle the world's woes. Engineering living organisms isn't new. Scientists have been genetically modifying microbes, plants and animals for decades. GM crops are grown on more than 2bn acres of the world's surface. But this is a kind of genetic tinkering. What Venter and many other scientists envisage is far more revolutionary: engineering entirely new forms of life. Synthetic life enthusiasts claim that we need new organisms to do the tasks that the existing ones are not so good at. For instance, farmers around the world are increasingly growing biofuel crops. But these crops take up land that would otherwise be used to grow food, which is at least partly why grain prices have soared. There are already efforts to exploit other resources, such as sewage or plant waste. But natural organisms have their own agenda: they want to produce descendants rather than ethanol, so aren't so efficient at making fuel. Venter is a pioneer of genome mining: excavating organisms living in exotic environments for novel genes. Some of these genes may be perfectly evolved for synthetic biology applications, such as biofuel production. But useful genes are scattered across hundreds of species, some of which can't be grown in the laboratory. What Venter and other scientists want to do is bring these genes together in an easy-to-grow custom-engineered organism. Several years ago Venter began this challenge by making a minimal cell to provide a kind of chassis capable of bolting on lots of different synthetic biology tools. His latest research has taken the genome of one bacterium, modified it inside a yeast cell and then inserted it into the cell of a related bacterium to create an entirely new organism. The next step will be to add genes and pathways to make biofuel or other products. Biofuels aren't the only target of synthetic biology. Scientists at the University of Manchester are trying to engineer bacteria to make novel antibiotics. Scientists are also seeking to make anti-cancer drugs, degrade harmful pollutants or produce valuable nutrients. Other scientists envisage more blue-sky projects such as engineering microbes to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or even to terraform Mars. But why stop with microbes? It will soon be possible to make entirely novel forms of plants or animals (including man). New cereal crop plants might fix their own nitrogen, eliminating the need for costly fertiliser. Or, how about custom-made insects that seek out and kill locusts or malarial mosquitoes? Of course, the prince of the realm and the anti-GM lobby will howl that we should not be playing God. Yet millions of tons of GM food are consumed each year without a single authenticated case of any harm. And although there have been justifiable concerns about the ecological impact of GM crops, research has tended to conclude they are more benign than conventional farming. Mankind cannot stand still. Since the 19th century human longevity in the west has been increasing by about five hours every day. Most of our extra years have been bought with advances in science and technology. But much of the world has been left out. With people living longer, population growth, crop yields waning and global warming, we need to innovate. Synthetic biology provides new hope for a bright future. _______________________ Britain donating millions for biotech crops Canada Free Press, 23 August 2009: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14010 Britain has pledged more than US$150 million over the next five years to support high-tech food crops for the world's poorest countries-primarily through genetic engineering. The irony? Britain does not yet allow any biotech foods to be grown commercially within its borders. Not even to develop a genetically modified potato that is resistant to the new strain of potato blight that is ravaging British potato fields. If the eco-activists hadn't pledged to rip out test plantings, the world would already have blight-resistant potatoes-a huge step forward in Third World food security. Potatoes produce more food per acre than any other crop, and they are increasingly important in such crowded places as China, India, and the African highlands. So far, however, there remains the threat of replaying the terrible Irish potato famine of the 1840s, not only in Britain, but in all potato dependant areas. The biggest piece of the new British funding will support development of drought-tolerant corn for Africa, following up the recent success of drought-tolerant biotech wheat in Australia. Such corn would be the biggest possible step forward for drought-prone small African farmers, ranking even ahead of the witchweed-resistant corn varieties recently produced by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico. Another chunk of funding will support Syngenta's international work in developing genetically modified "Golden Rice," which will prevent childhood blindness due to severe shortages of Vitamin A in rice-dependent cultures. This deficiency is the world's leading preventable source of childhood blindness, and involves millions of deaths. The eco- activists, of course, are raging mad over the British aid pledge. They continue to claim that biotech crops don't produce any higher food yields to prevent hunger, or help poor farmers earn higher incomes-but that's a lie. Biotech has already racked up massive yield gains from pest-resistant cotton in China and India, freeing up hundreds of millions of additional acres for food crops. This dwarfs anything the eco-activists have done to make the world more sustainable. The drought-tolerant wheat recently test-planted in Australia yields 20 percent more grain during droughts, with no yield penalty during years of good rains. This, too, will mean greater food security for wheat-dependent cultures in India, Turkey, and other countries. Biotech crops have also eliminated spraying of millions of pounds of pesticides that the eco-activists themselves have long claimed (without foundation) were producing severe health risks for humans. The activists' case for opposing these crop production advances: Genetically modified crops "are probably unsafe for human consumption," claims activist Brian John, though no peer-reviewed studies confirm the claim. In more than a decade of growing genetically modified food, no health problem has been traced to biotechnology. Not a single case of food poisoning; not even a headache; just more food, produced more reliably, and at lower cost to society. Could that be the real activist complaint about biotech? The environmental movement has hated the Green Revolution, and pilloried Dr. Norman Borlaug, the famed "man who saved a billion humans from starvation." Could it be that the environmental movement still blames high-yield farming for supporting "too many people"? If that's true, they should also remember that without the Green Revolution, the planet's wildlife habitat would already have been largely destroyed to grow more low-yield crops. The challenge now is to feed the 8 billion humans expected at the peak-along with their pets-from the land we already farm. We applaud Britain for its humanitarianism toward poor countries, even though allowing an anti-science backlash to flourish within its own boundaries. Dennis T. Avery is an environmental economist, and a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland This is an emblematic example of biotech propaganda. Consider the following statement:
	"...no peer-reviewed studies confirm the claim [that GM crops "are probably unsafe for human consumption]. In more than a decade of growing genetically modified food, no health problem has been traced to biotechnology. Not a single case of food poisoning; not even a headache; just more food, produced more reliably, and at lower cost to society."
It's amazing that scientists like Dennis Avery are willing to lie to this extent. There are, of course, numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies of the health dangers of GM food and farming. See some of these listed at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php _______________________ 22 August 2009 Lawsuit questions safety of herbicide • Attorney says Peoria is one of higher populations with atrazine contamination Clare Howard Journal Star [Illinois, USA], 22 August 2009: http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1844611495/Lawsuit-questions-safety-of-herbicide A class action lawsuit representing water districts throughout Illinois cites recent research contending atrazine in drinking water is unsafe at any level, even measurements well below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Attorney Stephen Tillery said Peoria is one of the higher population areas with atrazine contamination in water supplies. Tillery said the U.S. EPA conducted more than 40 private meetings with the leading manufacturer of atrazine to devise a testing protocol that manipulatively distorts atrazine levels in water. Illinois American Water Co. reports atrazine levels of 0.5 parts per billion in Peoria tap water, a level recent research has linked with low-birth weights but a level well below the 3 parts per billion considered safe by the EPA. Atrazine, an herbicide often used on corn fields, is linked with breast and prostate cancers and reproductive and neurological problems. Tillery filed the class action suit earlier this month in the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County on behalf of a rural sanitary district near Edwardsville and other water districts throughout the state. The suit was filed against atrazine manufacturer Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. with headquarters in Switzerland and Growmark Inc. with principal offices in Bloomington doing business under the "FS" name. Syngenta attorney Alan Nadel said Syngenta will discredit health and environmental concerns linked with atrazine by using research from the World Health Organization and National Cancer Institute. Nadel said Tillery's lawsuit "has been pending for five years. We moved to dismiss the lawsuit as without merit. It took three years for the judge to rule on that motion which was denied." Tillery cited a report issued last month by the National Institutes of Health that links low-birth weight and atrazine levels as low as 0.1 parts per billion. Atrazine is banned in a number of European countries, including Switzerland, because of the potential for groundwater contamination, but it is widely used in the United States on corn. It is also used by the landscaping industry. Tillery said atrazine runoff is a major source of drinking water contamination, especially for districts that rely on lakes and rivers. Illinois American Water Co. gets 40 percent of its water from the Illinois River. The company provides water to Peoria, Pekin and other central Illinois communities. Lori Horstman, water quality supervisor with Illinois American, said some atrazine is filtered out of river water and some is treated with powdered carbon to remove the chemical to levels considered safe by the EPA. The highest levels of atrazine are detected in water from April through July when it is applied on corn fields and carried to rivers and streams by runoff. Tillery said atrazine does not readily break down in water. When it does, it forms 16 separate chemicals, some of which are more toxic than the mother chemical atrazine. "This is something that has to be known at Syngenta," Tillery said. The target of his suit is not water districts but the chemical manufacturer. He is asking Syngenta to compensate water districts for the cost they incur in removing atrazine, a cost that could run over $1 billion nationwide on an annual basis. The lawsuit is not seeking to ban atrazine. A decision to make the herbicide illegal would have to come from Congressional action. Tillery said in an unusual move, EPA and Syngenta started working together on water samples in 128 sites on a weekly and biweekly basis with Syngenta testing for atrazine levels. He said that frequency of testing is a deliberate attempt to present average numbers that mitigate elevations of atrazine levels that occur each spring and summer. He cites scientific evidence indicating low levels of atrazine over a prolonged period of time in drinking water may be more damaging to human health than previously suspected. The Natural Resources Defense Council has formally requested that the EPA cancel atrazine's registration and revoke all atrazine tolerance levels. A 2003 letter from NRDC to the EPA office of pesticide programs charged EPA with violating its own special review regulations "by meeting repeatedly and privately with atrazine's registrant and cutting a special private deal with the registrant that is contrary to the public interest." Keith Bolin, a Bureau County farmer and president of the American Corn Growers Association, said he has chosen to use atrazine because he believes the most common alternative, using genetically modified organisms or GMO corn, is potentially more damaging to health and the environment. "These recent findings (about atrazine) are troubling, and we should all stand up and take note of this. What we as farmers do in a community can't be justified if it adversely affects health," Bolin said. "If atrazine is damaging water quality, no amount of profitability can justify its use." Bolin said it is economically unfair to an individual farmer who decides not to use atrazine because of environmental concerns while neighboring farmers can elect to continue using it. A decision to ban atrazine would end that unfair disadvantage, he said. European countries that banned atrazine five years ago have not documented any yield reductions. Other alternative herbicides were found to be equally effective in controlling weeds and maintaining yields. Karl Tupper, a scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America, said the National Institutes of Health study released last month is significant because atrazine has long been linked to birth defects in amphibians, but this study presents a correlation with human births. "These results show something is going on even with very low levels of atrazine," Tupper said. "I think use of atrazine needs to be curtailed and ultimately ended. The amount of atrazine used in this country is way out of control." Once a pesticide is approved for use in this country, it is very difficult to remove it from the market, he said. In Europe, by contrast, chemicals can more easily be removed as a precautionary measure. "Atrazine is a ubiquitous water contaminant in the Midwest. If you live in the Midwest, drinking the water is a problem. Why take the risk when the economic benefit (of using atrazine) is not great?" Tupper said. "Atrazine is a great example of a chemical with widespread human exposure and a lot of evidence suggesting problems with breast cancer, prostate cancer and low birth weight. The EPA needed more data, but then it put Syngenta in the position of collecting data. That's putting the fox in charge of the hen house. It's a huge conflict of interest and a great incentive not to find atrazine in water." Tupper said there needs to be a systemic change in the way chemicals are regulated in the United States. Clare Howard can be reached at 686-3250 or choward@pjstar.com. More: MORE: A new tool was released Thursday by the U.S. Geological Survey indicating atrazine levels in the watershed. It is an interactive Web site allowing viewers to access any specific location in the country to find median, mean and elevated levels of atrazine. Go to http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/warp/ to find atrazine levels in the watershed in central Illinois. _______________________ 21 August 2009 Exclusive: Indicators mount that Monsanto will be anti-trust target - Stock Analysts takes note Grangart's Journal Democratic Underground [USA], 21 August 2009: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/206 Yesterday it was noted that a major yet unreported story was developing that indicated that the Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture were signalling a significant departure from Bush anti-trust guidelines and that the Obama administration reported that they were going to conduct workshops to investigate anti-trust monopolies in agriculture by mega agriculture conglomerates. (See thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8602763) Further research indicates that Monsanto is the most obvious initial target of anti-trust research. These moves have gone unreported in the media and the blogosphere beyond DU, but today atleast two stock analysts connected the same dots noted yesterday and asked if Monsanto was being prepared to be "thrown under the anti-trust bus"
	http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/08/21/monsanto-dupont Is Monsanto Being Thrown Under the Anti-Trust Bus? In July 2008, the OCM started the Crop Seed Concentration Project an initiative target specifically at Monsanto, which the group says controls 90% of the market for genetically modified seed, a figure Monsanto disputes. "Monsanto's effort to enforce licensing agreements and protect its patent rights has dramatically altered American agriculture," the OCM (Organization for Competitive Markets) says on its Web site. "Monsanto has filed more than 100 patent infringement lawsuits against U.S. farmers." The OCD's crop concentration campaign coincides with U.S. President Barack Obama's vow to enforce antitrust laws that were neglected by the Bush administration, and its national convention attracted the representatives from the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Monsanto Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant has a great deal to be worried about. If you connect the dots it shows that powerful forces are lining up to take aim against Monsanto's market domination of the seed market. There are two other political reasons that the Monsanto CEO should also begin to worry: 1) The Attorney General's office inherited a number of complex legal positions that it doesn't agree with and may feel constrained to take immediate action on. Certainly the AG's office would be delighted to find some area that they can demonstrate a significant and radical change from the previous administration and show results. The AG's office has announced that it has officially "withdrawn Bush administration guidelines" on agricultural anti-trust. 2) It is a political win-win-win for the administration to pursue anti-trust against agricultural mega companies. It helps the administration build political favor in Republican areas. The fact that Monsanto is filing hundreds of lawsuits against ordinary farmers has sealed the politcal test on the issue. It also plays well to the more liberal Democratic base and it will be welcomed by consumers who will benefit from honest competition. To understand what has happened connect these dots:
1.	Monsanto projects monopoly like market projections for future profits. Monsanto has a dominate position in the market and is now projecting huge increases in revenue (not something anti-trust investigators will have much sympathy for. Monsanto is projecting a 250% increase in gross profit from 2007 to 2012) By 2012, Monsanto expects its gross profit from its core seeds and traits business to be between $7.3 billion and $7.5 billion - about 2.5 times its 2007 level.
2.	Organization for Competitive Markets - (appears to be the leading think tank to fight big AG monopoly) launches the Seed Concentration Project in July 2008 specifically to fight Monsanto's monopoly of the seed market. http://www.competitivemarkets.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=64 The problem of consolidation in the seed industry is well known. One company in particular, the Monsanto Company, controls a high percentage of the global seed market and continues to increase its dominance by acquiring or merging with a significant number of companies in its industry. Monsanto has acquired dozens of independent seed companies in the last decade. It controls 70% of the transgenic corn market and more than 90% of the transgenic soybean market. In 2007, Monsanto acquired Delta and Pine Land, the nation's largest cotton seed company. OCM opposed this acquisition, as did several other farm organizations and 13 state attorneys general. Monsanto now controls about 90% of the cotton seed and cotton seed traits marketplace.
3.	Monsanto sues farmers for patent lawsuits http://www.competitivemarkets.com/index.php?Itemid=63&id=207&option=com_content&task=view Monsanto's effort to enforce licensing agreements and protect its patent rights has dramatically altered American agriculture. Monsanto has filed more than 100 patent infringement lawsuits against U.S. farmers. Sometimes the farmers and businesses it targets are completely innocent. Yet these farmers undergo undue financial and emotional stress in their effort to avoid costly lawsuits.
4.	Monsanto sues Dupont http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5445YW20090505?sp=truev NEW YORK (Reuters) - Monsanto Co, the world's biggest seed company, said on Tuesday it sued chemical maker DuPont for unlawful use of its proprietary Roundup Ready herbicide tolerant technologies in soybeans and corn. DuPont responded by accusing Monsanto of trying to deny access to alternative technologies at a time when farmers are struggling with weeds that are increasingly resistant to current Monsanto products. "We are disappointed Monsanto chose litigation and inflammatory public statements over civil discourse," James Borel, a DuPont group vice president, said in a statement. Monsanto said its suit was filed on Monday in federal court in St Louis against DuPont and its subsidiary, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
5.	Dupont and OCM join forces http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/08/21/monsanto-dupont It's likely that by "masked third parties" Grant meant the Organization for Competitive (OCM) Markets, a nonprofit group that claims Monsanto controls 90% of the market for genetically modified seed. The Lincoln, NE-based organization claims to take on big agricultural companies in defense of small farmers and consumers, but it was recently revealed DuPont gives the group financial support.
6.	OCM conference on anti-trust agricultural practices attracts record attendance The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) drew a record crowd of ranchers, farmers, feedlot operators, seed distributors and others for its annual conference held in St. Louis on August 7th. Attendees heard panel presentations concerning the ills of market concentration and anticompetitive practices and ongoing efforts to address these issues. Featured speakers included antitrust attorneys, food retail economists and two top Obama Administration officials tasked with enforcing antitrust and competition laws in the agriculture and livestock sectors.
7.	Obama administration attends OCM conference and announces major policy change on Agriculture Anti-Trust and announces workshops to investigate impact on farmers and ranchers: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2009/248797.htm The Department of Justice and USDA are interested in receiving comments on the application of antitrust laws to monopsony and vertical integration in the agricultural sector, including the scope, functionality and limits of current or potential rules. The Department and USDA are also inviting input on additional topics that might be discussed at the workshops, including the impact of agriculture concentration on food costs, the effect of agricultural regulatory statutes or other applicable laws and programs on competition, issues relating to patent and intellectual property affecting agricultural marketing or production, and market practices such as price spreads, forward contracts, packer ownership of livestock before slaughter, market transparency, and increasing retailer concentration.
8.	Market analysts start to take note: Money morning (quoted above) http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/08/21/monsanto-dupont CNBC Jim Cramer: Monsanto couldn't provoke a government inquiry anymore than it already has: http://www.cnbc.com/id/32404907 The Obama administration is stepping up its antitrust enforcement, Cramer said Thursday, and Monsanto could be the first target. Recent moves by the company seem to be daring the Justice Department to file a suit. Believe Cramer when he says that the government has a strong case against Monsanto. A series of competition-crushing acquisitions made this biotech disguised as an agriculture outfit the market leader in genetically modified US corn, soybean and cotton seeds. And Monsanto maintains strict agreements with its farmer clients that leave them virtually no choice but to feed at the corporate trough. Plus, the company plans to push through a 42% price increase on its new seeds, and there's nothing these farmers can do about it. Cramer: Buy These Ag Stocks Monsanto couldn't provoke a government inquiry anymore than it already has. The firm seems to have farmers and the seed market in a stranglehold. Monsanto's reputation is so noteworthy that the company serves as the villain in the new documentary Food, Inc. Cramer thought the movie's accusations alone might be enough to draw Washington's ire.
The strangest part of this whole story is how it seems to be evolving completely outside of the mainstream media (only noted by agricultural and stock analysts so far) and outside of the blogosphere. Connecting the dots outlined above seems to indicate that this is going to be the first major clash between the Obama administration and big agriculture. _______________________ Loophole in commodities trading closed AllAboutFeed.net, 21 August 2009: http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/loophole-in-commodities-trading-closed-3508.html The American Feed Industry Association is extremely pleased to learn of a decision this week by federal regulators to close a loophole that permitted certain types of highly speculative trades in agricultural commodities to occur. The loophole was a significant factor leading to dramatic price increases in commodities such as corn, soybeans and wheat in early 2008. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Aug. 19 said it would close the loophole by withdrawing two "no-action" letters that had resulted in Deutsche Bank and another investment firm exceeding speculative position limits on corn, soybeans and wheat. The CFTC's action is a good first step toward ensuring dramatic price increases will be less likely to occur in the future as a result of this particular type of trading, according to Joel G. Newman, AFIA president and CEO. "I believe that position limits should be consistently applied and vigorously enforced," CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said in an agency news release. "Position limits promote market integrity by guarding against concentrated positions." AFIA members identified this situation as one of six factors that contributed to last year's most dramatic rise in commodity prices in history. "This is a critical issue that is within our control and should be addressed," Newman said. "We look forward [...] to implement the remaining rule-making and legislative corrections to ensure the commodity markets remain effective tools for customers in agriculture and other industries to establish market prices and hedge against the risk of long-term commodity purchases." _______________________ Genetically-Modified Barley Harvest in Iceland Sabotaged Iceland Review, 21 August 2009: http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=338035 Genetically-modified barley, which was being grown for experimental purposes in Gunnarsholt, south Iceland, by start-up company ORF Liftaekni, was damaged by a group of activists in the early hours of Wednesday. There will be no harvest this fall. [image: CEO of ORF Liftaekni, Bjorn Larus Orvar. Photo by Geir Olafsson.] "We are naturally shocked about this," CEO of ORF Liftaekni, Bjorn Larus Orvar told visir.is, adding that the activists have caused ISK millions of damage to his company. "For a small company like ours, which is struggling in the difficult innovation environment, this is a serious matter." By cultivating genetically-modified barley ORF Liftaekni's had wanted to create valuable products for medical research, the cosmetics market and the development of pharmaceuticals. The group of activists, which calls itself Illgresi (Weed), sent an anonymous email to the media, claiming responsibility for the sabotage. The group argues that ORF Liftaekni's experiments will lead to the cultivation of other genetically-modified organisms in Iceland, which it considers dangerous to the environment and local animal life. The group states that democratic discussions on the matter are lacking, accusing the institutions that granted ORF LÌftaekni a permit to grow genetically-modified barley of corruption. Orvar dismisses the group's accusations. "I don't know what they are referring to. [Our operations] were given a very good and professional evaluation at the Environment Agency of Iceland and the Nature Institute. If we cannot trust our foremost scientists I don't know who we should go to." "From now on genetic modification will not take place in Iceland without us interfering," Illgresi threatened. The sabotage has been reported to the police. --- Comment by GM Watch: Looks like this GM company were trying to do for Icelandic agriculture what Icelandic bankers have done for the rest of the economy. _______________________ Redman making rash decisions on GM: Greens Farm Weekly [Australia], 21 August 2009: http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/redman-making-rash-decisions-on-gm-greens/1601837.aspx The Greens have attacked Western Australian Agricultural Minister Terry Redman's attitude to genetically modified crops, following the Minister's return from his fact-finding visit to Canada. Federal Greens Senator Rachel Siewert says regulation of GM crops and foods is "grossly inadequate" and that the moratorium should be maintained. "There are serious concerns about Australia's labelling laws in relation to GM items in crops - even if we could get past the current deadlock on a national labelling scheme, it would take two years or more to implement," Sen Siewert said. "All the while, our agricultural sector is being contaminated." Sen Siewert claims it does not make economic sense to adopt GM technologies. "GM canola costs 15 per cent more to grow than conventional canola - once the additional cost of the seed, inputs, user fee and end point royalty fees are taken into account - and independent trials have shown GM canola yields 10pc less than non-GM varieties," she said. Greens WA MLC Lynn MacLaren also questioned the diversity of views the Minister sought out on his trip. "We have serious concerns that the Minister has not truly canvassed the issue," she said. "You have to question exactly who Mr Redman has met with, to come back with such a positive view of GM crops. "It would appear that he didn't talk to those in Canada who strongly oppose GM crops. "We've already seen a number of shires in the south-west and Great Southern voting to ban GM crops - why won't the Minister listen to these people and maintain WA's proud GM-free status?" _______________________ 20 August 2009 Zero tolerance on GM feeds must go By Philip Clarke CheckBiotech.org, 20 August 2009: http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/zero_tolerance_gm_feeds_must_go At last the political pressure seems to be building to do away with the EU's ridiculous rules that outlaw any feedstuffs that contains even a trace of a non-approved GM product. Just two weeks ago, a cargo of US soymeal was turned away by importers in Spain, following the discovery of traces of an unapproved GM maize variety. And further consignments had to be recalled in Germany. The EU's highly convoluted approvals process means that the waiting list of GM products is increasing all the time. And is it grows, so does the risk of contamination with non-EU approved soya or maize. This week's report from DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency sums up the problem well. It points to the fact that Brazil and Argentina currently supply 90% of the UK's soya market, and these two countries are dominated by GM varieties - over 90% in the case of Argentina.... Currently they only cultivate varieties that are approved for use in the EU. But patience is wearing thin and Argentina could soon start approving non-EU approved varieties too. According to the DEFRA study, under a worst case scenario, where there were no soya imports from either Argentina or Brazil, there would be a 300% major increase in feed costs, a "significant" reduction in pig and poultry production and a marked increase (10-20%) in meat prices. While these are, by admission, extreme figures, they highlight the problem. Even without contamination, sourcing GM-free soya can cost anything between $5/t and $80/t more than a GM alternative. Fortunately, there seems to be some momentum building in Brussels to change these rules. EU agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel recently said she was "deeply concerned" about the threat to the EU livestock sector of not being able to source competitive feed. It was almost impossible to avoid some form of GM contamination, as the crops are now so widely grown, she added. And, while proposals to deal with the issue have been held up in the EU's food safety directorate for many months, the expectation is that they will now see the light of day when Brussels goes back to work in September. It is rumoured they may even go to the EU agriculture council on 7 September. As with anything to do with GM crops, they are likely to split opinion between member states. But, from a purely practical point of view, steps must be taken urgently to allow at least a degree of "adventitious presence" of non-approved GMs, without the cost and waste of banning such harmless consignments from the EU food chain. Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive [UK]. --- Comment by GM-free Ireland: The agri-biotech industry propaganda against the EU's "zero tolerance" policy for contamination of the food chain with unapproved GM animal feed relies on disinformation and scaremongering, and monopoly concentration of corporate control that may breach EU anti-trust laws.
•	The claim that non-approved GMOs are "harmless" flies in the face of scientific evidence. For example:
	•	"Effects of GMOs and pesticides systematically understimated CRIIGEN appeal to public authorities, July 2009 http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/pressrelease-ijbs_080709.pdf
	•	Check-list of scientific papers on the health dangers of GM food and farming http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php
•	The claim that Brazil is "dominated by GM soy varieties" is a total lie. Despite the economic crisis, Brazil's production of Non-GMO soybeans has boomed from 0.4 million tonnes in 2000 to 8.85m tonnes that were audited and available for certified crushing and shipment to Europe as part of the 2009 harvest which took place from February through May. Moreover, the recent trend of increased GM soy planting in Brazil has almost petered out, and may reverse in the 2009-2010 season as farmers find the disadvantages of planting GM soy outweigh its benefits. This year (2009), roughly 26 million tonnes of Non-GM soy (i.e. 45 to 50% of Brazil's total soy harvest of 57.3m tonnes) was Non-GM. Although lack of demand led most of this Non-GM soy to be sold without segregation and traceability, some 10 million tonnes were produced within IP systems, certified GM-free below a detection limit of 0.01%, and were available for purchase by European buyers. Furthermore, 6.3m tonnes of this were additionally certified via the ProTerra standard as both Non-GMO and sustainable, and were sold and shipped as such (http://www.cert-id.eu/ProTerra.php).
Advice for farmers In view of the animal feed cartel's inability or refusal to provide Irish farmers with affordable supplies of legal GM and/or certified Non-GM soy feedstuffs, GM-free Ireland is advising farming organisations and feed buyers to organise themselves to source the material they need directly from suppliers in Brazil, India and China. To secure price and availability for delivery in Spring 2010, buyers should place bulk orders via fixed cost frame contracts, preferably before the October planting in Brazil, or by December or January at the latest. Useful contacts: For reliable information on the availability and certification of Non-GM soy products:
•	Cert-ID Europe Ltd / Proterra Middleton, Staffordshire, UK tel + 44 (0) 1827 874 849 email: info@cert-id.eu http://www.cert-id.eu
•	ABRANGE Brazilian Association of Non Genetically Modified Grain Producers Sao Paolo, Brazil tel + 55 11 2892 7101 email: abrange@abrange.org www.abrange.org
For questions of availability and general market information on Non-GM soy products:
•	Jochen Koester TraceConsult™ Geneva, Switzerland tel + 41 22 819 9400 email: jk@traceconsult.ch www.traceconsult.ch
_______________________ US ships with soybean meal halted AllAboutFeed.net, 20 August 2009: http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/us-ships-with-soybean-meal-halted-3503.html European Union buyers have voluntarily stopped imports of US soybean meal, after traces of genetically modified maize were found in shipments, the Irish Examiner writes. European trade sources said US soy shipments to Spain and Germany were found to have traces of GMO maize varieties which are prohibited in the EU. A German trader told the Reuters news agency: "The shipments have been rejected at the EU borders, and have been consigned and recalled when already on the market within the EU, unless they have already been consumed." After 50,000 tonnes of contaminated US soybean meal were unloaded and detained at Tarragona, Spain's largest port, a spokesman for the Spanish Association of Cereal and Products Importers said: "That puts us all in an uncertain, risky trade situation, and that is most serious for the entire European Community, trade, livestock production and the economy." Meanwhile, another cargo of soybean in the Spanish port of La Coruna awaited tests for genetically modified organisms. The US Grain and Feed Trade Association estimates that 200,000 tonnes of US soy had been denied entry to the EU, by mid-July. Given the uncertainty, international traders have ceased all further shipments. This has raised concerns about supplies of key feed ingredients for European livestock. The EU took 475,900 tonnes of US soybean meal in the marketing year to last October. Shipments since then are 374,300 tonnes. The import shutdown is most worrying for Ireland, which depends heavily on imported animal feed such as soy. Over 50% of animal feed ingredients are imported here, more than any other country in the EU. --- Comment by GM-free Ireland: In fact, Irish cattle and sheep actually consume less maize and soy feed than livestock in most other European countries, thanks to their mostly grass-based diet. In Ireland, imported maize and soy feed constitutes only 3-7% of the total cattle and 15-17% of the total sheep diets. Most of Ireland's imported maize feed comes from the USA in the form of maize gluten (a by-product of the US biofuel industry). But most of Ireland's (and Europe's) imported soy feed does not come from the USA and is therefore not affected by these latest contamination incidents: it comes from Argentina and Brazil - which take great care to only grow GM soy varieties that are approved in the EU. The agri-biotech industry is using disinformation like the article above as part of its strategy to mislead Irish farmers into the absurd belief that the solution to GM food chain contamination problems is to allow more of them, by scrapping the EU's "zero tolerance" policy for unapproved GM animal feed. The market trend is clearly in the opposite direction. Leading European retailers and food brands now offer certified GM-free animal produce (including meat, poultry, fish and dairy from livestock fed a Non-GMO diet). From an economic perspective, the reality of Ireland's low consumption of GM animal feed - together with our GM-free crop status, geographic isolation, unpolluted topsoil and famous green image - gives our farmers and food producers an historic opportunity to secure an unique selling point: the most credible safe GM-free food brand in the EU. This requires rapid action to set up an Irish GM-free label and marketing scheme for our top quality produce - and the development of a domestic market for certified Non-GM soy feed imports which can be sourced at affordable prices via frame contracts from Brazilian suppliers a growing season ahead of time. It's a shame that organisations which claim to represent the interests of Irish farmers - including Teagasc, the Irish Farmers Association, and the Irish Farmers Journal - are still promoting the use of GM animal feed which is already causing Irish food to be rejected from the top quality shelves of European retailers. Do Teagasc and the IFA take money from Monsanto, like the Irish Farmers Journal does? For more information, download GM-free Ireland's related presentation at the Second International Non-GMO Soy Summit held in October 2008 (1.9MB pdf): http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/SoySummit2/GMFI-SoySummit2008.pdf _______________________ Farmers suing German-based Bayer Cropscience over genetically engineered strain of rice Associated Press, August 20 2009: http://www.kfsm.com/news/sns-ap-ar--rice-lawsuit,0,3707953.story LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Nearly 1,500 rice farmers are suing the German conglomerate Bayer Cropscience and affiliated companies over a genetically engineered strain of rice. The lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in Little Rock claims the farmers' crops were corrupted by the rice that was produced by Bayer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in August 2006 that traces of an unapproved genetically engineered rice had been found in U.S. supplies of long-grain rice. The lawsuit says Bayer and Riceland Foods Inc. confirmed the traces in early 2006 but didn't tell farmers, the government or the public until July or August. A dollar amount being sought in damages is not given in the complaint. A spokesman for Bayer said he had not seen the lawsuit and couldn't comment. --- NOTE: For a history of Bayer: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11419-making-qmein-kampf-come-trueq-bayer-a-history _______________________ 19 August 2009 Nanoparticles used in paint could kill, research suggests • Tiny particles used in thousands of household products could be lethal, researchers have warned, after workers in a paint factory developed serious lung disease. Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor Daily Telegraph, 19 August 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6016639/Nanoparticles-used-in-paint-could-kill-research-suggests.html Seven women working in a factory where nanoparticles were used in paint fell ill with serious lung disease and two died, researchers in China reported. Experts said the findings are the first clear evidence that nanoparticles can be hazardous to health and should be taken very seriously. Nanoparticles, which measure one billionth of a metre, are found in tennis racquets, special non-sweat socks, medicines, sunscreen and paints. Researchers writing in the European Respiratory Journal said nanoparticles were found deep in the lungs of the women who fell ill. The study, by a team led by Yuguo Song, of the Occupational Disease and Clinical Toxicology Department at Chaoyang Hospital in Beijing, said all of the women were admitted to hospital for respiratory problems over the course of a few months, accompanied by itchy eruptions of the skin on the face and arms. They were found to have a build-up of liquid around their heard and lungs which could not be treated. A chemical in the paint, the patients' lung tissue and the liquid surrounding the lungs were all found to contain nanoparticles. According to Yuguo Song, these particles must originate in the polyacrylate-based paints used by the women at work. Researchers at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, together with the Chinese Centre for Disease Control, carried out an investigation "The workers, of peasant origin, were also completely unaware of workplace health and safety regulations and of the potential toxicity of the materials they were handling", explains Yuguo Song. "Their only protection, used sporadically, was cotton gauze masks." He added: "It is clear that the symptoms, the examination results and the progress of the disease in our patients differ markedly from respiratory pathologies induced by paint inhalation." He said the lung condition continued to develop even after the women were no longer exposed to the paint and no other people fell ill after the machinery at the factory was shut down. Although the authors cannot be certain the nanoparticles caused the illness but said: "We call on scientists throughout the world to work together and address this new challenge." Dr Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington DC, said the researchers have not identified what the nanoparticles involved are made from or how much the patients had inhaled. Nonetheless, he said: "This is the first clear case where there is an association between someone breathing in nanoparticles in the workplace and getting seriously ill. People should take this very seriously. The international research community should be galvanised by this." He said there should be renewed efforts to examine workplace exposure to nanoparticles and ensure it is kept to a minimum. _______________________ 18 August 2009 The campaign for Healther Eating in America • Healthy Eating Starts With No Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Food Consumer [USA], 18 August 2009: http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/Politics/3761.html You may have heard the FDA and food industry claims that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe, properly tested, and necessary to feed a hungry world. UNTRUE! Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one of the most dangerous and radical changes to our food supply (http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/CampaignforHealthierEatinginAmerica/HealthRisks/index.cfm?). These largely unregulated ingredients found in 60-70% of the foods in the US, are well worth the effort to avoid them. Fortunately, health-conscious consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers and growers are participating in The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which will help eliminate GMOs from thousands of food products. Their efforts will make it easier for you to avoid the serious health risks of eating GMOs and to feed your family a healthier "non-GMO" diet. The campaign's goal is to stop the genetic engineering of the entire US food supply. Join the Campaign! If a sufficient number of shoppers in the US avoid GMO foods, consumer pushback will force our major food companies to stop using them. The European Union reached a consumer driven tipping point in April 1999 on this issue and within a single week, virtually all major manufacturers publicly committed to stop using GM ingredients in their European brands. Sadly, the same companies that carefully avoid adding GMO ingredients to products marketed to concerned consumers in the European Union are eager to sell GMO foods to uneducated consumers in the US. In the US, the natural foods industry has led the way in the widespread consumer rejection of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST) in dairy products, by educating their customers about the health dangers associated with rbGH and making rbGH-free brands readily available. This wave that started in natural food aisles is being felt throughout the entire food industry. Within the last two years, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, and about 40 of the 100 top dairies removed rbGH products as consumer concerns reached a tipping point on this issue. As US consumers pushed back against GM dairy products, the food industry responded. But time is of the essence, The US sugar beet industry is venturing into the world of genetically modified crops this year by introducing a new gene-spliced variety engineered by Monsanto with plans to make GM sugar available to the food industry in 2009. We must act now to help stop the introduction of unlabeled GM sugar from GM sugar beets into our food supply. US Consumers Have Been Given a False Sense of Security About the Safety of Our Food Supply Many consumers in the US mistakenly believe that the FDA approves GM foods through rigorous, in-depth, long-term studies. In reality, the agency has absolutely no safety testing requirements. Instead the agency relies on research from companies like Monsanto, research that is meticulously designed to avoid finding problems. It's easy to understand the FDA's industry-friendly policy on regulation of GMOs when you see the revolving door between agency regulators and the companies they regulate. The White House mandate to the FDA (under the first George Bush) was to promote biotechnology and the person in charge of developing the agency's policy at that time was a former Monsanto attorney, who later returned to Monsanto as their vice president. The FDA has claimed it was not aware of any information showing that GM crops were different "in any meaningful or uniform way," from non-GMO crops and therefore didn't require testing. But 44,000 internal FDA documents made public by a lawsuit show that this was a complete lie. The overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists was that GM foods were quite different and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. It turns out that FDA scientists, who had urged superiors to require long-term studies, were ignored. Even though evidence of this apparent fraud at the FDA was presented at a Washington, D.C. press conference in 1999 with major media in attendance, the media didn't alert the public. In fact, most Americans know so little about this subject, that only about 1 in 4 consumers even know if they've ever eaten a GM food in their lives, even though the vast majority of processed foods contain derivatives from the four major GM crops: soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. The Campaign For Healthier Eating in America Is Moving the Market to Non-GMO The fact that GMOs have flourished in the US food supply during the last ten years based on consumer ignorance about the dangers of eating GM foods leaves the biotech industry extremely vulnerable. Why? If we can push this issue onto the national radar screen again by educating shoppers, widespread consumer reaction could force an even more comprehensive Euro-style retreat from GMOs. How many shoppers would have to reject brands that contain GMOs to reach this tipping point? Even 5% of shoppers, or 15 million Americans, would likely be more than enough. When marketing executives at top companies see the drop in market share and the emergence of a trend, kicking out GMOs will be a natural reaction. After all, food brands don't gain anything from including GM ingredients in their products. Their foods aren't fresher, tastier or healthier. The two major traits in GM crops are herbicide tolerance, which allows farmers to spray herbicide on the crops without killing them, and pesticide production, which means the crops produce an insect-killing toxin in every cell. The purchasing power of the tens of millions of health-conscious shoppers will inspire a new tipping point and push GMOs out of the entire food supply. Leaders in the natural foods industry are speeding up the removal of GMOs from their food products as the industry adopts a third party verified non-GMO standard. As a part of this coalition effort, The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will be distributing a free, in-store Non-GMO Shopping Guide and making our Non-GMO Education Centers available to retailers, to drive home the message that "Healthy eating starts with no GMOs." This combined strategy will give consumers an easy way to make clear non-GMO brand choices. Retailers can get on board by ordering free the Non-GMO Shopping Guides and setting up Non-GMO Education Centers inside their stores (http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmfree,5186). Manufacturers can get on board with a free listing of their GM-free products in The Campaign's Non-GMO Shopping Guides ( http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmfree,5187). Everyone can get on board by signing up as a member of the Campaign http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/CampaignforHealthierEatinginAmerica/Supporters/index.cfm. We don't need to wait for government agencies to do their jobs. We can make healthier choices for ourselves, our families, and our customers. Together we can inspire the tipping point for healthier, non-GM eating in America. Inform others! Organize a house party or public showing of the World According to Monsanto http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmfree,5199 with the help of our Showing Guide http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/CampaignforHealthierEatinginAmerica/Individuals/ShowingGuide/index.cfm. This article is cited from responsibletechnology.org _______________________ Monsanto's Roundup More Deadly to Liver Cells than Glyphosate Alone Environmental Health News, 18 August 2009: http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/roundup-mix-more-toxic-to-liver-cells-than-glyphosate/ Gasniera C, C Dumontb, N Benachoura, E Claira, MC Chagnonb and GE SÈralini. 2009. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology doi:10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006 Synopsis by Negin P. Martin, Ph. D Very low doses of some types of the herbicide Roundup can disrupt human liver cell function; the formulations' toxicity may be tied to their "inactive" ingredients rather than the active weed-killing ingredient glyphosate. French scientists report that a number of Roundup formulations tested at very dilute concentrations can alter hormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within 24 hours of treatment. The toxicity of some of the formulations was independent of how much glyphosate - the active herbicide in Roundup - they contained, suggesting it is other "inert" ingredients that may alone - or in combination with each other and/or the weedkiller - assault the cells. This study's results are similar to prior studies - as reported in a recent Environmental Health News article [http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/roundup-weed-killer-is-toxic-to-human-cells.-study-intensifies-debate-over-inert-ingredients] - that find human embryo cells are affected more by the Roundup formulations and an inert ingredient than by the active ingredient. The levels of Roundup used in this study are similar to what is typically found in food crops or animal feed treated with Roundup. Because of this, it is possible that people, livestock and wildlife may be exposed to levels of the herbicide mix that can damage cells. Glyphosate is harmful to humans and animals even at a very low dose. It is often tested by itself in regulatory studies to determine if the Roundup formulation is toxic. However, according to this study, levels of glyphosate in Roundup formulations are not good indicators of toxicity. The ingredients responsible for the increased potency of Roundup formulations seen in this study - as compared to purified glyphosate - remain unknown. The chemical formulas of herbicide additives are generally protected as trade secrets, and the researchers did not try to chemically identify them. Therefore, their effects cannot be easily investigated and they remain undetected in the environment. Roundup was developed as a weapon against weeds. Many genetically modified (GM) plants have been developed to tolerate Roundup. Today, Roundup is the most widely used weedkiller in the world and 75 percent of all GM plants are engineered to resist the herbicide. Monsanto agricultural company produces both Roundup and Roundup-resistant GM plants. Four Roundup formulations - Roundup Express 7.2 (R7.2), Bioforce (R360), Grands Travaux (R400) and Grands Travaux Plus (R450) - were tested in this study. All formulations were more potent than purified glyphosate (at similar levels to R360) in causing cell death. Surprisingly, R400 containing less glyphosate was more toxic to human liver cells than R450. In the study, exposure of a single gene regulated by either estrogen or androgen hormones demonstrated that all formulations disrupt hormone function more efficiently than purified glyphosate. The findings show that the formulations act against the hormones to produce anti-estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects. _______________________ Euro view: It's a food revolution, not a rethink, that's needed By Jill Evans, Western Mail [Wales, UK], 18 August 2009: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/countryside-farming-news/country-farming-columnists/2009/08/18/euro-view-it-s-a-food-revolution-not-a-rethink-that-s-needed-91466-24462856/ LAST week UK Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, warned that we need a "radical rethink" over food and the way it's produced. It's not a "rethink" that we need, but a food revolution. And this means adopting policies that to most people, sound more like common sense than revolution. We need a food policy that protects the rights of farmers and consumers. As demand for more locally produced and healthy food increases, we must have the power to ban genetically modified crops and control the power of the big supermarkets. As long ago as the spring of 1999 I called for a one-off levy on supermarket profits, and for the money to be ploughed into rural areas through a food marketing programme. The need for urgent action to support and maintain our rural communities is just as relevant today. We must change the way farmers, retailers and consumers interact. Even more so, with the climate crisis firmly on the agenda, by sourcing food locally, retailers and consumers will help in tackling climate change - and in doing so, support local producers. Adapting to change is an ongoing process and it also needs to be tackled on many fronts. In May of this year, myself, Wales' Agriculture Minister, Elin Jones AM, and Adam Price MP called for the Westminster government to establish a supermarkets ombudsman as a matter of priority. Such a figure would be able to ensure that both customers and suppliers get treated fairly by the huge supermarkets. Farmers must be paid a fair price for their produce. They have a vital role as food producers but also in developing high quality, unique Welsh products that create local jobs. Hilary Benn's "rethink" is far from radical when it fails to address the most basic problems of all. _______________________ GM ban 'could treble feed costs' By Johann Tasker Farmers Weekly Interactive [UK], 18 August 2009: http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/08/18/117234/gm-ban-could-treble-feed-costs.html Livestock feed costs could soar by 300% if Europe maintains strict import rules as global GM soya production rises, the government has warned. Brussels' low approval rate for GM products and its refusal to sanction soya imports containing unauthorised GM material threaten to decimate the UK pig and poultry sectors, said a report by DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency. Major soya exporting countries - including the USA, Brazil and Argentina - might authorise and cultivate new types of GM crop before they are cleared for EU import, causing supplies of GM-free soya to dry up, the document warns. "Under a 'worst case' scenario, where there are no soya imports from either Argentina and Brazil, the impact would be very significant," says the report. "There would be a major increase in feed costs." UK livestock farmers are dependent on soya feed imports from Argentina and Brazil, the document states. These two countries supply about 90% of UK soya imports, which totalled 3m tonnes in 2007/08. Without soya imports from these countries, the report forecasts a 300% rise in UK animal feed costs, accompanied by a 24-29% reduction in pig production and a 10-68% drop in poultry production. "A significant reduction in UK livestock production could also have a range of consequential effects on land use and the environment. It is however difficult to predict these with any certainty or precision." The report acknowledges that its worst-case scenario "pushed the limits" of the analytical models on which it was based. But it still gave a good idea of the scale of any likely change. "The risk that feed supplies could be affected by a low-level presence of non-EU approved GM material could be resolved if the EU allowed a tolerance for this, rather than operating a strict zero tolerance as now." But anti-GM campaigners accused DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency of presuming a worst-case scenario while failing to take account long-term feed security and low farm gate prices. Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "South American farmers are canny at business and already see the opportunities to supply the EU with non-GM feed if offered a decent return." South American governments would be very reluctant to close off lucrative European markets by approving additional GM soya varieties before were approved by Brussels, Mr Riley claimed. "The analysis suffers from being given the wrong objectives at the start, which meant that the long-term problems of how to feed our poultry and livestock in a sustainable way in the future were largely bypassed to produce a report that plays to the short-term interests of the GM lobby in the UK". _______________________ Monsanto, DuPont square off in crop seed turf war • DuPont claims Monsanto holds "illegal monopoly" • Monsanto CEO seeks probe by DuPont independent directors • Justice Dept., USDA to examine antitrust concerns By Carey Gillam Reuters News, August 18 2009 : http://www.forexyard.com/en/reuters_inner.tpl?action=2009-08-18T203448Z_01_N18437534_RTRIDST_0_MONSANTO-DUPONT-DISPUTE-BUSINESS-FEATURE KANSAS CITY, Mo. - It's getting dirty down on the farm. As U.S. farmers prepare to harvest billions of bushels of corn and soybeans -- key ingredients in food, livestock feed and transportation fuel around the world -- seed technology titan Monsanto Co and its chief rival DuPont are ramping up their rivalry to new heights. DuPont is accusing Monsanto of illegal anti-competitive practices, while Monsanto counters that DuPont is engaging in a covert smear campaign that borders on fraud. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant this week sent a letter, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters, to DuPont chairman Charles Holliday accusing the company of a "serious breach of business ethics" and requesting that a special committee of DuPont's independent directors investigate what Grant called an "attack" on Monsanto's seed business. Monsanto officials claim DuPont has supported forged documents and secretly funded Monsanto critics. "This is just the tip of the iceberg of dirty tricks. I have never seen corporate conduct of this nature," said Monsanto lawyer Scott Partridge. DuPont counters that it is simply trying to expose what it calls Monsanto's "illegal monopoly" and the harm it says Monsanto is doing to farmers and others up and down the food chain. "This is not just a DuPont problem. This is a competition problem. They've gained illegal monopoly power," said DuPont attorney Don Flexner. The stakes have now risen as both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Justice Department said this month they will launch an examination of competition and antitrust concerns in the seed industry. "We understand that there are concerns regarding the levels of concentration in the seed industry, particularly for corn and soybeans," said Philip Weiser, deputy assistant attorney general in the antitrust division at the U.S. Department of Justice. Soured relations Both companies have strong positions in the U.S. seed industry and have been racing each other and other competitors to develop higher-yielding crops through genetic modifications and other means. This spring, the competition spilled into the courts as Monsanto and DuPont sued each other over a soured licensing arrangement. Monsanto claimed DuPont was using its Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerant trait outside the scope of the agreement. DuPont countersued, seeking relief under antitrust laws to end what it calls "Monsanto's multifaceted, anti-competitive scheme to unlawfully restrict competition." Monsanto claims, and DuPont does not dispute, that DuPont has been aligning with, and in some cases funding, groups critical of Monsanto. Monsanto in turn has launched an effort to discredit DuPont, working with a Washington law firm to circulate documents that lay out a series of scathing accusations. The documents accuse DuPont of misleading investors about certain product capabilities, as well as involvement in what Monsanto has said were several falsified letters to lawmakers and others that criticize Monsanto. Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles said the company wants to protect itself against DuPont's "smear campaigns" designed to "compete through deceit." DuPont spokesman Anthony Farina said Monsanto is engaging in a "campaign of diversion" and that DuPont was cooperating with a group of attorneys general from states including Iowa, the top U.S. corn grower, investigating Monsanto's business practices. Crying foul The biotech corporate battle comes at a time when farmers, agricultural academics and consumer groups are growing increasingly concerned about climbing seed prices and industry concentration. "We're hearing lots of complaints from farmers about huge price increases and that non-GMO (genetically modified) seed availability no longer exists," said Bill Wenzel, national director of the Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering, which has been studying the sharp price increases in soy and corn seed in recent years. A decade ago, DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred seed unit, based in Johnston, Iowa, controlled more than 40 percent of the lucrative U.S. corn seed market. But that had fallen to about 30 percent in 2008, according to DuPont, which gets about a quarter of its $30 billion in revenues from its agricultural and nutrition unit. Monsanto's rapid rise in power over the last decade has come through a series of seed company acquisitions, broad licensing deals and tightly protected patents for its proprietary seed technology. St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto pegs its market share for its branded corn seed at about 36 percent, and says branded soy seed enjoys a 29 percent share and cotton a 41 percent share in the United States. But DuPont and other critics say that, through licensing deals with about 200 other companies, Monsanto's genetic traits are spread through nearly all of the U.S. corn, soy and cotton acres planted each year. They say Monsanto's power translates into steep price increases for farmers and increasingly fewer seed choices. "That level of concentration is scary," said Iowa State University agricultural economist Neil Harl. "The Department of Justice antitrust division is right on target in my view." Monsanto recently announced, for instance, that its new Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans will cost farmers about $74 an acre in 2010 on average, while the current version of its Roundup Ready soybeans cost $52 an acre. Monsanto said the price hikes are valid because farmers receive added value with technological improvements to the seeds, higher yields and greater efficiencies. It also argues there is no shortage of seed varieties. Monsanto's prowess in the seed industry has made it a darling of Wall Street. Last year the company posted record net sales of $11.4 billion for fiscal 2008, a 36 percent jump from fiscal 2007. Monsanto officials say they welcome the added antitrust scrutiny. "This is a very competitive industry," said Partridge. "We welcome the opportunity to participate and to be involved in these discussions so people can learn more about Monsanto and how we compete." (Reporting by Carey Gillam; editing by Jim Marshall) _______________________ Uruguay and Brazil: Genetically Modified Products and Agro-toxins Go Hand in Hand CIP Americas Program's Biodiversity Report (ed. Carmelo Ruiz Marrero), August 2009: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6365 Contrary to biotech industry propaganda, genetically modified (GM) crops have not reduced the use of toxic agrochemicals. In fact, they are causing an increase in their use, according to the organization RAPAL-Uruguay. The organization points to the cases of Brazil and Uruguay. In a recent newsletter, the organization provided data that was presented by the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency during a seminar on toxic Agro-toxins, Health, and Society held in Brasilia in July. "Brazil is one of the major consumers of agro-toxins in the world. GM soy crops have increased its use of such products, followed by corn, sugar cane, and cotton. In 2008 the Brazilian market consumed 673,862 tons of such products; this proves - contrary to industry propaganda - that GM crops increase the use of agro-toxins." Uruguay is in a similar situation, maintains RAPAL. According to data obtained by the organization from the Uruguayan government, between 2002 and 2008, imports of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides increased by 258%. In 2002, Uruguay imported 5,336 tons and in 2008, 13,770 tons of toxic agrochemicals were used on various crops, but mainly in GM soy. "Businesses that sell GM seeds are the same ones that sell agro-toxins, which means their profits are doubled," concludes RAPAL-Uruguay. "Our population also suffers from the impacts of this doubled profit; of course from our point of view these are negative impacts: the use of massive agro-toxins contaminates the soil and water. This is a domineering model that displaces small family farms and endangers apiculture and small scale fisheries." The small number of transnational corporations that control the GM market, which includes Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow, and Dupont, are the same world leaders in the production of pesticides. Source: http://www.rapaluruguay.org/agrotoxicos/Uruguay/multinacionales_marcan_paso.html For more information: http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Uruguay _______________________ Argentina: A Catastrophe Called Soy CIP Americas Program's Biodiversity Report (ed. Carmelo Ruiz Marrero), August 2009: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6365 "After 13 years of expansion in the cultivation of GM soy in Argentina, the socio-environmental consequences are a real catastrophe," reports the organization GRAIN. Argentina dedicates nearly 44.5 million acres of farmland to soy cultivation - more than half of the agricultural land in the country. Practically all of the soy seeds in the country are of the GM Roundup Ready (RR) variety, created by the American corporation Monsanto to resist Roundup, an herbicide also produced by Monsanto. Apart from the toxicity of Roundup, another problem caused by its use is the rise of resistant "super weeds" such as Ipomoea Purpurea (Morning Glory), Verbena Litoralis (Verbena), and Hybanthus Parviflorus (Violetilla), a problem recognized by the vice president of Mosanto. The cultivation of RR soy also uses a large quantity of other toxic agrochemicals such as 2,4-D, atrazine, and endosulfan. "As a result, the chemicals have seriously affected the health of both people and domestic animals, damaged food crops, and contaminated the soil, water courses, and the air," says GRAIN. This type of agriculture has a devastating effect on nature. Each year the cost to the Argentine environment includes: one million tons of nitrogen and 160,000 tons of phosphorous, 42,500 million cubic meters of water, and the felling of almost 500,000 acres of native forests. "- Argentina was used by Monsanto as a gateway for the expansion of GMOs into the rest of the southern cone. For six years a small group of Brazilian consumers and environmentalists fought doggedly in the courts to keep GMOs out of their country, but their battle was fatally undermined by the smuggling of RR soya over the frontier from Argentina. Seduced by the extravagant promises made by salesmen, Brazilian farmers bought the illegal seeds on such a scale that the official ban on GMOs became meaningless and was revoked by President Lula. Similar tactics were used to spread RR soya into Paraguay and Bolivia. The RR soya frenzy, which is turning the southern cone into what has been called the 'Republic of Soya,' has led to no increase in productivity, despite all the promises made by the salesmen." GRAIN concludes that "the weak attempts made by fragile Latin American democracies to put some limit on the dominant economic power created by two decades of globalization and the imposition of neoliberal economic policies have encountered a major roadblock in the contemptible alliance between large landowners and agribusiness corporations that are taking brutal action in all countries of the southern cone." Source: http://www.grain.org/biodiversidad/?id=445 http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=578 For more information: http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Argentina _______________________ Mr Benn's Wizard Wheezes: • The UK Government's latest pro-GM propaganda stunts By Brian John for GM Free Cymru, August 2009 : http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/wheeze.html 1. DEFRA [UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and FSA [UK's Food Standards Agency] have worked with the Cabinet Office (1) and DFID [UK's Department for International Development] on a cunning little plan for insinuating GM into the food supply, for promoting GM crops and foods as "being inevitable", and for dismissing public opposition to GM. There have been a whole series of announcements from Hilary Benn [DEFRA Minister] and the Government spin machine over the past month or so -- this is the very time when the Great British Public is on holiday and snoozing in the sun. It's also the "silly season" when news is thin and when maximum coverage (with the invaluable help of the Science Media Centre) is guaranteed from the British media. 2. DEFRA, led by Hilary Benn, has fed the media with stories designed to promote the idea that GM has a role to play in (a) making British agriculture more self-sufficient in the future, and (b) helping to prevent future global famine.(2) Underpinning this idea is Benn's conviction that a growing number of countries worldwide are growing GM, and that it is impossible to stand against the tide. So, he thinks, one might as well go with the flow, especially since the science of GM is supposedly high-tech and glamorous, and since those who sign up for it can pretend that they are serious about "progress." However, Benn's vision of the future has been slammed as being naive and dishonest, since GM can do nothing to assist global food security, and since GM crops will do nothing to increase yields or to address the problems of agricultural development in poor countries. (3) In fact, Benn is also facing in two directions at once, since not long ago he signed up (reluctantly) for the IAASTD Report which was highly sceptical about a role for GM in solving the problems of hunger and farming ineffectiveness in the developing countries. (4) 3. The UK government has pledged over GBP100 million for the development of GM crops in developing countries over the next five years. According to the Guardian newspaper (5), the government is committed to dramatically increasing spending on high-tech agriculture in the next five years, much of which will be on GM crop research. £60m will go on researching drought-resistant maize for Africa and a further GBP24m will be spent on pest resistance. In addition, support for an international network of GM crop research stations, in collaboration with GM companies, will be doubled. Biofortified crops, containing added vitamins, will receive GBP80m of development money; there are no details in the White Paper, but much of this UK aid will go to the highly controversial research initiative backed by the GM crop firm Syngenta, for the development of "Golden Rice" modified to increase vitamin A. The White Paper which summarizes these initiatives avoids the use of the tern "GM crops and foods", and that is despicable in itself. Nonetheless, it is perfectly clear that the UK strategy is to push all of the hard work of the IAASTD to one side, and to pretend that there are high-tech / GM solutions to the food and agriculture problems of the poorer nations (6). The DFID solution to the problem of hunger in Africa is identical to that of the American FDA -- encourage African farmers "to industrially produce commodities for global markets in order to generate cash to purchase toxic food at a supermarket". 4. Sections of the media have been encouraged to promote the view that there is "increasing public acceptance of GM" and that opposition to GM in the food supply is diminishing (7). FSA's own research, which tracks public attitudes, shows, on the face of it, that GM technology is not a pressing concern for consumers. The FSA quarterly tracker has shown a steady decline in concern when consumers are prompted, from 43% in 2001 to 27% in September 2008. Spontaneous concern in relation to GM technology peaked in December 2003 at 20% with a steady decline to 6% in September 2008. However, as many stakeholders in FSA / DEFRA consultations have pointed out, an apparent lack of consumer concern about GM technology should be contextualised with a consumer belief that "the problem has been dealt with" and that there is therefore nothing to be concerned about (i.e. retailers do not sell products containing GM food ingredients). (cf Para 30 of "GM Crops and Foods: Follow-up to the Food Matters Report by Defra and the FSA.) If GM was to be openly or secretly introduced into the British food supply, then the "sense of being threatened" would certainly shoot upwards. And has anybody ever asked for GM food in preference to non-GM food? 5. The current strategy (8), involving press releases and media briefings from both FSA and DEFRA, uses GM animal feed as a trojan horse to achieve (a) a reduction of regulatory controls and (b) greater public acceptance of GM. This is actually a blatant attempt to subvert and undermine the current EU position on GM soya by a country (the UK) which has a long and dishonourable record of promoting GM crop approvals in the face of opposition by the majority of EU states, lack of public support, and large scientific uncertainties. The UK government has no democratic mandate for its pro-GM campaign. Yet it continues to promote GM crops and foods at every opportunity. It has hardly ever voted against the Commission / EFSA line on new GM varieties as they come forward for approval, in spite of the fact that within the UK three of the four "competent authorities" (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) disapprove of the Westminster line. There is no doubt considerable diplomatic pressure from the US to open up the EU to imports of GM soy from the USA (9). The UK's latest wizard wheeze runs as follows: Invent a problem -- identify "action points" -- commission "independent" research designed to confirm what you have already decided -- publish the research -- use it to bolster and announce a policy decision which was actually made long since. The "problem" is the supposed shortage of soya feed imports from Argentina and Brazil that meet strict EU requirements. According to DEFRA and FSA, the "problem" has nothing to do with food safety, but with security of supply issues and cost issues, exacerbated by another invented "problem" referred to as "asynchronous approval of GM varieties." This is all thoroughly disingenuous and dishonest, for the following reasons:
(a)	DEFRA and FSA conveniently forget that the reason for EU resistance to GM soy is that it is probably unsafe for human consumption and that its cultivation involves unacceptable environmental risks (10). The science which underpins those approvals that exist (in the exporting countries) for GM soya varieties has been shown to be deficient and even fraudulent, and feeding studies have shown that GM soy has negative health effects and that glyphosate residues also damage health and the environment (11). It is quite despicable for the UK government and its agencies to pretend that the EU is somehow tardy or inefficient in not giving full approvals to GM soya just because the US and its allies have done so. And it is equally dishonest to take the line that "it is not quite acceptable to grow GM soy in Europe, because of health and environmental concerns, but it is quite acceptable for other countries to grow it if they want, and to sell it to us as animal feed." If GM soy is dangerous, it is dangerous everywhere, and the UK should have nothing to do with it.
(b)	The follow-up to the "Food Matters" Report places great stress on security of supply, while apparently remaining oblivious to the fact that dependence on a GM soya supply which comes entirely from the USA, Brazil and Argentina would simply increase INSECURITY. For a start, the big exporters would be able to hijack the soya supply market by offering attractive price inducements initially, and then -- one a monopolistic supply chain is established -- they would have the market at their mercy. Price hikes will follow as night follows day. This is exactly what Monsanto has done already with its GM seeds and Roundup herbicide to those farmers who have been fool enough to sign up to its "technology use agreements." (12) Secondly, the UK feed industry would become incredibly vulnerable to "events" -- climate change, insect or weed infestations, development of herbicide resistance, industrial disputes, or even damning scientific evidence relating to harm. Any of these -- or combinations of them -- could cause market collapse and a public refusal to touch any animal or human food products associated with GM soy. If the UK really wants to achieve security of supply in the animal feed sector, it has to diversify its suppliers and its protein sources, use UK and EU feed supplies on a larger scale, and source materials from countries other than the US, Brazil and Argentina.
(c)	In spite of the pretence running through the documents, and scare stories emanating from the European Commission, there is not actually a shortage of non-GM soy (13). DEFRA and the FSA pretend that difficulties in sourcing non-GM soy at reasonable prices increases insecurity in the UK animal feed market. But there is abundant non-GM soy on the global market, with countries like India, Romania and Brazil keen to protect the integrity of their certified non-GM supplies.
(d)	The "problem" of asynchronous approvals is a cynical fabrication (13). The biotechnology lobby and the US soy industry have invented the idea that it is a protectionist tactic on the part of the EU to take so long over GM approvals, when they are issued at the drop of a hat in the USA. In fact, it is not the EU that is out of step, but the US itself. All other countries take a cautious approach to GM scientific analysis, and the precautionary principle is enshrined in GM law within the EU. When a company wants to commercialise a GMO in the US, a safety assessment is only required if the company presents evidence that this is needed. Unsurprisingly, no company has chosen to do this up until now. GMO commercialization in the US therefore occurs under a total absence of health and safety procedures and is complete in an average of 15 months. It should be noted that the US process for authorising GMOs does not meet international requirements under the United Nations' Codex Alimentarius, which are considered as the standard by the World Trade Organisation's trade dispute body. Furthermore, the US is not a signatory to the UN's Biosafety Protocol. So the United States is isolated in relation to the rest of the world with resepct to GM soy because of its rapid rate of commercialization of GMOs and total lack of segregation. It is therefore clear that as long as other countries and regions pay attention to biosafety issues and take longer to approve GMOs, US imports will be blocked as will the profits of the biotech industry. It is quite extraordinary that DEFRA and FSA should now portray this situation as if it is a problem created by the EU. Another point made by DEFRA and FSA is that Argentina and Brazil might choose to authorize new GM soy varieties, and that once these are incorporated into animal feed shipments thy may be rejected by Europe on the ground that they are "contaminated" with unauthorized GMOs. However, FoE Europe has pointed out that this is extremely unlikely, since Argentina and Brazil are keen to protect Europe as a vital long-term market.
(e)	The "problem" of contamination and "adventitious presence" is another fabrication (14). In theory, there is zero tolerance of contamination of food and feed supplies by unauthorised GMOs. But the GM industry has been seeking for years to undermine this policy on the grounds that contamination on a small scale is supposedly harmless, if the offending GMOs have been through the farcical US approvals process. Industry apologists also argue that zero contamination (at the technical limit of detection) is impossible to achieve, since there will always be some adventitious presence of small quantities of GMOs and because this presence is technically unavoidable. This of course is rubbish; contamination even at very low levels is technically avoidable if appropriate measures are put in place. It is just that the US regulators, growers and merchants choose not to put these measures in place. The GM rice scandal of 2006 was perfectly avoidable, and it is absurd to pretend otherwise. In a legal opinion by Lasok and Haynes, it is argued that the terms "adventitious presence" and "technically avoidable" are not properly defined or applied by the EC, and this is a view shared by many NGOs in Europe and elsewhere.
(f)	The Commission's promise of a "technical solution" to contamination in soy supplies shows that it is leaning over backwards to appease the GM industry, the powerful EU farming lobby, and the Americans (15). Whilst DEFRA and FSA theoretically support zero tolerance, the strategy is nonetheless criticized as having a "negative impact on the availability of feed for the EU." That point is simply assumed, and not proved. The new government document addresses the contamination thresholds that are being pushed by the various lobby groups: 0.5% by the industrial farming groups, 0.9% favoured by the food and feed industries and the EU biotech industry lobby, and 5% favoured by the US. The Commission does acknowledge that the adoption of any of these thresholds will require a change in the law and a clear dropping of zero tolerance. However, it is unlikely that dropping zero tolerance would be agreed to by many MEPs, whose constituents are very opposed to GMOs. Therefore the Commission is looking for solutions that would enable it to quickly and quietly drop zero tolerance and weaken EU GMO laws WITHOUT going through the due democratic process. It has come up with a proposal whereby the testing protocols for imports would be put at 0.1%, but since this would be difficult to apply in practice, Member States would in fact be allowed to work to 0.2% or 0.3% "before taking actions" over contamination of unapproved GMOs. These "actions" would probably not be defined, and would no doubt involve the turning of a blind eye in countries such as the UK.
(g)	It is nonsensical for the UK government to concentrate to such a degree on the GM soy industry, which exists essentially to produce animal feed and to underpin the west's meat production system (16). Primary food crops for human consumption should be of much greater importance in a realistic strategy for addressing future food supply problems in the UK and further afield. We need to move away from high protein (soya) dependent animal production, for human and animal health reasons. It should be noted that mass production of soy in monocultures, much of which is genetically modified, for the over-consumption of meat and other livestock products in industrialized countries, is not a sustainable farming model. It has created large-scale socioeconomic problems, human rights violations, loss of livelihoods, and expulsion of rural communities, small farmers and indigenous peoples from their land. In the "soy empires" there is increasing concentration of land ownership by big companies, rises in rural unemployment, slavery-like conditions on industrial farms, poverty, malnutrition, rising food prices and loss of food security and sovereignty. Staple food crops are abandoned, and there is increasing corporate control over food production. In the longer term, the "downside" of soy monocultures has to be confronted; solutions must be found that will ensure that the EU can be self-sufficient in animal feed, and can maintain a sustainable balance between production and consumption.
(h)	GM soy production in South America is associated with environmental degradation on a terrifying scale. From Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay we see loss of forests and savannahs due to direct destruction by soy monocultures or displacement of existing agriculture (particularly cattle ranching and small holder agriculture); related losses of biodiversity; release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through land-use changes, accelerating fertiliser use including NOx emissions; soil erosion and disruption of surface and ground water and rainfall patterns. Use of Roundup Ready (RR) soy has also facilitated indiscriminate fumigations (often by aerial spraying) affecting human health, food crops and the environment. A report by the Rural Reflection Group (Grupo de ReflexiÛn Rural, or GRR, from Argentina) documents how spraying glyphosate-based herbicides on RR soy leads to an increase in health problems in the countryside such as cases of cancer at early ages, birth defects, lupus, kidney problems, respiratory ailments and dermatitis, evidenced by the accounts of rural doctors, experts and the residents of dozens of farming towns. (17)
Conclusion So absurd is this strategic shift towards an essentially unsustainable model of future food production, and so inevitable is its failure, that one has to wonder where it has come from. The answer to that question is probably that the UK Government, in trying to deal with the Recession, has now adopted the American model of both food production and foreign aid. That model is based upon the key premise that the main beneficiary of American largesse globally is the United States itself, through the placing of favourable contracts throughout the food supply chain and through diplomatic blackmail tied to "charitable" activities. There are many signs here that Britain is going the same way, by setting up alliances with multinational GM corporations, by seeking to dismantle and undermine GM regulatory controls in Europe and across the world, by pretending that there are technical fixes to intractable food supply and socio-economic problems, and by encouraging poor countries to move into the large-scale production of global agricultural commodities rather than staple food crops for local use. Notes (1) http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/food_policy.aspx http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/food_policy.aspx GM Crops and Foods: Follow-up to the Food Matters Report by Defra and the FSA August 2009 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm (2) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc9f0f32-860e-11de-98de-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/gm-crops-set-for-role-in-britains-food-revolution-1770272.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205427/Environment-Secretary-Hilary-Benn-says-British-farmers-consider-growing-GM-crops.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6005439/GM-crops-may-be-the-solution-to-food-crisis-says-Government-minister.html (3) http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11401:benn-gm-and-a-farming-revolution- http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter12Aug2009.html (4) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Letter_to_Hilary_Benn_MP_on_GMOs.php www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713 http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11315-dfid-heading-down-a-blind-alley http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice27May2008.htm (5) UK to spend GBP100m on supporting GM crops for world's poor --White paper shows government plans major rise in investment in research, as report calls for moratorium and questions approach. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/19/gm-crops-aid-uk-funding DFID / UKAid: Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future Quote: DFID's five year investment in agriculture research will be used to develop 'best bets', the innovations with the greatest potential to lift poor people out of poverty, and to getting these into widespread use. Best bets include: • tackling new pests which attack staple crops, such as virulent wheat rust and cassava viruses. This will cost GBP20 million but could help protect almost three billion people who depend on these crops for their food. • breeding drought-resistance maize for Africa. This will cost up to GBP60 million but will help 320 million farmers in Africa who are affected by drought and will indirectly benefit many more likely to be affected by climate change. • improving the vitamin content of staple crops. To develop these crops and get them into widespread use will cost around GBP80 million but it has the potential to help improve the nutrition of up to 670 million of the poorest people, many of them children. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11315-dfid-heading-down-a-blind-alley (6) DFID heading down a blind alley http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/blind_alley_final.pdf The Return of Michael Taylor: Monsanto's Man in the Obama Administration http://www.counterpunch.org/kenfield08142009.html (7) http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/uk_consumers_more_relaxed_ever_about_gm_food UK consumers more relaxed than ever about GM food Friday, August 14, 2009, CheckBiotech Food Standards Agency (FSA): Quarterly public tracker - June 2009 http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal_feed/Briefing_animal_feed_GMOs_May_2008.pdf (8) http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/food2030/ http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/food_policy.aspx The FSA and Defra have published their response to the action points on their web sites. The report can be found at http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/aug/gm http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm. (9) The whole of the soy supply chain in the USA is now contaminated with GM, so that co-existence and non-GM certification are impossible. US-based exporters cannot source certified GM-free soy for the European market. The 'Food Matters' report published in July 2008 (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/food_policy.aspx) included two parallel action points for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on genetically modified (GM) food and animal feed. The action points were as follows: * Defra, working with the FSA, will publish an analysis of the potential impacts on the livestock sector arising from global food trends in GM production and the current operation of the GM approval system in the EU. * In parallel, the FSA, working with Defra,will publish an analysis of the extent to which changes in the market are putting a strain on the regulatory system for GM products (including animal feed) and the implications for UK consumers. (10) Environmental and health concerns of genetically engineered (GE) crops in animal feed. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/food/ge-crops-in-animal-feed http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/exposed.htm http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/gmsoy.htm http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/ermakova.htm http://www.celsias.com/article/genetically-modified-foods-unsafe- evidence-that-li/ (11) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n (12) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aLW8VZBkP3PA http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10595-monsanto-a-history (13) http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/jan08/non-gm_soy_and_feed.php http://www.gmofree-euregions.net:8080/docs/ajax/ogm/FAGAN.pdf (14) http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html Campaigners' Briefing Animal feed crisis and EU GMO laws - is there a link? July 2008 http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice12Sept2006.htm http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/GMandTheFoodChain.pdf http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/contaminate_or_legislate.pdf (15) http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=387 (16) http://www.corporateeurope.org/agrofuels/content/2009/05/open-letter-gm-soy-not-responsible Open Letter calls for the Round Table on Responsible Soy to be abandoned (17) http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45974 ARGENTINA: Countryside No Longer Synonymous with Healthy Living By Marcela Valente http://www.naturalnews.com/026334_soy_Roundup_GMO.html _______________________ EXCLUSIVE: Monsanto chief accuses rival DuPont of deceit • Seed business giant decries tactics as beyond competition By Chuck Neubauer Washington Times, August 18 2009: http://www.washtimes.com/news/2009/aug/18/monsanto-chief-accuses-rival-dupont-of-deceit/ The chairman of agribusiness giant Monsanto demanded Monday that his counterpart at DuPont - his firm's leading competitor in the seed business - appoint a special committee to investigate what he said was a pattern of covert attacks on Monsanto's business practices by DuPont. Hugh Grant, chairman of Monsanto Co., accused DuPont of using third parties to attack Monsanto, activities which he said "were misleading to the public and a serious breach of business ethics far beyond honest competitor behavior." He made the request for an investigation by a committee of DuPont's independent directors in a letter to Charles O. Holliday Jr., chairman of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. He accused DuPont of being "dishonest, disingenuous and downright deceitful." An attorney for Monsanto said the tactics used against his company included forged letters to Congress, misinformation, attempts to improperly influence public officials and support for a special interest group which opposed Monsanto. A DuPont spokesman said the company had not received the letter. "We fully expect Monsanto to continue the campaign of diversion for as long as they feel things are not going their way on the merits," said Anthony Farina. He said DuPont is not alone in its concern that Monsanto's business practices are reducing competition in agriculture. "DuPont along with other companies, farmers, nonprofit groups and government authorities are all active participants in the important public discussion about competition in agriculture," said Mr. Farina. The Monsanto letter is the latest skirmish in a battle between Monsanto and DuPont for control of the seed business. In 2006 and 2007, DuPont tried unsuccessfully to block Monsanto from buying the nation's largest cotton seed supplier, Delta & Pine Land Co. In May, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against DuPont for patent infringement and DuPont countersued, accusing Monsanto of being anti-competitive. "Our response to Monsanto's latest lawsuit speaks for itself," said Mr. Farina. "It makes clear why Monsanto's business practices are illegal and why Monsanto's anti-competitive business practices hurt farmers, consumers and independent seed companies. We look forward to having these issues decided in court, where Monsanto initiated this." Mr. Farina accused Monsanto of running "a very aggressive and misleading campaign" against DuPont since the lawsuit and that DuPont wanted "to set the record straight." He said DuPont would not debate the issue in the media. Monsanto officials claim that DuPont has waged a war of dirty tricks on Monsanto to maintain its market share in the crop biotechnology business. "What is going on now is a very well organized covert campaign by DuPont to hurt us," Scott Partridge, Monsanto's chief deputy general counsel, said in an interview with The Washington Times. "They attack us any way they can." He accused DuPont of running a "campaign to damage us with former customers and policymakers." Mr. Partridge said that Monsanto had hired the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to "uncover and shed light on the depth and extent of DuPont's covert attacks on our business through third parties." Lanny J. Davis, one of the Orrick partners involved in assisting Monsanto, is a specialist in crisis management and served as a special counsel to President Clinton on campaign-finance investigations and other legal matters. Mr. Davis also writes a weekly column for The Times. Monsanto and Orrick provided a set of documents to The Times. The current dust-up between Monsanto and DuPont goes back to DuPont's efforts to stop Monsanto's purchase of Delta & Pine Land. DuPont wanted the Justice Department, which was reviewing the purchase, to reject it on the grounds that it would give Monsanto, their main competitor, an unfair advantage in selling genetically engineered traits to seed companies like Delta & Pine Land. The genetic traits are used to protect cotton from insects and weeds. In its efforts to block the purchase, DuPont used former Sen. Tim Hutchinson, Arkansas Republican, and the law firm where he works, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, to lobby. As part of the lobbying campaign, Mr. Hutchinson forwarded a batch of seven letters opposing the deal to his former colleague, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, who was a leader of the Senate Agriculture Committee, according to documents provided by Monsanto. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in 2007 that three of the letters turned out to be fake: In two cases, the people whose names appeared on the letters said they knew nothing about them. A state representative, whose name was on the third letter, said a staffer had mistakenly sent it without his knowledge. A Chambliss spokesman said he never took any action as a result of the letters, either for or against Monsanto's purchase of Delta & Pine Land. Ultimately, the Justice Department approved the sale but made Monsanto divest itself of a smaller seed company it owned. Mr. Hutchinson and a spokesman for the Dickstein firm did not respond to phone messages seeking comment. Mr. Partridge said the Dickstein firm told him they did not know the letters were forged. Another Dickstein partner, Bernard Nash, also used his connections to try to help DuPont in its fight with Monsanto. Mr. Nash runs what his firm boasts is the nation's largest and premier practice dealing with state attorneys general. Mr. Nash's biography on the firm Web site says: "Most recently, he has led DuPont's efforts to combat increased agricultural concentration and anticompetitive business practices with respect to critical farm chemicals and biotechnology. This strategy involved engaging State Attorneys General, Congress, federal agencies, farmers, and grassroots organizations on the harmful impact of anticompetitive mergers and monopolistic conduct." Records show that 13 state attorneys generals wrote the Justice Department opposing the Monsanto purchase of Delta & Pine Land in August 2007. One of the states that objected was West Virginia, which is not known for growing cotton. In October 2007, Mr. Nash, his wife and two adult daughters each gave $1,000 to the campaign of West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw. Four other Dickstein lawyers gave $500 each. Mr. Nash has donated to eight of the other state attorneys general who objected to the purchase. His donations ranged from $500 to $2,500. About the time Monsanto concluded its purchase of Delta & Pine Land, a number of state attorneys general, including some of those who wrote to the Justice Department, requested documents from Monsanto as part of a civil antitrust investigation. Mr. Partridge said he thought the investigation began after DuPont complained about Monsanto. He said Monsanto cooperated with the investigation and has been told that the state attorneys general have no further questions but the probe remains open. Mr. Farina said that "many other organizations and individuals share our concerns, including a large group of state attorneys general that continues to investigate Monsanto's business practices today. Monsanto has been unable to persuade state AGs to drop the investigation during the last year." A spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office, which has been coordinating the probe, said the office does not acknowledge investigations of any kind. Mr. Nash did not return phone messages. Mr. Farina said the Obama administration may also be concerned about competition in the seed industry. "Just last week, the U.S. Attorney General [Eric H. Holder Jr.] and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture [Tom Vilsack] announced unprecedented joint hearings to study competition in agriculture, including seed traits," he said. Mr. Partridge said the campaign against Monsanto is continuing, pointing to a conference held earlier this month in St. Louis by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), a farmer advocacy group which is critical of Monsanto. In his letter to DuPont, the Monsanto chairman cited a recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that reported that DuPont had helped fund the group. He said the report illustrated "DuPont's covert use of a special interest group to attack Monsanto's seed business." Fred Stokes, OCM's executive director, would not say whether DuPont was a donor to his group, which has annual budget of about $100,000. He said they get money from members and from donors who share their concerns. Mr. Farina confirmed that DuPont had supported the group, as it does for a number of organizations that share its views. "We don't like monopolies," said Mr. Stokes. He said that Monsanto had a "virtual monopoly" in the seed business. He said his group was formed 11 year ago and that "we have fought every big agribusiness." Mr. Stokes said the conference, called "Confronting the threats to Market Competition," spent about a quarter of the time focusing on Monsanto and concentration in the seed business. He said the rest of the time was spent on other issues such as food retailing. The speakers at the conference included a number of federal government officials such as Philip J. Weiser, deputy assistant attorney general for the antitrust division of the Justice Department. Mr. Weiser's speech dealt with the administration's approach to antitrust issues and historic cases. "We accepted the invitation to speak at the conference as we saw this as an opportunity to highlight the Department of Justice and USDA's recent announcement to hold unprecedented joint workshops about competition and regulatory issues in the agriculture industry," Justice spokeswoman Gina Talamona said. "We want to hear from every interested party, including farmers, ranchers, consumers and agribusinesses about the important issues in this industry. We look forward to the open dialogue the workshops will provide." The OCM, which describes itself as a "think tank" has started a Seed Concentration Project to "bring fairness and competition back to the U.S. seed industry." It points out on its Web site that Monsanto "controls a high percentage of the global seed market and continues to increase its dominance by acquiring or merging with a significant number of companies in its industry." _______________________ 17 August 2009 Hople ends for RR alfalfa planting • Growers who planted crop prior to the ruling will still harvest Cecilia Parsons, Capital Press [USA], 17 August 2009: http://www.capitalpress.com/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=616&ArticleID =52885&TM=42436.36 The full environmental impact statement ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer for glyphosate-resistant alfalfa in 2007 is not expected to be complete until the end of the year, ending hopes for fall planting. An appeal of the decision to ban planting of the genetically modified alfalfa strain was recently struck down in court, leaving a favorable review as the only avenue for release. Growers who planted Roundup Ready alfalfa prior to the ruling continue to harvest a crop, but no new plantings have been allowed due to concerns with cross pollination and weed resistance. Proponents of the genetically modified alfalfa strain say it is valuable in providing stand establishment and cuts down on total herbicide applications. Suzanne Bond, spokeswoman for USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service said the draft has been delayed again. Initially it was expected to be done by the end of the summer, but "the time line has shifted," Bond said in a phone interview July 9. Early in 2009, she said, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raised issues about the crop related to the Endangered Species Act. The USDA wanted to make sure its results in the study were valid. In meantime the new agriculture census was released and USDA also wanted to re-assess the review with current data. Bond said the USDA has since hired a contractor to move the review process forward. When completed, the review could call for deregulation, denial of deregulation or conditional deregulation of RR alfalfa. University of California alfalfa specialist Dan Putnam said there might be further challenges to distribution of seed after the review is released. Last December, Virgil Meier, with the USDA's biotechnology regulatory service, told growers at the California Alfalfa and Forage Symposium that the draft EIS for Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa could be complete by January 2009. Los Banos alfalfa grower Philip Bowles said the RR alfalfa provides enough of an advantage that growers will wait until spring to plant if they believe it will be released. The current hay markets could affect how much growers are willing to plant. With prices running about $100 per ton less this summer than last, the push to plant has eased, hay market analyst Seth Hoyt said. There were growers that wanted to plant RR alfalfa this fall, he said, but given the hay market, probably not as many as a year ago. The fact that RR alfalfa will not be available for late summer and fall will push alfalfa hay plantings for 2010 acreage, particularly in California, down even more, said Hoyt. _______________________ Federal officials stress the 'anti' in antitrust Daily Yonder North Platte Bulletin [Nebraska, USA], 17 August 2009: http://www.northplattebulletin.com/index.asp?show=news&action=readStory&storyID=17088&pageID=29 The room was filled. There were Nebraska hog raisers, corn farmers from Missouri, Colorado feed lot owners and ranchers from Wyoming. They were Republicans and Democrats, pro-life and pro-choice, church-goers and agnostics. The one thing they had in common is a belief that the markets for food and agriculture are dominated by a few big companies and, as a result, the prices paid to farmers and charged to consumers aren't fair. The members of the Organization for Competitive Markets have been denouncing big business for years. OCM has issued press releases and joined lawsuits. Their annual meetings have been small, however, and the organization's influence has been weak. OCM has had few successes convincing a largely uninterested federal government aggressively to enforce antitrust laws and the rules governing market concentration in the livestock business. Those times may be changing. "This is a narrow moment in history when a difference can be made," Omaha attorney David Domina said near the end of OCM's annual meeting this year in St. Louis. This moment arrived with last November's election. The Department of Justice under President George Bush was slow to prosecute under long-standing antitrust laws. The Obama Administration, however, has promised stricter interpretation of those statutes. And the Democrats have shown a particular interest in competition (or the lack of it) in agriculture markets. The Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture announced last week that they will hold "workshops" to "openly discuss legal and economic issues associated with competition in the agriculture industry." Two top federal officials charged with enforcing antitrust and competition laws in the agriculture and livestock sectors came to speak to the farmers and ranchers at the OCM meeting. The workshops will begin in January. These will be evidence gathering sessions for a government investigating ways that competition is currently restricted, from the sale of seed to the ownership and control over grocery-store shelves. Both DOJ and USDA officials said they are eager to receive comments on agriculture markets across the country, including anonymous statements. To find more information on these workshops and see where to send your comments, look here. The Obama Administration appears to be looking at four areas in the agriculture markets:
•	Dairy - Last week, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote to the Department of Justice asking that it investigate major milk buyers to see if they violate antitrust laws.
•	Seeds - That is, Monsanto. Monsanto now controls almost all the genetically modified soy, cotton and corn seed. Philip Weiser, the new Deputy Assistant Attorney General who spoke at the OCM conference, said the Justice Department would be taking a hard look at market concentration in the seed industry. "For many farmers and consumer advocates, we understand that there are concerns regarding the levels of concentration in the seed industry -- particularly for corn and soybeans," Weiser said. That is an understatement. Farmers across the Midwest have been meeting to protest Monsanto's control of the seed market. OCM attorney David Balto reminded Weiser that Democrats in the Clinton Administration filed an antitrust action against Microsoft, the software maker. "Back then, you started off suing Microsoft," Balto said. "That's a nice letter to begin with." Surely it wasn't lost on St. Louis-based Monsanto that Weiser came to its hometown to give his first public speech after joining the Obama Administration - and that his speech was in part about the seed business.
•	Livestock - Dudley Butler, administrator for USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration, told the OCM meeting that he planned to "get out in the countryside. We know we have an imbalance of power in some of the industries now." Livestock raisers have been fighting consolidation among packing firms. Weiser said specifically that the Department of Justice was "interested in learning whether the controls of the (Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921) are relevant to the way businesses are run today and whether the law is being implemented effectively to promote competition." Butler gave a populist-tinged speech that sat well with the latter-day populists in the crowd. Asking for comments from farm producers who are often afraid to cross their buyers and suppliers, Butler said, "I understand the concept of retaliation."
•	Food Costs - The DOJ says it will investigate whether the vertical integration of the food business - where the same company can control a product from seed genetics to the grocery shelves - violates antitrust rules. "We recognize this is a very important sector," Weiser said of the department's interest in agriculture. He said antitrust chief Christine Varney "has put a huge emphasis on" the ag sector and has set no preconditions on the inquiry. "We can say we're really committed to learning and hearing from as many people as we can," Weiser said, adding, "I can't go much deeper."
If the OCM conference was any indication, the USDA and DOJ are likely to get an earful when they begin their workshops. Jim Foster, a Missouri hog raiser for more than five decades, told the conference that the big meat packers had gained control of so many animals that they could do without the independent producers. "They own enough hogs that they don't need us," Foster said. An Indiana seed dealer grew so disturbed by the prices Monsanto charged to farmers growing in different parts of his service area that he simply stopped selling the company's seed. The stories are all the same - as competition declines, farmers and ranchers have fewer choices about where to sell their crops or cattle or where to buy their seed. As competition declines, farmers are finding their prices decline and their costs increase. The farmers and ranchers at the OCM meeting represent an older style of politics and economics. (Long before Monsanto developed into a seed-selling giant, George Washington said, "It is miserable for a farmer to be obliged to buy his seed....") While some economists now argue that monopolies may be a product of efficient markets, David Domina reminded the ranchers and farmers at the OCM conference that having just a few corporations dominate markets is probably not good for the country. "You can't combine a field using a machine with just three moving parts," the Omaha attorney said. "You need thousands." The farmers and ranchers who met in St. Louis are anxious to see if the federal government and courts agree. _______________________ Organic Agriculture Beats Biotech at its Own Game Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute. Huffington Post, August 17 2009 : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-lasalle/organic-agriculture-beats_b_261595.html Organic agriculture's recently recognized benefits for improving food security don't depend on a boost from genetically modified (GM) technology. While the chemically-based systems that GM requires could be cleaned up with organic techniques, there's no clear reason to degrade organic standards to accept the downsides that come with biotech-produced crops as they are currently managed. Recently, there have been renewed efforts to pressure organic agriculture to abandon one of its foundational principles and accept genetically modified crops. While there may be nothing inherently wrong with contemplating a theoretical overlap between biotech crop genetics and organic farming systems, there's not a compelling set of reasons to do so, either. Alleging the principled barrier between the two is merely a quirky philosophical sticking point of "hard core resistance" within the organic community diverts attention from real questions as to the net value of this pairing. Real question #1: Why bother? To this point, biotech crops have not produced the yield advantages or biological resilience to multiple stressors. If we're looking for reliable, multi-benefit, future-oriented farming options in an input-limited world, biotech is not a player. The question is rather: Why spend the time, money and scientific ingenuity manipulating a handful of genetic materials to end up with a specific new attribute when we should, and could, be rigorously advancing regionally adapted varieties and building up soils organically to achieve enduring nutrient content cycling and resistance to drought, flood and disease resistance. This organic activity is sustainable in the long term, improves water-holding capacity in soil for all crops -- not just those that happen to have a gene with drought resistance, leaving the other crops at risk. Real question #2: Who benefits? Why have patented seeds good for a single planting when what most farmers in the world need are replicable, open-pollinated varieties that thrive in the particular mix of soil, degree days, weather and pest pressure where they are grown? The patented seed path is entirely under the control of a company and requires substantial chemical inputs to survive. The latter path, relying on finding the optimum fit with natural systems and fluctuation (thanks to climate change) over time, is controlled much more by sustainable farmers and the heroic seed companies dedicated to their service. Real question #3: Is the stuff safe to eat? And who knows? There is no data from independent, long-term studies on the human health impacts from eating GM crops. There's lots of research, but it's all tucked within the files of the companies that paid for it. The same companies prevent independent research on the efficacy and health impacts of their crop seeds. Many of the handful of intrepid researchers who do manage to carry out studies and dare to publish results showing problems with the GM approach face amazingly virulent reactions from the biotech community, and the institutional systems that depend on them for funding. I think this quote from the editorial in the recent issue of Scientific American tells how little we really are allowed to know about GM crops: "Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers." Dr. Judith Carman of Australia is conducting one of the few long-term, independent animal feeding studies with GM materials. She says recent Australian and Italian studies finding reduced fertility and immune function, respectively, in mice are disturbing. Here she talks about extreme difficulty of doing meaningful research into this area. She is a PhD in medicine in the areas of metabolic regulation, nutritional biochemistry and cancer. "To us, it does not make biological sense that you can create brand-new proteins through genetic engineering in food and expect that our bodies will have the enzymes and capacity to break them down. These novel proteins are foreign to our immune systems because they have never before existed in nature." Given how much we are not being allowed to know, our scientific, agricultural and food safety leaders need to take the reasonable step of following the precautionary principle until we have the knowledge we need. Organic agriculture proponents are eager for more high-quality research on biological systems, because the promise for improving soils, sequestering carbon and feeding more people with healthier diets is so great all around the world. Simply, this means that, facing irreversible potential harm, the onus for generating the proof of scientific consensus falls upon those seeking to take the action. With biotech crops and our long-term health and ecological well-being, that's a pretty big onus. The organic community may eventually be open to biotech crops if long-term, independent studies would some day show there are no ecological or human health impacts. Because there is no research available to prove that yet, who needs them? Why risk it? Rodale Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that improves the health and well-being of people and the planet. We were founded in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, in 1947 by organic pioneer J.I. Rodale. Our research findings are clear: A global organic transformation will mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere and restore soil fertility. Our mission: We improve the health and well-being of people and the planet. _______________________ Bayer: a history GM Watch, 17 August 2009: http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history Comment from Jonathan Matthews at GM Watch: Recently a Jewish friend lent me "Night", the heartrending memoir of Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Part way through, I suddenly realised that Wiesel was writing about his experience of life as a slave labourer in the Auschwitz work camp of IG Farben - the massive industrial conglomerate formed in the inter-war years by Germany's main chemical corporations: BASF, Bayer and Hoechst. Primo Levi also ended up as a slave labourer in the very same work camp and we've included extracts about their experiences there in the history of Bayer below, which comes from our new website: http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms There we note: "The GM firms present themselves as operating out of futuristic laboratories and hi-tech greenhouses in order to provide farmers with innovative crops with valuable new traits. But in reality, all the leading GM firms developed out of the chemical industry and they remain the world's biggest manufacturers of agrochemicals. The leading GM corporations together control nearly 75% of the global pesticide market. ...Having operated for many decades as major chemical corporations, and in the last 20 years additionally as biotechnology companies, the leading GM firms have a significant historical legacy. This makes it possible to examine their records when it comes to issues of public and employee safety and protection, regulatory compliance, customer care, etc. This is particularly relevant to the regulation of GM crops, as it is almost entirely dependent on trust, with regulators normally basing their assessments of environmental risk and food safety on data from unpublished studies provided to them in confidence by the GM firms that developed the crop. Below we look at the corporate character and record to date of the major GM firms." http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms At the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, the Chief Prosecutor, stated: "These companies, not the lunatic Nazi fanatics, are the main war criminals." He went on to warn that if the truth about their terrible corporate crimes wasn't fully exposed and dealt with, they'd pose a much greater threat to the future than even "Hitler if he were still alive." Today it is vital that we do finally face up to the corporate character and rcord of the companies poised to take control of the worlds's food supply. --- Bayer: a history Bayer AG is a chemical and pharmaceutical giant founded in Barmen, Germany in 1863 by Friedrich Bayer and his partner, Johann Friedrich Weskott. Today it has its headquarters in Leverkusen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. It trademarked acetylsalicylic acid as aspirin in 1899. It also trademarked heroin a year earlier, then marketed it world-wide for decades as a cough medicine for children "without side-effects", despite the well known dangers of addiction. During the First World War, Bayer turned its attention to the manufacture of chemical weapons including chlorine gas, which was used to horrendous effect in the trenches. It also built up a "School for Chemical Warfare". During this time Bayer formed a close relationship with other German chemical firms, including BASF and Hoechst. This relationship was formalised in 1925 when Bayer was one of the chemical companies that merged to form the massive German conglomerate Interessengemeinschaft Farben or IG Farben, for short. It was the largest single company in Germany and it became the single largest donor to Hitler's election campaign. After Hitler came to power, IG Farben worked in close collaboration with the Nazis, becoming the largest profiteer from the Second World War. Amongst much else, IG Farben produced all the explosives for the German military and systematically looted the chemical industries of occupied Europe. It's been described as the Nazis' "industrial jackal" following in the wake of Hitler's armies. During the Second World War, IG Farben used slave labour in many of its factories and mines and by 1944 more than 83,000 forced labourers and death camp inmates had been put to work in the IG Farben camp at Auschwitz in Nazi-occupied Poland. Auschwitz was a vast labour and death camp where more human beings were put to death than were killed in the whole of World War I. It was comprised by 3 main camps: Auschwitz I, a concentration camp; Auschwitz II (Birkenau), an extermination camp in which by 1944 some 6,000 people a day were being killed; and Auschwitz III, which supplied slave labour for the nearby IG Farben plant (Buna-Werke, also known as IG Auschwitz). IG Farben's Auschwitz plant was a massive industrial complex. The largest outside of Germany, it consumed as much electricity as the entire city of Berlin. Built and run by slave labour, it is thought - at a conservative estimate - to have cost at least 35,000 lives. In 1941, Otto Armbrust, the IG Farben board member responsible for IG Farben's Auschwitz project, told his colleagues, "our new friendship with the SS is a blessing. We have determined all measures integrating the concentration camps to benefit our company." But not only did thousands of slave labourers die from the conditions in which they worked for IG Farben, those camp inmates who were viewed as too sick or weak to continue to labour in the IG Auschwitz plant were selected for the gas chambers. IG Farben paid 100,000 reichsmarks each year to the SS and in return was assured a continuous supply of fresh slave labour, while being "relieved" of unfit inmates. Elie Wiesel, the writer, Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor, came to Auschwitz in 1944 and was sent with his father to IG Farben's Buna work camp. That same year, the Holocaust survivor and author Primo Levi was among 125 men selected at the railhead for labour at IG's Buna-Werke. One of only 3 survivors from this group, Levi later wrote about his experiences in searing detail: "A fortnight after my arrival there I already had the prescribed hunger, that chronic hunger unknown to free men... On the back of my feet I already have those numb sores that will not heal. I push wagons, I work with a shovel, I turn rotten in the rain, I shiver in the wind, already my own body is no longer mine: my belly is swollen, my limbs emaciated." In Night, Elie Wiesel's acclaimed memoir of his personal experiences of the Holocaust, he describes how veterans of IG's Buna-Werke told those who had arrived there late in the war that the brutal treatment they were experiencing was as nothing to what had previously been endured by the IG work force: "No water, no blankets, less soup and bread. At night we slept almost naked and the temperature was 30 below. We were collecting corpses by the hundreds every day... Work was very hard... [The gangmasters] had orders to kill a certain number of prisoners every day; and every week selection [for the gas chambers] - a merciless selection." When it came to "selection", it was an IG Farben subsidiary, with IG Farben managers on its Management Committee, that manufactured and supplied Zyklon B to the SS. This poisonous cyanide-based pesticide, on which IG Farben held the patent, was used during the Holocaust to annihilate more than a million people at both the Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek extermination camps. The form of Zyklon B used in the gas chambers was deliberately made without the normal warning odorant. IG Farben also supplied the SS with the Methanol used to burn the corpses. In 1946 the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal concluded that without IG Farben the Second World War would simply not have been possible. The Chief Prosecutor, Telford Taylor, warned: "These companies, not the lunatic Nazi fanatics, are the main war criminals. If the guilt of these criminals is not brought to daylight and if they are not punished, they will pose a much greater threat to the future peace of the world than Hitler if he were still alive." Their indictment stated that due to the activities of IG Farben "the life and happiness of all peoples in the world were adversely affected." Charges as grave as fomenting war and killing slave labourers were also added. In his opening statement the Nuremberg Chief Prosecutor pointed out that, "The indictment accuses these men of major responsibility for visiting upon mankind the most searing and catastrophic war in human history. It accuses them of wholesale enslavement, plunder and murder." According to the Nuremberg prosecutors, "We have seen Farben integrating itself with the Nazi tyranny, turning its technical genius to the furnishing of... commodities vital to the reconstruction of the German war machine, and emerging in Hermann Goering's entourage at the highest level of economic planning and mobilization for war. We have seen Farben poised for the kill, and subsequently swollen by economic conquest in the helpless occupied countries. Faced with a shortage of workers, we have seen Farben turn to Goering and Himmler, and persuading these worthies to marshal the legions of concentration-camp inmates as tools of the Farben war machine. We have seen these wretched workers dying by the thousands, some on the Farben construction site, many more in the Auschwitz gas chambers after Farben had drained the vitality from their miserable bodies... Literally millions of people were put to death in the very backyard of one of Farben's pet projects - a project in which Farben invested 600 million reichsmarks of its own money." Although the Nuremberg Tribunal indicted 24 IG Farben board members and executives on the basis of crimes against humanity, only 13 received prison sentences. And the sentences they received were described by the Nuremberg Chief Prosecutor as "light enough to please a chicken thief". By the early 1950s a number of those convicted of slavery, looting and mass murder were back at the helm of the very companies - Bayer, Hoechst and BASF, formed out of the assets of IG Farben in 1952. The owners of these "new" companies were also the shareholders of IG Farben. Thus, although the gravity of the crimes committed by IG Farben meant the company was considered too corrupt to be allowed to continue to exist, it was supplanted by its key constituents - companies like Bayer which were owned, and directed at the highest level, by the very same people as IG Farben. Those who had helped Hitler to power and provided the technical know-how for his wars of aggression and the Holocaust, were back in control of the industry. The Bayer executive Fritz ter Meer typifies the bounce back. An executive of IG for many years, the most senior scientist on its supervisory board and the chairman of its technical committee, he had become a Nazi Party member in 1937 and was the executive responsible for the construction of the IG Farben factory in Auschwitz, in which tens of thousands of slave labourers met their deaths. Ter Meer's own visits to Auschwitz and the detailed reports he received made it inconceivable that he did not have a clear picture of what was occurring. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal found him guilty of plunder, slavery and mass murder. As a result, Ter Meer received the longest sentence of any of the IG Farben board members. But despite being found the most culpable of the men who, in the words of the Chief Prosecutor, "made war possible... the magicians who made the fantasies of Mein Kampf come true", ter Meer was already out of prison by 1952. By 1956 he had become the chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer, a post he held until 1964. Even today Bayer continues to honour this convicted mass murderer. On All Saints Day 2006, for instance, the corporation is known to have laid a wreath on ter Meer's grave in Krefeld-Uerdingen, Germany. Yet for decades Bayer refused to pay compensation to its surviving slave labourers. Only after international protests did it eventually agree to pay damages - more than 50 years after the end of the war. Bayer continued to grow in the post-war period, eventually becoming bigger than the whole of IG Farben even at its zenith. Even as part of IG Farben, Bayer had maintained its strength in pharmaceuticals. In fact, scientific experiments had been done specifically on behalf of Bayer in Auschwitz and other concentration camps. IG had footed the bill for the research of Josef Mengele, Auschwitz-Birkenau's infamous "Angel of Death", and some of his experiments utilised germs and pharmaceuticals provided by Bayer. Wilhelm Mann, whose father had headed Bayer's pharmaceutical department, wrote as head of IG's powerful pharmaceutical committee to an SS contact at Auschwitz: "I have enclosed the first cheque. Dr Mengele's experiments should, as we both agreed, be pursued. Heil Hitler." IG employee SS major Dr Helmuth Vetter, stationed at Auschwitz, participated in human medical experiments by order of Bayer. Prisoners died as a result of many of these experiments. Vetter was convicted of war crimes in 1947 and was executed in 1949 but Bayer's role only emerged later. In the Auschwitz files correspondence was discovered between the camp commander and Bayer. It dealt with the sale of 150 female prisoners for experimental purposes and involved haggling over the price. One exchange notes: "The experiments were performed. All test persons died. We will contact you shortly about a new shipment at the same price." According to testimony by SS physician Dr Hoven during the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal: "It should be generally known, and especially in German scientific circles, that the SS did not have notable scientists at its disposal. It is clear that the experiments in the concentration camps with IG preparations only took place in the interests of the IG, which strived by all means to determine the effectiveness of these preparations. They let the SS deal with the - shall I say - dirty work in the concentration camps. It was not the IG's intention to bring any of this out in the open, but rather to put up a smoke screen around the experiments so that... they could keep any profits to themselves. Not the SS but the IG took the initiative for the concentration camp experiments." In the post-war years Bayer grew to become the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world. In the mid-1980s Bayer was one of the companies which sold a product called Factor VIII concentrate to treat haemophilia. Factor VIII turned out to be infected with HIV and in the U.S. alone, it infected thousands of haemophiliacs, many of whom died in one of the worst drug-related medical disasters ever. But it was only in 2003 that the New York Times revealed that Bayer had continued producing and selling this infected product to Asia and Latin America after February 1984 when a safe product had become available, in order to save money. Dr Sidney M. Wolfe, who investigated the scandal, commented, "These are the most incriminating internal pharmaceutical industry documents I have ever seen." In the early 1990's Bayer is said to have placed patients at risk of potentially fatal infections by failing to disclose crucial safety information during a trial of the antibiotic Ciproxin. Up to 650 people underwent surgery using Ciproxin without doctors being informed that studies (as early as 1989) showed Ciproxin reacted badly with other drugs, seriously impairing its ability to kill bacteria. In 2001 Bayer had to recall its anti-cholesterol drug Baycol/Lipobay, which was subsequently linked to over 100 deaths and 1,600 injuries. Germany's health minister accused Bayer of sitting on research documenting Baycol's lethal side-effects for nearly two months before the government in Berlin was informed. It is thought to have been partly in response to the impact of the Baycol scandal that Bayer bought the rival crop sciences unit of French company Aventis, which had absorbed part of Hoechst, in October 2001. Bayer CropScience was formed in 2002 when Bayer AG acquired Aventis CropScience and fused it with their own agrochemicals division (Bayer Pflanzenschutz or "Crop Protection"). The Belgian biotech company Plant Genetic Systems, also became part of Bayer via the acquisition of Aventis CropScience. Today Bayer CropScience is one of Bayer's core business divisions, which include:
•	Bayer HealthCare: drugs, medical devices and diagnotic equipment;
•	Bayer MaterialScience AG: polymers and plastics;
•	Bayer CropScience: GM crops and agro-chemicals.
Bayer is the world's leading pesticide manufacturer and the world's seventh largest seed company. Bayer CropScience is responsible for the majority of GM field trials in European countries. Bayer's GM crops are mostly "Liberty Link" - designed to be resistant to its "Liberty" herbicide. Liberty is a trade name for Bayer's glufosinate weedkiller. Together with Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops, Bayer's Liberty Link crops are one of the two main types of GM herbicide resistant crops, but glufosinate is a controversial herbicide. In January 2009, the European Parliament voted to ban pesticides classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction. As a result the permit for glufosinate will not be renewed. A European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluation states that glufosinate poses a high risk to mammals. It is classified as reprotoxic, because of research evidence that it can cause premature birth, intra-uterine death and abortions in rats. Japanese studies show that the substance can also hamper the development and activity of the human brain. Bayer's systemic insecticide Imidacloprid, sold in some countries under the name Gaucho, and Clothianidin, have also proven highly controversial as they are widely believed to have contributed significantly to bee deaths. There have been calls for these neonicotinoids to be withdrawn as seed dressings for crops that might affect bees, or even for a complete ban on their use. In May 2008 German authorities blamed Clothianidin for the deaths of millions of honeybees, and the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) suspended the registration for eight pesticide seed treatment products, including Clothianidin and Imidacloprid, on maize and rape. In 2008, Bayer CropScience was at the centre of a huge controversy in the aftermath of an explosion at one of its U.S. pesticide production facilities. A U.S. Congressional investigation found faulty safety systems, significant shortcomings with the emergency procedures and a lack of employee training had led to the explosion which killed two employees. The region apparently narrowly escaped a catastrophe that could have surpassed the 1984 Bhopal disaster. According to the Congressional investigation: "Evidence obtained by the committee demonstrates that Bayer engaged in a campaign of secrecy by withholding critical information from local, county and state emergency responders; by restricting the use of information provided to federal investigators; by undermining news outlets and citizen groups concerned about the dangers posed by Bayer's activities; and by providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public." Bayer CropScience were found to have deliberately removed and destroyed evidence after the chemical explosion. Bayer CropScience has been involved in a large number of controversies related to GM crops, perhaps most notably the contamination in 2006 of much of the US long-grain rice supply by Bayer's unapproved Liberty Link GM rice. This caused the U.S. rice industry's worst ever crisis with:
•	over 40% of US rice exports negatively affected
•	multiple federal lawsuits filed
•	trade with the 25-nation EU at a standstill
•	other countries banning US long-grain rice imports
•	many other countries requiring testing of all imports of U.S. rice
•	some markets for medium- and short-grain rice being affected
•	another unapproved Bayer GM rice (LL62) also being detected in U.S. rice supplies
•	US rice farmers being warned they would never again be able to validly describe their crop as "GM-free".
Tellingly, a key factor in the sale of Aventis CropScience to Bayer was a similar crisis involving GM maize. The Starlink fiasco started when in October 2000 traces of an Aventis GM maize (corn) called StarLink showed up in the food supply in the U.S. even though it only had approval for animal feeds or industrial use. Starlink was not approved for human consumption because the Environmental Protection Agency couldn't rule out the possibility that humans would be allergic to it. The agency's approval had been conditional on Aventis's agreement to keep Starlink from being eaten by humans. The Starlink fiasco eventually led to a massive recall of over 300 U.S. food brands due to the enormous scale of the contamination. ABC News reported in late November 2000, "In Iowa, StarLink corn represented 1 percent of the total [maize] crop, only 1 percent. It has tainted 50 percent of the harvest." The 'StarLink' gene also showed up unexpectedly in a second company's maize and in US maize exports. United Press International reported, "Aventis CropScience Wednesday was at a loss to explain why another variety of corn besides its StarLink brand is producing the [StarLink] Cry9C protein." U.S. maize exports to big buyers were badly hurt. Federal officials blamed the unauthorized appearance of geneticially engineered maize in the food supply solely on its manufacturer. Sources and resources http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11154-bayer-resources _______________________ Non-food GM crops need 'confinement' Agra Europe Weekly, 17 August 2009: http://www.agra-net.com/portal/puboptions.jsp?Option=menu&pubId=ag002 'Confinement' measures are crucial to safe production of GMO plants not intended for human or animal consumption, according to a new scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Looking into how to assess the safety of non-food/non-feed GMOs as more new biotech varieties are produced, the body's GMO Panel called for the provision of data responding to the risks of accidental intake from GMO crops released into the environment but not intended for human consumption. The EFSA opinion covers GM plants grown for a wide range of non-food uses, including biofuel production, industrial or medicinal products, landscape improvement and ornamental use. The Panel aims to supplement existing guidance on how GM plants for food and feed are generally assessed, and considers the "more/less stringent requirements" which may be required in the different circumstances created by GMO cultivation or import for bioenergy, medicinal or industrial usage. Applications for authorisation of a non-food/feed GMO variety should include a comprehensive technical dossier including the relevant data for assessing the risks of accidental human intake. Comparative approach 'must be applied carefully' The 'comparative approach' generally used for assessing GMO safety - involving safety equivalency assessment in relation to the plant's non-GM counterpart -- is said to be valid, but "will need to be applied carefully". For non-food/feed GMO applications, particular focus should be placed on diverging risks - identified through the comparative analysis -- in regard to accidental intake by humans, livestock and wildlife animals, as well as regarding the exposure of farmers and workers handling the GM plants, and people living in proximity to the cultivated area. Using GMO technology for uses such as non-food novel compounds serves to "expand the role of crop plants", EFSA explains, recommending "specific risk management conditions" such as production stewardship, safety thresholds and inspections in order to monitor any new effects on humans, animals or the environment. Confinement strategies needed 'Confinement measures' used to limit these risks must therefore be closely monitored. Exposure assessments with and without the confinement measures (proposed and applied by the applicant) should be drawn up to gage the risks to humans, animals and the environment from the GMO's release. Applicants should "provide data that allow the assessment of confinement measures under all environmental conditions", the opinion reads, highlighting the fact that confinement measures may be influenced by unusual abiotic and biotic conditions. Narrowing the geographical area for which authorisation is requested could help the applicant to prove the safety of the product, EFSA explains. _______________________ 16 August 2009 Kowtowing to Monsanto still leaves a nasty aftertaste Catherine Bennett The Observer, 16 August 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/16/catherine-bennett-gm-food-environment Eat GM: "Better than starving to death!" It is not the most persuasive slogan in the history of food advertising. Nor, with this as his pitch, is Hilary Benn, the environment minister, ever likely to compete, as a twinkly salesman of repulsive treats, with figures such as Cap'n Birds Eye or Tony the Tiger. But he has to find some reason why, after refusing them for years, the picky British must now learn to love GM. "The truth," Benn actually said, when he added GM to his new range of national austerity measures, "is we will need to think about the way in which we produce our food, the way in which we use water and fertiliser. We will need science, we will need more people to come into farming because it has a bright future." Did he mean that the only modern, sustainable farming is GM farming? If this endorsement was a little half-hearted, compared with what Labour ministers have said in the past, you can see Benn's difficulty. He's terrified that if he is honest about the government's determination to grow commercial GM crops in this country, the public will - to use the technical term - go off on one. At all costs, Benn must avoid a PR disaster like that of a decade ago when Monsanto, the multinational that owns 90% of GM traits (or properties), set about wooing a sceptical British public with a series of huge newspaper advertisements. The tone, funnily enough, was not that different from Benn's last week: modern yet soothing; idealistic yet reasonable. Insufferably patronising. It struck Monsanto, back then, as just the right tone to take with consumers who had recently learnt, following the outbreak of BSE, that their lives had been endangered by a farming industry that fed live cows with dead cows. "Worrying about future generations won't feed them," ran the slogan above one celebrated Monsanto ad, in 1998. "Food biotechnology will." Wasn't GM a better prospect, continued the chemicals giant, than conventional farming, whereby, along with lavish use of fertilisers, herbicide and insecticide, "soil erosion and mineral depletion exhaust the land"? "While we'd never claim to have solved world hunger at a stroke," it conceded - after all, you'd want a couple of days for that - "biotechnology provides one means to feed the world effectively." The company was foolish enough, however, to make several, more immediately disprovable claims in its advertisements, for which it was duly rebuked by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority. As well as exaggerating its years of safety testing, the ASA concluded, Monsanto had not made clear in its advertisements that academic opinion on GM technology was divided. To be fair to Monsanto, its advertisements did contribute to a national panic about GM food that helped to divide opinion on GM into two entrenched extremes which continue to this day. Biotech multinationals still bleat about feeding the world when what they are actually doing is selling chemicals to put on their patented crops. Or, in some cases, producing nothing more obviously useful to long-term global well-being than GM flowers. A peculiarly pointless example, the Moonaqua carnation, genetically modified to be purple, was recently approved for import as a cut flower by the EU. "The colour of these flowers is absolutely novel for carnation," says its creator, Florigene, "and offers the floral industry new uses for carnation." For instance, the industry can now attempt to camouflage genuine purple carnations inside arrangements of blueberries, something never done before. On the other side, anti-GM campaigners still stress, as they have done for years, a dismal lack of evidence for either the safety or sustainability of GM crops, unless you count sustainable profits or sustainable superweeds, of which there are plenty. Prince Charles still witters about stewardship while he trails carbon around the planet. And much of the British press continues to flag up its enlightened scepticism by inserting the word "Franken" before anything related to GM technology. Here, for instance, is the Daily Mirror's opening paragraph on the Hilary Benn story: "Farmers may soon be allowed to grow 'Frankenstein foods' under new controversial plans." One or two things have, admittedly, moved on since newspapers adopted this trick. Peter Melchett, for instance, the slayer of GM crops, left Greenpeace and became FrankenPeter, a consultant for the PR firm Burson-Marsteller, whose clients had included his old adversary, Monsanto. Maybe the gap wasn't so unbridgeable after all? More important, as the Observer science correspondent has argued, population growth and climate change are lending a new urgency to the debate. Ten years ago, when food shortages could be attributed to inequitable distribution, war and waste, it was easy for campaigners to dismiss the environmental and health risks of GM as unjustifiable. Now that climate change appears to pose a greater risk, in the shape of absolute food shortages, reflexive opposition to GM crops could start to look, as Hilary Benn is hinting, like attitudinising. Already, he reduces the debate to a matter of safety: sorted. "The government's job is to ask if it is safe to eat and there is no evidence that it isn't," he told the Today programme. "There is no evidence that it isn't"? As spectacular over-simplifications go, this is up there with the media's time-honoured reduction of the GM critique to Frankenprefixes and is, unfortunately, perfectly designed to rebut it. By focusing, to the exclusion of so much else, on the question of safety, the media have made it too easy for Mr Benn. He discovers no evidence of harm. But where would any intelligent person expect to find it? While the investigation of safety, like every other aspect of GM, from research to patents to the sale of seeds to hard-up peasant farmers, is controlled by biotech multinationals, there will never be any trustworthy evidence one way or the other. The corporations are there to sell the world chemicals and seeds, not to look after it. Thus, the government's job is not, at the moment, to reconsider the safety of GM food. That can come later. Right now, it should explain how, in choosing to bring GM to Britain, it justifies placing this part of our national food policy under the control of a few fantastically aggressive and wholly unaccountable multinationals. Not that they can't be philanthropic. Monsanto recently gave a scholarly institution, the British Biochemical Society, a generous grant for educational materials, such as school websites. No doubt the scientists' Monsanto-funded lessons will explain why, over 10 years since Monsanto offered to end hunger and save the world with GM, neither it, nor anyone in the industry, can offer a single drought-resistant plant. The children will want to know why, on the contrary, the spread of GM has increased the use of pesticides, exacting a greater toll on limited resources. But the biggest question is for the government. Anyone can see why multinationals want control over our food production. But why on earth does Hilary Benn want to hand it over? _______________________ 15 August 2009 Oil giants destroy rainforests to make palm oil diesel for motorists Ben Webster, Environment Editor The Times [UK], 15 August 2009: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6796876.ece Fuel companies are accelerating the destruction of rainforest by secretly adding palm oil to diesel that is sold to millions of British motorists. Twelve oil companies supplied a total of 123 million litres of palm oil to filling stations in the year to April, according to official figures obtained by The Times. Only 15 per cent of the palm oil came from plantations that met any kind of environmental standard. Much of the rest came from land previously occupied by rainforest. Vast tracts of rainforest are destroyed each year by companies seeking to take advantage of the world's growing appetite for plant-based alternatives to fossil fuel. In theory, greenhouse gas emissions from burning biofuel are lower than those from fossil fuel because crops absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. But clearing rainforest to create biofuel plantations releases vast quantities of carbon stored in trees and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up the carbon emitted when rainforest is burnt to plant the crop. Deforestation, mainly in the tropics, accounts for almost 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The expansion of the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned the country into the third-largest CO2 emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia has the fastest rate of deforestation, losing an area the size of Wales every year. The expansion of plantations has pushed the orang-utan to the brink of extinction in Sumatra. Last year British motorists used 27 million litres of palm oil from Indonesia and 64 million litres from Malaysia, according to the Renewable Fuels Agency, the government-funded watchdog that monitors biofuel supplies. Fuel companies also supplied 32 million litres of palm oil from "unknown" countries. Under a European Union initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 3.25 per cent of the total amount of fuel sold by each oil company must be biofuel. The proportion is due to rise to 13 per cent by 2020. In practice most companies meet the obligation by adding biofuel to diesel, creating a blend that contains about 5 per cent biofuel. The companies are not obliged to inform motorists that the petrol or diesel they buy contains biofuel. Biofuel can be derived from dozens of crops but many fuel companies choose palm oil because it can be cheaper than the more sustainable alternatives such as rapeseed. The agency knows which companies are using palm oil but is refusing to name them on the ground that the information is commercially sensitive. Several leading fuel industry figures sit on the agency's board, including a director of the oil company BP and a senior executive from the coalmining group Anglo American. The agency said that the directors had not been involved in the decision to withhold the names of the companies. Ian Duff, a forest campaigner for Greenpeace, said: "It cannot be right that the watchdog on biofuels has oil company directors on its board. The agency is preventing the public from discovering which of these companies are selling us palm oil, one of the cheapest and most environmentally damaging biofuels." Several major oil companies are exploiting a loophole in the agency's reporting system to avoid declaring what type of land has been used to grow their biofuel. They are obliged to submit a sustainability report but in the section on the previous use of the land are allowed to say "unknown". When calculating the greenhouse gas savings from biofuel the agency ignores the previous use of the land. Esso said that it did not know the previous use of the land on which 95 per cent of its biofuel was grown. It also refused to say whether it had used any palm oil. A spokesman said: "Our approach to supplying biofuels must balance sustainability, fuel-product quality and the need to remain competitive in the marketplace." BP said that its biofuel included palm oil but claimed that it all came from certified plantations. It failed to declare the previous use of the land for 79 per cent of its biofuel. Total refused to say whether it used any palm oil. Murco admitted using palm oil but did not respond to questions about its origins. Total, Chevron and Murco all failed to declare the previous use of the land that was the source of more than half their biofuel. Chevron admitted using palm oil from uncertified sources. A spokesman said: "As sustainable palm oil certification systems become commercially operational, Chevron will progress towards sourcing, supplying and trading only certified palm oil." Shell had the best record of the major companies for declaring the sources of its biofuel. It said that it did not use any palm oil last year because it could not find any from a sustainable source. Luis Scoffone, vice-president for biofuels, said that Shell could have met its biofuel obligation more cheaply if it had bought palm oil. "There is a premium for sustainability that we are incurring," he said. Shell was likely to use palm oil in the future but only when it could be certain that it was not damaging rainforests. "It is almost inevitable that we will use palm oil because the amount of biofuel we will need is increasing. Palms deliver one of the highest volumes of oil per hectare of any crop. That means we can use less land to produce the same amount of oil." _______________________ GM crops could send food prices rocketing • GM food: Shopping prices could soar because of an increase in GM crops By Louise Barnett Express, 15 August 2009: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/120659/GM-crops-could-send-food-prices-rocketing Milk, meat and egg prices could rocket by 20 per cent because of foreign farmers growing more GM crops, experts warned yesterday. UK animal feed, which is made mainly from soya, could quadruple in price within two years if growers in Brazil and Argentina produce more genetically modified soya, which is banned in Europe, according to government research. Non-GM soya would rocket in price, making animal and poultry feed more expensive and ramping up UK meat and poultry costs by around a fifth. Farmers are worried they face unfair competition from countries which allow GM crops. The National Farmers' Union director of policy Martin Haworth warned: "There is a very real danger that livestock producers, both here and across the EU, will be unable to compete." The GM Crops And Foods report has been published jointly by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Food Standards Agency. It says Britain's livestock farms rely on Brazil and Argentina for 90 per cent of imported soya used in feed for poultry, cattle and pigs. Defra's research outlines a worst-case scenario in which British farmers cannot buy soya from either Argentina or Brazil if they only grow GM crops - the use of which is banned here. Feed costs would soar by 300 per cent, while UK pork and poultry production would plunge by up to 68 per cent. As a result, the report suggests, shop prices for meat and poultry would jump by up to 20 per cent. --- Comment from GM Watch: This is another blatant attempt to undermine the current EU position on GM soy that takes absolutely no account of the actual reasons for EU resistance to GM soy, i.e. (a) it's probably unsafe for human and animal consumption (b) its cultivation involves completely unacceptable environmental impacts and (c) European consumers overwhelmingly don't want GM. But, as usual, there's a total disregard of consumer choice and all scientific uncertainty. In any case, the research referred to here misses a key point. It focuses on potential disruption of animal feed imports to the EU from Argentina and Brazil due to lack of sufficient GM approvals in the EU, but both Argentina and Brazil have made it very clear that they aren't about to approve GMOs not authorised in Europe as it's one of their key markets. This point is clear from this excellent briefing: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal_feed/Briefing_animal_feed_GMOs_May_2008.pdf And here are some good points about the zero tolerance issue: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html See also the related press release Defra/FSA Ignore Food Security as they try to please the GM lobby from GM Freeze, under 13 August below. _______________________ 14 August 2009 Climate Change, Drought and India's Looming Food and Water Crisis Dr. Vandana Shiva August 14, 2009: Intensification of drought, floods and cyclones is one of the predictable impacts of climate change and climate instability. The failure of monsoon in India and the consequent drought, has impacted two thirds of India, especially the bread basket of India's fertile gangetic plains. Bihar has had a 43% rainfall deficit, Jharkhand - 47%, Uttar Pradesh - 64%, Haryana - 61%, Punjab - 26%, Himachal Pradesh - 63%, Uttarakhand - 42%. In the final analysis, India's food security rests on the monsoon. Monsoon failure and widespread drought implies a deepening of the already severe food crisis triggered by trade liberalization policies which has made India the capital of hunger. It also implies a deepening of the water crisis which compelled me to write "Water Wars". The monsoons recharge the groundwater and surface water systems. This year, because of drought there will be reduced recharge. Since 1966, as a consequence of the introduction of the Green Revolution model of water intensive chemical farming under World Bank and US pressure, India has over exploited her ground water, creating a water famine. I had written about this in 1984 in my book, "The Violence of the Green Revolution". Chemical monocultures of the Green Revolution use of ten times more water than the biodiverse ecological farming systems. In the 1970's the World Bank gave massive loans to India to promote ground water mining. It forced states like Maharashtra to stop growing water prudent millets like jowar which needs 300 mm of water and shift to water guzzling crops like sugarcane which needs 2500 mm of water. In a region with 600mm rainfall and 10% ground water rechange, this is a recipe for water famine (see Navdanya's "Financing the Water Crisis). A new study led by Matthew Rodell of Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland published in "Nature" has shown water levels in North India have fallen by 1.6 inches (4 centimeters per year, between August 2002 and August 2008. More than 26 cubic miles (109 cubic km) of ground water have disappeared from aquifers between 2002 and 2008. Most of this ground water has been extracted for chemical, green revolution style farming. Not only has water wasteful chemical agriculture mined ground water, it has also mined soil fertility and contributed to climate change. Chemical fertilizers destroy the living processes of the soil and make soils more vulnerable to drought. Chemical fertilizers also produce nitrogen oxygen, a greenhouse gas which is 300 times more potent the carbon dioxide. The solution for the climate crisis, the food crisis, or the water crisis, under which India is reeling, the same biodiversity based organic farming systems. Biodiverse ecological farms address the climate crisis by reducing emissions of Green House gases such as nitrogen oxide, and absorbing carbon dioxide in plants and in the soil. Biodiversity and soils are the most effective carbon sinks. They also help adapt to climate change and drought by increasing soil organic matter which increases the moisture holding capacity of soil, and hence provides drought proofing of agriculture. Biodiverse organic farms increase food security by increasing the resilience and reducing the climate vulnerability of farming systems. They also enhance food security because they have higher production of food and nutrition per acre than Green Revolution monocultures which measure the yield of our commodity, not the total food output, nor the nutritional quality of food. Biodiverse organic systems also address the water crisis. Firstly, production based on water prudent crops like millets reduces water demand. Secondly, organic systems use ten times less water than chemical systems. Thirdly, by transforming the soil into a water reservoir through increasing its organic matter content, biodiverse organic systems reduce irrigation demand and help conserve water in agriculture. Maximising biodiversity and organic matter production thus simultaneously increases climate resilience, food security and water security. However, the dominant paradigm of agriculture based on the Green Revolution and Genetic Engineering is based on reducing biodiversity and reducing organic production to promote monocultures based on intensive inputs of chemicals, water, and fossil fuels. And as the multiple crises deepens because of the non-sustainable practices, corporations that are the driving force behind the Green Revolution and Genetic Engineering, try and transform the crisis into new marketing opportunities. Examples include the patenting of climate resilient traits that farmers have evolved over centuries and projecting this biopiracy as an "invention" (Navdanya, Biopiracy of Climate Resilient, 2009). In a recent article "Fight drought with Science", Henry Miller, the author of "The Frankenfood Myth" has stated that "the first drought resistant crop, maize, is expected to be commercialized by 2010. If field testing goes well, India could be a potential market for this variety." What Mr. Miller fails to mention is that India has hundreds of thousands of drought resistant crops, some of which are conserved in and distributed from Navdanya's community seed banks. These are the seeds farmers are using in this drought year. While cultivation of rice has gone down from 25.673 million ha to 19.13 million ha, the area under water prudent drought resistant nutritious crops, unfortunately called "coarse grains", has gone up from 15.325 to 15.956 million ha. The biotechnology industry is clearly a laggard in breeding for drought resistance compared to centuries of breeding by India's farmers. Miller also fails to mention that the genetically engineered drought resistant maize seed performs badly in normal years. This is not science. Another example of corporate opportunism in this period of drought is the pushing of "Round-up", a broad spectrum herbicide under "Zero-Tillage" and "Conservation Tillage" programmes. Round-up kills everything green. It is therefore destroys the biodiversity and organic matter that is needed to promote climate resilience, conserve water and increase food production. The severe drought in India will force the government to act. It is vital that the Government does not use this emergency to act as a marketer of GM seeds and Round-Up. The alternative is clear. It involves:
1.	Conservation and large scale distribution of open pollinated varieties / open source seeds of water prudent crops.
2.	The promotion of organic agriculture to increase climate resilience and food and water security.
3.	Incentives to farmers for a shift from water guzzling green revolution agriculture to water conserving biodiverse organic farming. Farmers did not create the green revolution. They should not be punished for its consequences. They need to be encouraged to create alternatives.
While long term ecological security, food security and water security needs these transition, the immediate emergency needs the provisioning of food and water to the drought hit areas. _______________________ The Return of Michael Taylor • Monsanto's Man in the Obama Administration By Isabella Kenfield, CounterPunch, August 14-16 2009: http://www.counterpunch.org/kenfield08142009.html Michael R. Taylor's appointment by the Obama administration to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 7th sparked immediate debate and even outrage among many food and agriculture researchers, NGOs and activists. The Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 until 2001, Taylor exemplifies the revolving door between the food industry and the government agencies that regulate it. He is reviled for shaping and implementing the government's favorable agricultural biotechnology policies during the Clinton administration. Yet what has slipped under everyone's radar screen is Taylor's involvement in setting U.S. policy on agricultural assistance in Africa. In collusion with the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations, Taylor is once again the go-between man for Monsanto and the U.S. government, this time with the goal to open up African markets for genetically-modified (GM) seed and agrochemicals. In the late 70s, Taylor was an attorney for the United States Department of Agriculture, then in the 80s, a private lawyer at the D.C. law firm King & Spalding, where he represented Monsanto. When Taylor returned to government as Deputy Commissioner for Policy for the FDA from 1991 to 1994, the agency approved the use of Monsanto's GM growth hormone for dairy cows (now found in most U.S. milk) without labeling. His role in these decisions led to a federal investigation, though eventually he was exonerated of all conflict-of-interest charges. Taylor's re-appointment to the FDA came just after Obama and the other G-8 leaders pledged $20 billion to fight hunger in Africa over the next three years. "President Obama is currently embedded in a bubble featuring some of the fervent promoters of the biotech industry and a Green Revolution in Africa," says Paula Crossfield in the Huffington Post. Before joining Obama's transition team, Taylor was a Senior Fellow at the D.C. think tank Resources for the Future, where he published two documents on U.S. aid for African agriculture, both of which were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the first Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America in the 1960s, and in 2006, teamed up with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to launch the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). In Taylor's 2003 paper "American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy Change," he states: "The Green Revolution largely bypassed sub-Saharan Africa... African farmers often face difficult growing conditions, and better access to the basic Green Revolution tools of fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds, and irrigation certainly can play an important role in improving their productivity." In an interview with AllAfrica.com, Obama echoed Taylor's sentiment: "I'm still frustrated over the fact that the Green Revolution that we introduced into India in the '60s, we haven't yet introduced into Africa in 2009." Yet as Crossfield points out, "There are very good reasons why we have never introduced a Green Revolution into Africa, namely because there is broad consensus that the Green Revolution in India has been a failure, with Indian farmers in debt, bound to paying high costs for seed and pesticides, committing suicide at much higher rates, and resulting in a depleted water table and a poisoned environment, and by extension, higher rates of cancer. If President Obama is lacking this information, it is his cabinet that is to blame." While AGRA may not benefit African farmers, it will certainly benefit Monsanto. Some estimate that Monsanto controls 90 percent of the global market for GM seeds. In Brazil, 54 percent of all soybeans are produced with Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready© seeds, and in 2008, the country began spraying more pesticides and herbicides than the U.S. There is evidence that in 2003, Monsanto sold a Brazilian senator a farm for one-third of its market value in exchange for his help to legalize the herbicide glyphosate (the world's most widely used herbicide), sold by the corporation as Roundup©. In 2008, Monsanto controlled 80% of the Brazilian market for glyphosate, having elevated the price by 50% since its legalization. The "penultimate draft" of Taylor's 2002 paper was reviewed by Dr. Robert Horsch, a Monsanto executive for more than 25 years, who left in 2006 to work at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It states, "The ultimate concern of this report is how innovative seed technology derived from patented tools of biotechnology can be developed and disseminated for the benefit of small-scale and subsistence African farmers." Taylor's 2005 paper "Investing in Africa's Future: U.S. Agricultural Development Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa," was co-authored by the executive director of the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (PCHPA). Founded in 2000 and based in D.C., PCHPA is a consortium of public-private interests (Gates is one of its primary funders) that includes, among many others, Halliburton, several African heads of state, administrators from several U.S. land grant universities, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Monsanto. According to its web site, Taylor and Horsch both sit on PCHPA's advisory committee. Horsch continues to be listed as Vice President for Product and Technology Cooperation for Monsanto, and a member of PCHPA's working group for Capacity Building for Science and Technology. Taylor writes of the need to change "archaic, near-subsistence agricultural economies" with a "market-oriented approach and the promotion of thriving agribusinesses." His recipe is globalized, industrial agriculture: "applied agricultural research," "markets for agricultural inputs and outputs", "build rural roads and other physical infrastructure", and "build agricultural export capacity and opportunity." Taylor fails to adequately address how liberalized agricultural policies and unfair U.S. agricultural subsidies have been responsible for the bankruptcy of millions of African farmers. Instead, he maintains, "the financial impact of U.S. domestic cotton subsidies on Mali farmers dwarfs the impact of development assistance from USAID and other agencies." "Private investment and entrepreneurship are widely understood to be essential. The role of public investment is to provide the critical public goods needed to make private effort attractive and rewarding." Taylor maintains that due to the constraints of USAID, which has its funds allocated through congressional earmarks and is squeezed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. needs an alternative funding strategy for African agricultural development assistance. His proposal is to broaden the reach of the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a U.S. government agency established in 2004 by President George W. Bush to implement the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). "MCC is a new government corporation that operates under a different institutional and policy framework and receives funds that are not earmarked," says Taylor. ""The MCA was intended to depart sharply from traditional U.S. development assistance by providing large amounts of assistance to select countries that create an enabling environment for economic growth through market-oriented, pro-growth policies." African countries make up about half of the MCA-eligible countries. In June 2008, the Rockefeller Foundation issued a press release about the "historic collaboration" between MCC and AGRA. "MCC's investments in agriculture and in public infrastructure such as roads and irrigation complement AGRA's investments in providing the rural poor with seeds and fertilizers to increase their incomes and production," said MCC's CEO Ambassador John Danilovich. The MCC-AGRA partnership focuses on five areas, including "advancing agriculture research, multiplication of seed, and distribution of inputs and technologies to small-scale farmers," and "building roads, irrigation and other agriculture-related infrastructure." As it arrived in D.C., the Obama Administration received a report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs titled "Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Hunger and Poverty: The Chicago Initiative on Global Agricultural Development." The report was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and co-authored by its senior fellow Catherine Bertini. "The United States should thus remain willing to support research on all forms of modern crop biotechnology by local scientists in Sub-Saharan Africa," it reads. Taylor's 2007 paper, published by PCHPA and titled "Beating Africa's Poverty by Investing in Africa's Infrastructure," is cited in the Chicago Council report and listed as "key reading on African development" in its appendix. The Chicago Council report makes five specific recommendations, the third being to "increase support for rural and agricultural infrastructure, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa," with a related priority to "accelerate disbursal of the Millennium Challenge Corporation funds already obligated for rural roads and other agricultural infrastructure projects." While people have been debating about whether Michael R. Taylor might support labeling of GM foods (as he is aware, a moot point in the U.S. due to widespread contamination by GM pollen), he has been literally writing the book on U.S. agricultural aid to Africa. While the motives, beliefs and interests of Taylor, the Obama administration, the Gates, Rockefellers and everyone in support of a Green Revolution in Africa are debatable, those of Monsanto are not. "Once attached to a pool of foreign aid money, the pressure to open markets to biotechnology will be substantial," points out Food First policy analyst Annie Shattuck. But what will be the human and environmental costs of unleashing a Green Revolution in Africa? According to the Chicago Council report, the "most respected science academies" have concluded that "genetically engineered crops currently on the market present no new documented risk either to human health or to the environment." Unfortunately, this is false, and the world cannot afford for Obama to follow the advice of those who support a Green Revolution in Africa. In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on GM foods: "several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system." According to a study published by the Union of Concerned Scientists this year, GM seeds do not produce higher yields than conventional seeds. Yet they pose serious ecological risks, especially from genetic contamination from pollen. In the U.S., it is becoming impossible for the organic food industry to certify non-GM foods. In July in South Africa, three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn produced seedless plants on over 200,000 hectares of land for about 250 farmers. Monsanto had sold some of the seeds to commercial farmers and also given some to resource-poor, rural families. GM crops also require more chemical spraying than conventional crops, and weeds are developing tolerance to glyphosate, requiring higher and higher doses. According to a recent editorial in the New York Times, "Scientists are connecting the dots with evidence of increasing abnormalities among humans, particularly large increases in numbers of genital deformities among newborn boys... Apprehension is growing among many scientists that the cause of all this may be a class of chemicals called endocrine disruptors." Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. In March, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen named Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini published the results of a study that found Roundup causes cells to die in human embryos. "Even in doses diluted a thousand times, the herbicide could cause malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers," said Dr. Seralini. In April, Dr. AndrÈs Carrasco, an embryologist at the University of Buenos Aires, published his findings that even very low doses, glyphosate can cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in frog fetuses. Taylor's solution to halt hunger in Africa is for its farmers to industrially produce commodities for global markets in order to generate cash to purchase toxic food at a supermarket. Yet if his goal is to meet the immediate food and nutritional security needs of poor people in sub-Saharan Africa, and given that most of them live in rural areas, his perception of appropriate land use is flawed. Critics of AGRA assert that the most effective approach to fighting hunger in Africa would be to prioritize the agroecological production of healthy food by and for small-scale, peasant farming families, who would sell their surplus to local, regional and national markets, without being subject to unfair global markets and trade policies, or Monsanto's Green Revolution package. Family farms employ more people per acre than industrial farms do, and diversified small and medium farmers are more ecologically and economically resilient than those cultivating a monoculture cash crop. Local food systems consume less fossil fuel. Whereas the patenting and planting of GM seeds threaten humanity's collective agrogenetic heritage, in a world without Monsanto, millions of family farmers would be the guardians of agrobiodiversity and indigenous farming knowledge. One has to ask: given its support for Taylor, Monsanto and a new Green Revolution in Africa, does the Obama administration's foreign agricultural aid program truly represent 'change we can believe in'? As Ben Burkett, president of the National Family Farm Coalition, a U.S. member of La Via Campesina, cautioned, "As an African American farmer who has visited farmers in Africa many times, I am deeply concerned that much of the Obama Administration's pledge to spend $1 billion on agriculture research will be wasted on biotech research that benefits Monsanto more than it does small-scale farmers." Isabella Kenfield is an analyst at Americas Program and an associate at the Center for the Study of the Americas in Berkeley, California. She can be reached at isabella.kenfield(a)gmail.com. This article was originally published by Food First. _______________________ 'GM, Multis worsen farm sector' Express Buzz [India], via AgBios.com, 14 August 2009: http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=10924 BHUBANESWAR: With increasing input costs and low returns from the market, coupled with distress sale, the shifting of focus towards cash crops like cotton and introduction of genetically modified (GM) varieties have actually put the farmer community under tremendous pressure. While the shifting of focus in many districts of western Orissa is mainly towards cotton and more precisely for the GM types, the coastal farmers are now lured towards the marker assisted selection (MAS) varieties. Though technically, the MAS varieties are not of GM types, they are produced through genetic engineering. But the question is in a poor state like Orissa where the farmers were traditionally maintaing the paddy seeds through locally available seed improvement methods, will it help? And with the 'commercialisation of seeds' the farm input costs would go up further, complicating the agriculture scenario. According to inferences drawn at a meet by the United Coalition Against Genetic Engineering (UNCAGE), here recently, the State Government must not allow the 'big players' to monopolise the seed business. Also there should not be much pressure on cash crops like cotton in some pockets of western Orissa where either high land paddy varieties or millets can be grown easily. "Following the recent visit of top US officials and subsequent 'quick' approval for GM varieties by the apex body on genetic engineering, the situation in Orissa might get worse as far as farming is concerned" felt Paschim Orissa Krushak Samanwaya Samiti secretary Sarij Mohanty, adding the interests shown by some leading donor agencies for the research associated with GM crops also speak a lot about the intentions of the 'big players' for our 'markets' rather than the 'productivity' of our farmers. Contacted, an expert on rice breeding on condition of anonimity said with increasing presence of the MNCs in our farming scenario the rights of the common and marginal farmers would be at stake. "More emphasis on industrialisation and less importance on agriculture could be a pointer to understand the attitude of the present government as the administration is never bothered to address the basic issues of the marginal farmers," said a founding member of UNCAGE. "With basic issue like 'ensuring food grain security' being diluted with other non-issues, the government must see that interests of common people and marginal farmers are kept on priority," said Prof Radhamohan. _______________________ GM crops, hype and vandalism The Independent [UK] letters, 14 August 2009: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-bosnia-on-the-brink-1771890.html What is it about the Benn family? The father, Tony, visited the nuclear industry upon us. The son, Hilary, now wants to impose GM foods on us. Is it possible that they carry the gene for believing they are infallible? If yes, then could they be genetically modified before the next generation inflicts itself upon us? Professor C Vyvyan Howard Centre for Molecular Bioscience, University of Ulster Coleraine --- I was very disappointed with your leading article of 11 August on genetically modified crops. You seem to have bought the government-backed corporate hype. Even the GM firms themselves have admitted that in tests GM crops actually produce less than conventional crops. But even more importantly, you fail to address the most serious and frightening aspect. GM foods hand control of our food supply to the giant multi-national companies. By forcing farmers to grow only their seed, they are gradually extending this control. There are many cases of poor countries and farmers who are finding they are accumulating massive debts through using GM seed. Those who can are returning to traditional methods. Finally, you gloss over the issue of declining oil supplies. But what this actually implies is that we will have to return to what used to be known as normal farming methods and is now called organic. Mora McIntyre Hove _______________________ Famine in America? - read the evidence and see what you think Extracted from MADGE Digest No #89, 14 August 2009 http://www.madge.org.au Erik Scott is a seed dealer and agronomist from South Dakota in the US. In this interview he states that a famine in the US is quite likely for two reasons: http://kopn.org/aasp?u=http://kopn.org/a/showrss4.php?n=http://kopn.org/dc/dircaster2.php?p=fs
•	Very narrow seed genetics
•	Dependence on imported nitrogen fertilizer
Erik explains that farmers in his area used to grow a wide variety of crops, saved and developed their own seed varieties. Now the main crops are corn and soy, both of these are genetically modified. These crops are grown for several reasons:
•	They attract subsidies
•	They can be insured against failure
•	They require less labour than other crops
•	They are GM. The takeover of the seed industry has removed competition and made it hard to find non-GM seed https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.pdf
•	Farmers are now trapped into growing GM seeds which means they can't save or develop their own
Limited genetics in seed - like the Irish potato famine A farmer may buy hybrid seeds from 5 different companies but the seeds can all be from the same genetic family. This is setting the US up for a similar disaster to the Irish potato famine of the 1840's. The Irish grew the "lumper" variety of potato. They were all clones of each other. So when a fungal disease hit, the lumper potato harvest failed. The Andes, where potatoes originated, have 5000 varieties of potatoes. When disease or adverse weather conditions occur there, some potatoes varieties always survive. Famine is avoided by having diversity. Nitrogen fertilizer Crop rotation and animal manures were the traditional way to enrich the soil with nitrogen. Then the Haber Bosch process allowed inorganic nitrogen fertilizer to be produced. It is very energy intensive to manufacture but it allows the continuous growing of corn and soy on the same fields year after year. The US imports this nitrogen fertilizer and Erik Scott sees this dependence as equivalent to the US's dependence on imported oil. _______________________ The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans Written by F. William Engdahl Australia.to Special Reports, 14 August 2009: http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13060%3Athe-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans&Itemid=273 One of the great mysteries surrounding the spread of GMO plants around the world since the first commercial crops were released in the early 1990's in the USA and Argentina has been the absence of independent scientific studies of possible long-term effects of a diet of GMO plants on humans or even rats. Now it has come to light the real reason. The GMO agribusiness companies like Monsanto, BASF, Pioneer, Syngenta and others prohibit independent research. An editorial in the respected American scientific monthly magazine, Scientific American, August 2009 reveals the shocking and alarming reality behind the proliferation of GMO products throughout the food chain of the planet since 1994. There are no independent scientific studies published in any reputed scientific journal in the world for one simple reason. It is impossible to independently verify that GMO crops such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybeans or MON8110 GMO maize perform as the company claims, or that, as the company also claims, that they have no harmful side effects because the GMO companies forbid such tests! That's right. As a precondition to buy seeds, either to plant for crops or to use in research study, Monsanto and the gene giant companies must first sign an End User Agreement with the company. For the past decade, the period when the greatest proliferation of GMO seeds in agriculture has taken place, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta require anyone buying their GMO seeds to sign an agreement that explicitly forbids that the seeds be used for any independent research. Scientists are prohibited from testing a seed to explore under what conditions it flourishes or even fails. They cannot compare any characteristics of the GMO seed with any other GMO or non-GMO seeds from another company. Most alarming, they are prohibited from examining whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended side-effects either in the environment or in animals or humans. The only research which is permitted to be published in reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals are studies which have been pre-approved by Monsanto and the other industry GMO firms. The entire process by which GMO seeds have been approved in the United States, beginning with the proclamation by then President George H.W. Bush in 1992, on request of Monsanto, that no special Government tests of safety for GMO seeds would be conducted because they were deemed by the President to be "substantially equivalent" to non-GMO seeds, has been riddled with special interest corruption. Former attorneys for Monsanto were appointed responsible in EPA and FDA for rules governing GMO seeds as but one example and no Government tests of GMO seed safety to date have been carried out. All tests are provided to the US Government on GMO safety or performance by the companies themselves such as Monsanto. Little wonder that GMO sounds to positive and that Monsanto and others can falsely claim GMO is the "solution to world hunger." In the United States a group of twenty four leading university corn insect scientists have written to the US Government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding the EPA force a change to the company censorship practice. It is as if Chevrolet or Tata Motors or Fiat tried to censor comparative crash tests of their cars in Consumer Reports or a comparable consumer publication because they did not like the test results. Only this deals with the human and animal food chain. The scientists rightly argue to EPA that food safety and environment protection "depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny." We should think twice before we eat that next box of American breakfast cereal of the corn used is GMO or not. Seeds of Destruction - The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl Global Research, 2007 ISBN 978-0-937147-2-2 To order click here http://globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html This skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. "Control the food and you control the people." This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms. The author cogently reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is. Engdahl's carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and World peace. What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything-- science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds-- have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland) _______________________ 13 August 2009 Sell Block: Monsanto's Growth Choking Out Competition? Mad Money with Jim Cramer CNBC, 13 August 2009: http://www.cnbc.com/id/32404907 The Obama administration is stepping up its antitrust enforcement, Cramer said Thursday, and Monsanto could be the first target. Recent moves by the company seem to be daring the Justice Department to file a suit. Believe Cramer when he says that the government has a strong case against Monsanto. A series of competition-crushing acquisitions made this biotech disguised as an agriculture outfit the market leader in genetically modified US corn, soybean and cotton seeds. And Monsanto maintains strict agreements with its farmer clients that leave them virtually no choice but to feed at the corporate trough. Plus, the company plans to push through a 42% price increase on its new seeds, and there's nothing these farmers can do about it. Monsanto couldn't provoke a government inquiry anymore than it already has. The firm seems to have farmers and the seed market in a stranglehold. Monsanto's reputation is so noteworthy that the company serves as the villain in the new documentary Food, Inc. Cramer thought the movie's accusations alone might be enough to draw Washington's ire. Now, Monsanto blames the expected decline in sales of its premier herbicide, Roundup, as the reason for the price increases. As much as Cramer thought it was a dangerous move given the Obama administration's renewed focus on antitrust, he knew the catch-22 this company faces: risk the White House's wrath or risk an earnings shortfall. Monsanto was the focus of this week's Sell Block because Wall Street has all but ignored this possibility. Analysts and investors are worried about falling Roundup sales but not the actions Monsanto is taking to make up for them, and that's a mistake. Cramer wasn't telling viewers to dump the stock, but he did remind them that this is not the George W. Bush Justice Department. The government of, by and for the corporation, which ruled the eight years prior to Obama's inauguration, is long gone. Owners of MON [Monsanto] should keep this in mind. Call Cramer: 1-800-743-CNBC Questions for Cramer? madmoney@cnbc.com Questions, comments, suggestions for the Mad Money website? madcap@cnbc.com _______________________ Defra/FSA Ignore Food Security as they try to please the GM lobby GM Freeze, 13 August 2009: http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=396&iType= GM Freeze has accused Defra and the Food Standards Agency's analysis [1] of non-GM soya supplies for animal feed, published today, of "assuming the worst" and taking no account of long-term feed security or low farm gate prices. The Defra/FSA report says that the ban on GM soya and maize that is not approved in the EU will interrupt supplies of animal feed. At present the EU policy is that no unapproved GM presence is tolerated in animal feed ("zero tolerance"). Some imports from the USA have been stopped at ports because of contamination with unapproved GM crops. GM Freeze says that the new analysis ignores the serious structural problems of the UK livestock and poultry industry, which has become highly dependent on imported animal feed that has been subject to price hikes in the last two years. UK farmers are particularly vulnerable because of low farm gate prices for meat, milk and poultry, especially when competing against cheap imports from countries with lower animal welfare standards. GM Freeze also points to growing concern about the destructive nature of soya cultivation in South America, where forests are still being cleared for soya plantations, and the impacts of intensive soya monoculture on people and the environment become more evident.[2] The Freeze says that the Defra/FSA analysis assumes that soya supplies will continue to be GM dominated, despite higher prices offered for non-GM supplies. The analysis makes no mention of efforts made in Argentina to monitor maize cargoes destined for the EU and prevent them being dispatched if they contain unapproved GM traits. It also fails to look into why EU farmers find it difficult to get non-GM soya meal from Brazil when more than 21 million of tons are produced every year, sufficient to meet EU demand [3]. In addition, GM Freeze is also critical of the report for being weak on consumer choice. At present animal products, such as meat, milk and eggs, are not legally required to be labelled if they are produced using GM feed, despite massive public support for such labels. [4] The group says that greater reliance on GM feed by the UK's poultry, livestock and dairy sectors would be a big risk at a time when the public is increasingly demanding quality products and have rejected GM ingredients in human food. Products produced without GM feed would make it easier for the UK's farmers to compete against cheaper, lower quality GM-fed imports by providing a unique selling point. Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "The Defra/FSA analysis assumes the worst - that supplies of non-GM soya will dry up. South American farmers are canny at business and already see the opportunities to supply the EU with non-GM feed if offered a decent return. Governments in South America will be very reluctant to close off lucrative markets in the EU by approving additional GM soya varieties before they have approval in Europe. The analysis suffers from being given the wrong objectives at the start, which meant that the long-term problems of how to feed our poultry and livestock in a sustainable way in the future were largely bypassed to produce a report that plays to the short-term interests of the GM lobby in the UK". ENDS Calls to Pete Riley + 44 7903 341065 or + 44 845 217 8992 Notes 1. See GM Crops and Foods: Follow-up to the Food Matters Report by Defra and the FSA: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm 2. See http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/biodiversity/news/fix_food_chain_20576.html 4. Brazil produces 61 million metric tonnes of soya per year of which more that 21 million tones is non-GM. 3. A GkF/NOP public opinion survey in 2006 for Friends of the Earth and GM Freeze found 87% of people want animals products labelled if they were produced using GM animal feed. _______________________ GM Watch website relaunched and stronger than ever • GM Watch launches a new website to help debunk the myths behind the biotechnology industry's spin Rebecca Heald The Ecologist, 13 August 2009: http://www.theecologist.org/take_action/campaigns/302240/gm_watch_website_relaunched_and_stronger_than_ever.html GMWatch has launched a new myth-busting website dedicated to exposing the myths and lies that abound within the biotechnology industry. GMWatch has been at the forefront of the global campaign opposing GM food and crops since its inception in 1998. It is an independent and non-profit making organisation, seeking to counter the enormous power and influence held by the biotechnology industry. Cyber attack The new site, which launched on July 22, replaces an older version which was forced off the web by over a year of cyber attacks. The website comprises sections devoted to all areas of the subject, including detailed reports on GM myths, the people behind the myths and the GM companies peddling them and reaping the benefits, as well as frequent news updates on global developments and a guide to how the media are manipulated by misleading claims. Described by celebrated environmental campaigner, author and journalist George Monbiot as 'the world's most comprehensive database on the impacts and the politics of genetically engineered crops', the website boasts a formidable armoury of evidence and analysis, breaking open the lesser-publicised aspects of GM. Myth-busting GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews said: 'Our campaign and this site are all about busting the myths about GM crops. The reality is that this is a technology shrouded in risks and uncertainties. The GMWatch website is the place to go for those who want to get at the reality behind the spin and hyperbole.' The new site has been designed to be user-friendly, making it easy to navigate the vast amount of information that has been collated by grouping it into key 'myths'. The sweet potato Top of the list is an article highlighting the porous case of the miracle sweet potato, touted as being capable of catapulting Africa out of hunger and poverty. It recalls the bombastic headlines of late 2002 - 'Millions served' - and the claims of the Monsanto-trained doctor who headed the project that the GM sweet potato was virus-resistant, twice the size of a natural sweet potato and richer in nutrients. The tuber was hailed as Africa's saviour crop, reported in hundreds of international publications. Then, at the start of 2004, it was quietly revealed that trials had failed and the sweet potato was possibly even less successful than the original crop. This news was reported far less widely, despite a conventional breeding programme in Uganda producing a new virus-resistant variety capable of increasing yields by 100 per cent. GMWatch is also linked with SpinProfiles - a searchable online encyclopedia of people, issues, and groups shaping the public agenda. It puts at your fingertips descriptions and details of PR firms, activist groups and government agencies as well as criticisms made of these groups from different perspectives. You can sign up to daily, weekly or monthly newsletter reviews and updates, which are also available on the site, and view GMWatch's archive of nearly a decade of news and analysis. Visit the new site at www.gmwatch.org View GMWatch's sister sites SpinProfiles http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal and BanGMFood http://www.bangmfood.org/ _______________________ Monsanto named in 50 cancer lawsuits Chris Dickerson West Virginia's Legal Record [USA], 13 August 2009 : http://www.wvrecord.com/news/220565-monsanto-named-in-50-cancer-lawsuits WINFIELD - Fifty recently filed lawsuits allege Monsanto and related companies are responsible for causing cancer. Each of the complaints, filed Aug. 3 in Putnam Circuit Court, say Monsanto and its successor companies caused cancer by exposing the plaintiffs to dioxins/furans contamination of the air and property in and around Nitro. The cases mention the "negligent and otherwise unlawful release of dioxin from defendants' waste disposal practices on properties - located in and about Nitro, West Virginia." These individual cases, filed by Stuart Calwell and The Calwell Firm of Charleston, are not part of an ongoing class action involving thousands of current and former Nitro residents alleging Monsanto polluted the area with dioxin. The class action case specifies no specific damages, and the class-action plaintiffs seek medical monitoring. The plaintiffs in the new cases, also represented by Calwell, are residents and former residents of Nitro or one or more of several surrounding communities of the now defunct chemical plant located near Nitro. They lived, worked or attended school in Nitro. Monsanto owned and operated the plant from 1934 to 2000. From 1949 to 1970, the company produced an herbicide that was heavily contaminated with dibenzo dioxins and dibenzo furans. The complaints say the company disposed of the dioxin-contaminated waste in a way which caused dioxins to escape into the air. The plaintiffs say their property and soil was contaminated. "During the years that Old Monsanto was operating it's trichlorophenol plant, it adopted an unlawful practice of disposing of dioxin waste materials by a continuous process of open 'pit' burning," the complaints state. "This practice was largely denied by Old Monsanto whose representatives characterized the practice as an 'incineration process' when asked by regulatory authorities. "Old Monsanto and its successors - failed to adequately control the dioxin contaminated soils and other dioxin contaminated waste materials both on and off the plant site. Dioxins/furans continued to be re-deposited and re-distributed from the plant site and the off-site dumps so as to continue the process of air and property contamination." The complaints say the defendants knew of the dangers. The defendants "should have known of the highly toxic properties of dioxin and that dioxin was and is a known promoter of cancer and that dioxin was and is a known human carcinogen," the complaints state. The defendants "knew that the area around the Monsanto plant was populated with permanent residents who would likely live out their lives in the area contaminated." The complaints also detail the history of Monsanto and the company's knowledge regarding dioxin. The Nitro plant produced herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals, including Agent Orange. Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility and suppressed immune functions. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for medical bills past and future, lost wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. They also seek punitive damages for the "willful, wanton and reckless" actions of the defendants "evidencing a callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of the residents of the Nitro area." Putnam Circuit Court case numbers 09-C-243 through 09-C-282 --- Note: To put this into context see the GM Watch history of Monsanto http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10595-monsanto-a-history and the link at the end to sources and related resources. _______________________ Monsanto to Charge as Much as 42% More for New Seeds Jack Kaskey Bloomberg, August 13 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aLW8VZBkP3PA Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed maker, plans to charge as much as 42 percent more for new genetically modified seeds next year than older offerings because they increase farmers' output. Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans will cost farmers an average of $74 an acre in 2010, and original Roundup Ready soybeans will cost $52 an acre, St. Louis-based Monsanto said today in presentations on its Web site. SmartStax corn seeds, developed with Dow Chemical Co., will cost $130 an acre, 17 percent more than the YieldGard triple-stack seeds they will replace. "Our pricing has the flexibility built in to ensure the grower captures the greatest return from his seed investment, irrespective of market volatility," Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant said today in a statement. Grant is introducing new modified seeds that boost yields as part of a plan to double gross profit from 2007 to 2012. The new soybeans, which resist Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, produce 7.4 percent more soybeans per acre than the older version. SmartStax kills insects in multiple ways, reducing the amount of conventional corn that must be planted to deter insecticide resistance. "SmartStax pricing is higher than we initially expected," Vincent Andrews, a New York-based analyst at Morgan Stanley, said today in a report. Monsanto rose $1.57, or 1.9 percent, to $84.03 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have gained 19 percent this year. Acreage Forecasts SmartStax corn seed will be planted on as many as 4 million acres in 2010, its first year on the market, with a potential for as many as 65 million acres in the U.S. eventually, the company said. The new seed boosts yields 5 percent to 10 percent compared with other products, partly by reducing the amount of land that must be planted with conventional corn to 5 percent from 20 percent, Monsanto said. Pricing for SmartStax is at the high end of expectations, Laurence Alexander, a New York-based analyst at Jefferies & Co., said by telephone. Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean seeds were planted on 1.5 million acres this year and will be planted on as many as 8 million acres next year in the U.S. with a potential to one day reach 55 million acres, Monsanto said. The company is pricing its seeds to share the benefit of increased yields with farmers, said Mark Gulley, a New York- based analyst at Soleil Securities. Prices include seed treatments designed to protect seedlings from pests and disease, Monsanto said. "They are in essence splitting the value of the extra yield 50-50," Gulley said by telephone. Monsanto repeated its forecast for earnings in the fiscal year that ends this month at the low end of a range of $4.40 to $4.50 a share. The average estimate of 16 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg was for profit of $4.41 a share. To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in New York at jkaskey@bloomberg.net _______________________ Africa's biotechnology battle Ian Scoones(1) & Dominic Glover(2) Nature 460, 797-798 (13 August 2009) doi:10.1038/460797a; Published online 12 August 2009: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7257/full/460797a.html An influential book accuses Europe of keeping genetically modified crops out of Africa, but, by polarizing the debate, it undermines efforts to improve the continent's agriculture, warn Ian Scoones and Dominic Glover. BOOK REVIEWED Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa By Robert Paarlberg Harvard University Press: 2008. 256 pp. $24.95 (hbk), $16.95 (pbk) [Photo caption: Transgenic crops are not a panacea in Africa, where low-tech farming methods can yield good results.] Starved for Science is a troubling polemic. Political scientist Robert Paarlberg argues that genetically modified (GM) crops could solve Africa's hunger and poverty, but that, through inadequate investment, external lobbying and stringent regulations, farmers are being deprived of the technology and prevented from achieving agricultural success. He lays the blame largely with European governments and non-governmental organizations for trying to foist their affluent values and precautionary sensibilities on Africa's poor. The book has quickly become influential. Paarlberg was asked to speak about hunger alleviation in front of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The book's arguments were repeated in a major policy speech by Nina Fedoroff, science and technology adviser both to the US Secretary of State and to the administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Economist Paul Collier of the University of Oxford, UK, praised it in an article in the journal Foreign Affairs, and British peer Dick Taverne described it in a House of Lords debate as one of the most important books he had read in years. But Paarlberg's account is one-sided. Just as the heated debate about GM crops had settled around a position that recognizes they can be useful in some circumstances yet are not a panacea, this book unhelpfully polarizes the matter once more. Large parts of Starved for Science are uncontroversial. Paarlberg is correct in saying that there has been long-term underinvestment in African agriculture, especially in scientific research and technology development. And few would dispute that funding agricultural research offers high returns and is a key weapon in the fight against poverty and hunger. That such arguments have been ignored by policy-makers and aid programmes is also well recognized. Where we take issue with the book is its explicit assertion that the only kind of science-based agriculture worth investing in is founded on biotechnology, and on genetic engineering in particular. In its narrow focus, Starved for Science dismisses a slew of scientifically validated approaches to agriculture, including integrated pest and soil-fertility management, 'low-input' techniques that reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and even other forms of biotechnology. Yet such methods have performed well in African contexts (J. N. Pretty et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1114-1119; 2006). Paarlberg's book reduces the vast and varied continent and its farmers to a series of gloomy generalizations. But a detailed look at the data reveals numerous successes. For example, in northern and western Africa, agricultural production per capita increased by more than 40% between 1981-83 and 2003-05, and total output value increased by an amount equal to that seen in Asia after the 1960s Green Revolution (see http://tinyurl.com/lgkosx). Another success is that of smallholder farmers who produce hybrid maize in Zimbabwe and Kenya and cassava and cotton in West Africa (see http://tinyurl.com/mhaebb). Results can seem mixed overall because each technology must perform within a particular social, economic, institutional and market setting. Paarlberg also pays too little attention to the substantial efforts that have got under way recently in Africa. International donors have, for example, lent their support to two important strategic initiatives for agriculture: the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa and the African Union's Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. Meanwhile, agricultural biotechnology has received significant backing from within Africa itself - including a thoughtful assessment from the African Union's high-level panel on biotechnology (see http://tinyurl.com/lnc46j). GM crop research is also under way in countries as diverse as South Africa, Burkina Faso and Malawi. Paarlberg argues that GM crops are being "kept out" of Africa because European lobby groups have forced the imposition of "stifling regulations" based on "extreme precaution". His roll-call of bad guys is long, from Food First, Greenpeace and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, to the United Nations and the Ford Foundation. All are blamed for preventing a "science-based escape from rural poverty". In fact, the pro-GM lobby has been every bit as active, bombarding decision-makers and media organizations with slick marketing materials and free trips to their corporate headquarters. The US government has sponsored schemes in Africa that provide biosafety training programmes for regulators and that promote model legal frameworks. Such projects include the US Foreign Agriculture Service's scientific exchange programmes and the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project, part of the USAID Collaborative Agriculture Biotechnology Initiative. Paarlberg's claim that external, anti-GM views have been the main influence on decision-making by national governments in Africa is not substantiated. Instead, international players on both sides of the GM debate have fought a fierce tug-of-war over policy, with African regulators and policy-makers often left as unwilling bystanders. Meanwhile, on the ground, detailed, site-specific evidence on the performance of GM technologies indicates that a farmer's ability to reap the potential benefits depends on a range of technical, agronomic and institutional factors (see http://tinyurl.com/ksbfxo and http://tinyurl.com/krmzxu). For instance, the transgenic trait needs to be available in crop varieties that can perform in constrained environments. A good yield depends heavily on favourable soils and irrigation, which the poorest farmers typically lack. As the experiences of smallholder Bt-cotton farmers in South Africa have demonstrated, GM crop technology also needs to be supported by infrastructure and institutions if it is to benefit the poorest people. These findings are in contrast to the triumphalism of reports that show the spread of GM crops around the world, such as that released annually by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Studied closely, the 2008 report shows that only 8 of the 25 countries that grew GM crops planted more than a million hectares. Almost 80% of the global GM crop of 125 million hectares was grown in just three countries: 62.5 million hectares in the United States, 21 million hectares in Argentina and almost 16 million hectares in Brazil. Moreover, the GM crops that have been commercialized to date are mostly insect-resistant Bt varieties of maize and cotton and herbicide-tolerant varieties of soya bean, designed for and mainly used by large-scale commercial farmers. African agricultural policy-makers have some difficult decisions to make. Biotechnology will surely be part of the mix of approaches required for the future, as indicated both in the World Bank's 2008 World Development Report on agriculture and in the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. But big uncertainties remain - including how farmers will gain access to markets where GM products are currently restricted and the potential risks of GM technologies to the environment or health. An informed 'wait-and-see' stance thus makes sense. What of the future? One of the pivotal arguments in Starved for Science is that promising pipeline technologies and longer-term research are also being held back. To make his case, Paarlberg cites the effort to develop drought-tolerant GM maize, a major programme of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation. Supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, it is working with a range of public and private research and development organizations. This broad initiative involves conventional breeding, genomics applications and genetic-marker-based selection as well as genetic modification. Yet Paarlberg zeroes in on the GM solution, maintaining that this is where the necessary breakthroughs will happen. Blue-skies research into future agricultural techniques is essential. But inflating expectations has major downsides. As occurred with medical biotechnology, hype can distort innovation. It diverts funds from other research and narrows the focus of study to genetics rather than taking into account the wider environmental, behavioural and synergistic dynamics (P. Nightingale and P. Martin Trends Biotechnol. 22, 546-569; 2004). A similar process will occur in agricultural science unless we retain a balanced perspective of the options available. A dogmatic and unscientific stance on GM crops - whether for or against - helps no one, least of all African farmers. A more evidence-based approach than Paarlberg's is needed - one that should foster diverse development pathways for agriculture underpinned by high-quality scientific research and attuned to particular circumstances. For additional references, see http://tinyurl.com/lfp2x3. 1. Ian Scoones is a professorial fellow at the Institute of Development Studies and co-director of the ESRC STEPS Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK. Email: i.scoones@ids.ac.uk 2. Dominic Glover is a postdoctoral researcher in the Technology and Agrarian Development Group, Wageningen University, 6706 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands. --- Comment by GM Watch: Good to see Nature publishing a measured review by two development specialists of Robert Parlberg's polemic "Starved for Science", a book which essentially claims Northern NGOs are starving Africans of life-saving GM crops. Paarlberg, and his book, have been proving influential. According to his Wellesley College profile, Paarlberg has "recently completed major studies of regional policy harmonization toward biotechnology in eastern and southern Africa, for the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)on the politics of accepting biofortified food crops in developing countries, commissioned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation." Paarlberg's role as Advisor to Monsanto's CEO would seem to tie in very neatly with the 2009 $5.4 million award by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the heavily Monsanto-funded Danforth Center. An article in the St Louis-Post Dispatch, Monsanto's home-town newspaper, baldly says that the Gates money will go towards getting round Africa's GM regulations: "The $5.4 million will go to developing the crops in the field, to safety assessments and overcoming regulatory hurdles" to the adoption of GM biofortified food crops in Africa. It should not be forgotten, of course, that Rob Horsch, a senior Monsanto executive, is now part of the Gates Foundation, as is Lawrence Kent of the Monsanto-funded Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. Both Horsch and Kent are working for Gates on the funding of projects aimed at the developing world. The Danforth Center's president, Roger Beachy, said of their appointment that it "won't hurt to have two people familiar with St. Louis researchers holding the strings to the Gates Foundation's large purse". Nor can it hurt to have their decisions underwritten by an Advisor to Monsanto's CEO. All of which suggests, Paarlberg's being very much less than honest about who's really trying to pull the strings in Africa. EXTRACT: "In its narrow focus, Starved for Science dismisses a slew of scientifically validated approaches to agriculture, including integrated pest and soil-fertility management, 'low-input' techniques that reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and even other forms of biotechnology. Yet such methods have performed well in African contexts." _______________________ Meat Traceability - Everyone's Business Wednesday 11th November 2009 Radisson Hotel, Golden Lane, Dublin 8, Ireland Food Safety Authority of Ireland, 13 August 2009: http://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/events/meat_traceability_Nov09.html The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, in association with GS1 Ireland, is hosting a seminar on meat traceability. The seminar will review current meat traceability systems and also showcase 'model' solutions from Ireland and abroad. Presentations by speakers from Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Denmark will provide valuable insights on the development of effective and efficient meat traceability and recall systems. The closing panel discussion will provide an opportunity to discuss any issues and/or concerns attendees have in relation to meat traceability systems. Key topics include:
•	Case study: Irish dioxin crisis
•	RFID tracking of animals in New Zealand
•	A global product recall solution
•	Pork traceability in Denmark
•	Traceability of Irish meat (beef, pork and poultry)
Date: Wednesday, 11th November, 2009 Location: Radisson Hotel, Golden Lane, Dublin 8 Fee: €100 - lunch and refreshments will be provided Attendance: Places will be limited and early registration of interest is recommended Who should attend:
•	Supply chain/quality managers in the meat industry
•	Retail and foodservice sector representatives
•	Craft butchers
•	Animal feed suppliers
•	Veterinary inspectors
•	Academia
For further information or to register your interest, please contact: Miriam McDonald at traceabilityseminar@fsai.ie or telephone: 01 817 1341. (Places are limited so early registration is advisable.) _______________________ FSA and Defra GM reports published UK Food Standards Agency, 13 August 2009: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/aug/gm The Food Matters report published in July 2008 by the Cabinet Office included two parallel action points for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Defra on genetically modified (GM) food and animal feed. The action points were as follows:
•	Defra, working with the FSA, will publish an analysis of the potential impacts on the livestock sector arising from global food trends in GM production and the current operation of the GM approval system in the EU.
•	In parallel, the FSA, working with Defra,will publish an analysis of the extent to which changes in the market are putting a strain on the regulatory system for GM products (including animal feed) and the implications for UK consumers.
The report on the work that the FSA and Defra have undertaken in response to these points can be found at the link below. The analytical reports, which support the work taken forward by Defra, are available on the Defra website via the link below. A progress report updating all of the Food Matters actions, including the two action points above, was published on 10 August. The progress report, which is called 'Food Matters: One year on', can be found at the link below. What is Food Matters? The 2008 report, which can be found at the link below, looked at how different elements of the food system can be better integrated and its impact economically, socially and environmentally. The report recognises that central government needs to work with the public, businesses from all parts of the food chain, other stakeholders and other tiers of government to put a new food policy framework in place. Related links GM crops and foods: Follow-up to the Food Matters report by Defra and the FSA Read about the FSA and Defra responses to the action points in the Food Matters report Download pdf (pdf 137KB) http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/foodmattergmreport.pdf External links The Food Standards Agency has no responsibility for the content of external websites Food Matters: Analytical reports supporting Defra's work. See the reports on Defra's website http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm Food Matters: One year on. Read the 2009 progress report on the Defra website http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/pdf/food-matters-oneyearon090806.pdf Food Matters: Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century. Read about the project and 2008 report on the Cabinet Office website http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/food_policy.aspx _______________________ Genetically Modified Crops and Foods: Follow-up to the Food Matters report by Defra and the Food Standards Agency info4local.gov.uk.m 13 August 2009: http://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/publications/1311510 Summary: This paper reports on the work that Defra and the Food Standards Agency have undertaken in response to the Food Matters report, which included action points related to the concern that the EU approval regime for genetically modified products could disrupt food and, in particular, animal feed imports, and that there could be associated problems with enforcement of, and public confidence in, genetic modification regulations. Download (138kb PDF): http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/foodmattergmreport.pdf _______________________ Egypt denies banning GMO crop imports Reuters (via STV), 13 August 2009: http://news.stv.tv/environment/115780-egypt-denies-banning-gmo-crop-imports/ CAIRO - Egypt's agriculture minister has not issued a decision to ban the import of genetically modified crops, the state news agency MENA said on Thursday, denying an earlier report. The agency quoted an unnamed official at the Agriculture Ministry as stating that earlier reports citing Amin Abaza ordering that a certificate accompany all imports to show they were free of genetically modified materials were "not correct." The original report of the decision was published by MENA on Wednesday and picked up by other media. Egypt is one of the world's largest wheat importers and also imports other products such as corn, edible oils and sugar. It exports products such as vegetables and fruits, particularly to Europe. Traders had expressed surprise at the move, saying some of Egypt's main food imports at the moment included genetically modified products, especially soyoil and corn. The debate in Egypt over food quality has become politically heated after some Russian wheat was rejected over quality concerns. Members of parliament have been calling for stricter rules and greater agricultural self-sufficiency. (Reporting by Maha El Dahan, Editing by Peter Blackburn) _______________________ ICAR body to study socio-economic impact of BT brinjal By Sandip Das. The Financial Express [India], 13 August 2009: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/icar-body-to-study-socio-economic-impact-of-bt-brinjal/501295/ New Delhi: The government's move to commercially launch the first Genetically Modified (GM) food crop - Brinjal [aubergine] would have to wait for few months. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has now asked the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP), an Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) affiliate institute to conduct an exhaustive socio economic impact assessment. "We want to rule out any adverse impact of the BT brinjal prior to giving nod for commercially cultivation," a GEAC member told FE. BT brinjal has been embroiled in many controversies during last three years over its possible health related impact. NCAP has already identified 40 locations in states including Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa for carrying out the socio economic impact assessment. "We intend to start the impact assessment for BT brinjal from last week of August," PK Joshi, director, NCAP said. The study would cover factors such as benefits to farmers, production yield and use of pesticides. GM brinjal, has been developed by the Indian seed company, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co (Mahyco) with technology sourced from US-based multinational Monsanto and the company has given the technology free to Tamil Nadu Agriculture University and the University of Agricultural Science of Dharward for commercial use. Mahyco has claimed that BT brijnal, which is resistant to pest and also entails far lesser use of pesticides, would be available to small farmers through public agencies. However, many environmental groups have been opposed to BT brinjal by saying that there are enough number of indigenously developed brinjal varieties in the country and the government should not use BT crop in a hurry without 'satisfying' about the health impact on the human being. Recently Navdanya, a group opposing the introduction of BT brinjal organised a 'Brinjal festival' in Delhi for showing varieties of Indian brinjal. BT brinjal would be the second genetically modified vegetable to be introduced after the success of BT cotton, also launched by Mahyco in 2002. Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh, under whose ministry GEAC functions, said "There is no great urgency for Bt brinjal to be launched and we should have a statutory comprehensive assessment first before granting a green signal." Brinjal is grown in around 5.5 lakh hectare in the country and is a critical cash crop for more than 1.4 million small and marginal. West Bengal is the biggest producer of brinjal in the country with 1.6 lakh hectare under cultivation. The state accounts for 30% of production.... _______________________ 12 August 2009 Egypt says no GM food exports or imports: agency By Maha El Dahan. Reuters, 12 August 2009.: http://af.reuters.com/article/investingNews/idAFJOE57B07N20090812 CAIRO (Reuters) - Any agricultural imports to Egypt must have a certificate from the country of origin that the product is not genetically modified and the rule will also apply to Egyptian exports, the official news agency said on Wednesday. The debate in Egypt over food quality has become politically heated after some Russian wheat was rejected over quality concerns. Members of parliament have been calling for stricter rules and greater agricultural self sufficiency. Traders expressed surprise at the move, saying some of Egypt's main food imports at the moment included genetically modified products. Officials could not independently confirm the decision by Agriculture Minister Amin Abaza, as reported by the official news agency MENA. Abaza was quoted as saying that "it was necessary that all crops imported from abroad and exported from Egypt be accompanied by a certificate from the country of origin stating they are free of genetically modified materials." "No agricultural products especially wheat, corn and soya bean would enter except after examining samples from the cargo," MENA reported him as saying. Egypt is one of the world's largest wheat importers and also imports other products such as corn, edible oils and sugar. It exports products such as vegetables and fruits particularly to Europe. "A non-GMO policy would not cause difficulties for sunflower oil but it would for soyoil," one European trader said. "It would mean that soyoil imports would only be possible from Brazil and not from the U.S. or Argentina," he said. The three countries are the world's largest soyoil exporters. The trader added it would be "immensely difficult to give a guarantee that Brazilian soyoil is GMO free as Brazil also has large GMO production and it is certainly possible that GMO soybeans could be mixed with non-GMO beans." Wheat is GMO-free and buying GMO free corn would be possible, with supplies available from the Black Sea region, another trader said. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland: The trader who claims it would be "immensely difficult" to source GM-free soy products from Brazil is lying. Brazil is the world's leading exporter of certified Non-GMO soy products. For details see the proceedings of the Second International Non-GMO soy Summit, October 2008 at http://www.nongmosoysummit.com _______________________ Government OKs genetically modified vines IOL [South Africa], 12 August 2009: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=iol1250098196535B523 The government has given researchers the nod to grow genetically modified (GM) grapevines in field trials at Stellenbosch University. The researchers are developing a grapevine that will be genetically modified to resist fungal disease. If successful, the vine will mean less use of pesticides on vineyards. Three environmental lobby groups, SafeAge, Earthlife Africa and the African Centre for Biosafety, will appeal to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry against the approval. SafeAge co-ordinator Charmaine Anderson said yesterday they were shocked to learn of the approval after there had been strong opposition to the field trials of the GM grapevine. Especially from wine farmers who export to the EU, and there were even objections from overseas, she said. She said the GM application to the department had been made in 2006 for open-air field trials of GM sultana and chardonnay grapevine varieties. Asked to comment on the GM grapevine, Villeria wine-maker Jeff Grier said although he was not against developing new technology, and accepted that a fungal-resistant grapevine theoretically would be beneficial, Villiera would not use any GM crops. Read the Cape Times for the full story: http://www.capetimes.co.za/ _______________________ Agency's Decision Lacks Scientific Support, Allege Researchers By Matthew Little. Epoch Times [USA], 12 August 2009: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/20932/ The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's decision to relax a key safeguard for a new variety of genetically engineered corn was not based on science, alleges a top researcher. Two weeks ago, The Epoch Times reported on the controversy raised by the government's decision to approve SmartStax corn, a new variety of genetically engineered (GE) corn that combines, or "stacks," eight previously approved genetic modifications into one strain. But questions raised during research for that story were left unanswered including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) decision to substantially reduce a key safeguard placed on other GE crops. That safeguard, known as a refuge area, is a portion of each GE crop, usually around 20 percent, that is planted with a non-genetically modified variety of the plant. The refuge area lessens evolutionary pressure on pests to develop resistance to the genetic modifications by giving them a place to feed on unmodified plants. These insects don't develop resistance and can also breed with insects that do develop resistance to slow the spread of that resistance. Gene traits to combat pests, mainly the corn borer (a type of moth which bores into corn in its caterpillar stage) and corn rootworm, (a beetle that attacks corn roots during its larvae stage and other parts of the plant in its adult beetle stage) are based on a naturally occurring soil bacteria. Pests will inevitably develop resistance to the bacteria - it is just a matter slowing the development of that resistance, says Bruce Tabishnik, head of entomology (the study of insects) at the University of Arizona and one of the most cited experts in insect resistance to Bt toxins used in GE corn. "Resistance is expected no matter what toxin or combination of toxins is used to control insects," he said. If insects do develop resistance, not only do those very expensive seed varieties become ineffective at controlling the pest, but organic farmers may also be unable to use a natural variety of that bacteria for organic pest control, warns the Center for Food Safety. (CFS is an NGO not to be confused with the Federal Drug Administration's similarly named department). Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, the two companies that shared technologies to create SmartStax, have successfully argued in the United States and Canada that it is very unlikely any pests would develop resistance given the number of overlapping pest controls and so the refuge area should be cut down to 5 percent of the crop. While Tabashnik agrees it will be harder for pests to develop resistance to SmartStax, he said there has been no research to assure the CFIA that shrinking the refuge area will not accelerate resistance. He noted that shrinking the refuge could undo any added benefit of the stacked traits. Krista Thomas, a biotechnology regulator with the CFIA, told The Epoch Times that the decision to shrink the refuge requirement was made after careful and rigorous consideration of available science. The agency provided a list of studies considered in the decision but Thomas said that list did not include research provided by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences. But leading scientists like Tabashnik-whose work was cited four times by the CFIA in their decision to reduce the refuge-are adamant the decision is not supported by science. "No one knows how much shrinking the refuge will speed up resistance," said Tabashnik. "If you kept the refuge size the same, it would delay resistance, [because of the stacked traits] but shrinking the refuge will accelerate resistance. You have got a plus on one side and minus on the other." Beyond those assumptions, little else could be known, he said, including whether or not SmartStax warranted an 80 percent smaller refuge area. "I would go as far as to say it is not a science-based decision," said David Andow, a professor of insect ecology at the University of Minnesota and internationally recognized biotech expert and advisor to organizations like the U.N.'s FAO, World Bank, and WTO. Andow said some of the papers the CFIA cited were not even that relevant. While the CFIA apparently disagrees with that suggestion, the agency could not provide scientific research to support that position. Thomas said neither of the scientists had the opportunity to review the research provided by SmartStax's developers but could not say how much that research influenced the agency's decision. _______________________ Egypt bans trade in GM food AFP, via France 24, 12 August 2009: http://www.france24.com/en/20090812-egypt-bans-trade-gm-food Egypt is banning food imports and exports that are not certified free of genetically modified products, state news agency MENA reported on Wednesday. Agriculture Minister Amin Abaza "gave instructions... against the entry of any imports, especially wheat, corn and soya beans until samples of the cargo have been examined...in the absence of a certificate," it added. The agency gave no further details. Egypt is the most populous Arab country and one of the world's largest wheat importers. GM crops are widely grown in North America, South America and China. Egypt approved the cultivation of genetically modified corn last year. --- Comment from GM Watch: Remeber how the industry-backed lobby group ISAAA claimed Egypt had become a GM gateway to Africa with its commercialisation of GM maize (corn)? Well now it turns out that in addition to GM commercialisation never actually happening (http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/11334-isaaa-gets-it-wrong-again), Egypt's now acting to make sure its GM gateway stays firmly shut. ISAAA previously declared Egypt a role model for its region; on this evidence let's hope that proves right :) _______________________ Public consultation on genetically engineered crops inadequate - extend review says Greenpeace Greenpeace Australia Pacific, 12 August 2009: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/genetic-engineering/public-consultation-on-genetic Sydney, Australia - With two days left for public submissions to the review of legislation controlling the release of genetically engineered (GE) crops in Western Australia, Greenpeace is calling for the submission period to be extended, saying it has been barely publicised. Submissions are required by close of business this Friday. Louise Sales, Genetic Engineering Campaigner with Greenpeace says: "The introduction of GE crops would dramatically change the face of agriculture in Western Australia, yet the Government has barely publicised its current review of its Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act and has given the public just four weeks to lodge submissions." In its submission to the review, Greenpeace will argue that the reasons for the introduction of The Act, and the moratorium on GE crops, are stronger than ever and that the ban should stay in place. Independent polling by Newspoll last year shows the majority of Australians are less likely to eat food if they know it contains GE ingredients. Similar attitudes exist in our key export markets Europe and Japan. During the past two years WA exports to the European Union have increased significantly, accounting for 90 per cent of exports. Canada has almost completely lost its canola exports to Europe as a result of adopting GE canola and WA stands to do the same if it allows the introduction of GE canola. The level of public concern around GE food is hardly surprising, given that there have still been no long-term studies conducted on the health impacts of eating GE food. And those studies that have been conducted in animals give cause for concern. For example, when Monsanto fed GE Roundup Ready canola to rats (the same canola that WA's agriculture minister Terry Redman proposes be grown commercially next year), they showed a 12-16% increase in liver weight (Click here for Judy Carman's summary of the health concerns regarding GE foods. Dr Carman is a former senior epidemiologist to the SA government). Greenpeace is calling for the WA Government to extend the submission period to give the public sufficient time to make their views on this important issue known. For further information or comment Vivienne Reiner, Greenpeace Media Advisor: 0432 352 132 Further information on the review and how to make a submission can be found on the WA Department of Agriculture website: http://www.agric.wa.gov.au. _______________________ Palmer Pigweed Taking Over Cotton Fields, Financially Hurting Farmers Al Tompkins Poynter Online [USA], August 12 2009: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=168248 Palmer Pigweed, a common weed found in cotton and soybean fields, was once fairly easy to control. Such fields, however, are now infested with the weed, which has become resistant to the herbicide that farmers typically use to kill it. The problem, which is adding to farmers' financial woes, started in Georgia in 2005 and later spread to Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina and other states. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS216887+05-Mar-2008+PRN20080305 The Memphis Commercial Appeal in Memphis, Tenn., said: "In Arkansas alone, the weed has invaded some 750,000 acres of crops, including half the 250,000 acres of cotton. In Tennessee, nearly 500,000 acres have some degree of infestation, with the counties bordering the Mississippi River hardest hit. "The infestation is cutting farmers' cotton yields by up to one-third and in some cases doubling or tripling their weed-control costs. "Reminiscent of the premechanized, preherbicide days when cotton was a labor-intensive operation, growers have resorted to hiring chopping crews. They're made up of laborers who generally are paid about $7.50 an hour to manually cut the weeds." This isn't just a cotton-growers problem. Every year farmers, gardeners, etc., collectively use 100 million pounds of the herbicide Roundup, which goes by the chemical name glyphosate. The chemical is often used to control weeds in lawns and fence rows. http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/aug/09/the-perfect-weed/ The Commercial Appeal went on to explain more about why weed is such a threat: "It's so prevalent that cotton, soybeans and other plants have been genetically engineered to withstand it, allowing farmers to spray the chemical quickly and easily to kill weeds without worrying about harming crops. " 'I think this threatens our way of farming more than anything I've seen in the 30-plus years I've worked in agriculture,' said Ken Smith, weed scientist with the University of Arkansas' division of agriculture. "In fact, some officials draw parallels between the pigweed resistance problem and the effects of the boll weevil infestation of cotton fields in the early 20th century. "What makes the weed such a formidable threat is its rapid growth rate -- more than an inch per day -- and the proliferation that results from a single plant producing 50,000-100,000 seeds." http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/aug/09/the-perfect-weed/ _______________________ Global food security • Some thoughts for Hilary Benn, DEFRA and FSA Dr Brian John GM-free Cymru [Wales, UK], 12 August 2009: http://www.gmfreecymru.org Hilary Benn seems to think that GM crops and foods in the future will help to feed the starving millions, and increase global food security. One wonders where he gets this idea from, and whether he is really so naive as to believe it. For a start, real global food security in the future must be linked to diversity in food supplies, the maintenance of local food production for local food consumption (reducing food miles and holding up nutritional value), a large geographical spread in food production capacity, and local food sovereignty (1). There must also be inbuilt resilience, and a capacity to adapt quickly to the manifestations of global climate change. Diversity and security of supply are linked together in the global food industry just as they are in the energy industry. A food industry which is controlled by fewer and fewer corporations, using fewer and fewer staple crops which are ill-adapted to local circumstances, in which seed saving is not permitted, in which patents are claimed and awarded for traditional crop varieties, and which is dependent upon greater and greater inputs of herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers, is neither diverse nor secure. It is simply unsustainable. And it is cynically self-serving and even monopolistic, suiting only the multinational biotechnology corporations and those countries which have adopted monocultures and the western industrialized style of agriculture. To foist GM technology on nations that do not want it, do not need it, and cannot afford it, is simply to impose a new model of biotech colonialism or corporate feudalism. The recent IAASTD Report saw all of this, and warned against it. The UK Government signed up to the Report, and yet in its mad promotion of GM, it now appears to want to consign the Report to the scrap-heap. The following points are expanded from recent submissions relating to the proposals for GM wheat. The points are just as relevant for existing and future GM food crops as well: 1. Traditional versus GM foods? Traditional food crops are vital for meeting the nutritional needs of many societies, and many of them have deep religious significance for the cultures that depend on them. The three staple crop plants (wheat, rice and maize) account for two-thirds of the diet of the world's population. Over centuries of cultivation, farmers have developed a tremendous diversity of varieties, many of which are adapted to the soil and climate conditions of certain regions of the world. These locally-bred varieties are critical to ensuring local food supplies during times of weather-related disasters, and in the future as we see the full effects of global warming. Farmers and public scientists have worked collectively with this diversity to develop varieties adapted to local conditions and suited to relevant markets. Multinational seed companies have played an insignificant role in fundamental seed development anywhere in the world. If GM varieties are introduced on a large scale across the world, and replace traditional varieties, there will be profound negative social and cultural effects, and global food security will be greatly diminished. 2. Where are the GM miracles? The remarkable achievements in plant breeding that farmers and scientists have managed over generations have not involved genetic modification or patenting. While farmers and conventional breeders continue to lead the way in innovation, there are currently no genetically engineered traits in the pipeline that promise basic agronomic improvements. Salt-tolerant and drought-tolerant GM varieties have been promised for decades, and they have still not appeared. In reality, the only GM traits for which approval has been sought are for herbicide tolerance and for the production of toxins designed to kill certain plant pests. Neither of these two traits (HT or Bt) is designed to increase yields, but to simplify crop management. In other words, GM is nothing more than a "convenience technology" designed to minimise farm labour requirements in an industrialised system of agriculture. It contributes nothing to feeding the world 3. Contamination and Control GM is a direct threat to global food security on the grounds that it can and does lead to contamination of seed varieties. More than 10 years of experience with GM crops has exposed an ongoing record of high levels of irreversible contamination through cross-pollination and inadequate GM seed and harvest handling. Coexistence is impossible. GM poses a decisive threat to organic farming, and also damages the production of literally thousands of crop varieties bred specifically for local conditions. Moreover, the introduction of GM staple crops would put the seed supply in the hands of a small number of multinational corporations, as has happened with the introduction of GM soybeans, GM maize and GM canola. During the recent food crisis, these companies used their oligopolistic positions to dramatically increase the prices of seeds and agrochemicals. Farmers planting conventional (non-GM) crops were less affected by these price increases because they were free to save seeds and had access to public varieties. Monsanto, the world's largest producer of GM seeds, increased its profits by 120% in 2008. It should also be noted that since the introduction of GM crops in 1996, the number of people going hungry in the world has ballooned from an estimated 800 million to over 1 billion. There are signs that farmers who are "trapped" into GM crop production by "technology use agreements" have reached the limit of their tolerance with Monsanto and the other seed patent owners, and now plan to increase their acreages of wheat, barley and peas, crops for which there are no GM varieties and where plant breeding is primarily in the public sector. Monsanto brutally enforces its patents on GM seeds, and those farmers who grow them seem to operate in a climate of fear rather than mutual respect. 4. Where are the yield increases? There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that GM crop varieties increase yields, and it is now established that where there are apparent yield increases, those are down to conventionally bred traits which are packaged together with GM traits. The "best" varieties are used for GM plant breeding, and their non-GM isolines are then cynically taken off the market by the corporations that own them and control the seed catalogues. Seed merchants and seed catalogues have been bought up by the biotech corporations on a large scale, and thousands of good, locally-adapted seed varieties have been wiped off the catalogues as a part of the GM promotion strategy. Consequently GM varieties developed in one environment are sold into many other environments for which they are ill-adapted; it is therefore not surprising that they under-perform. 5. High inputs, high costs Plant breeders and farmers in the West have for too long narrowly focused on economies of scale, ease of management, and higher yields. This has resulted in higher input costs and lower net income for farmers. Higher yields have come at a high cost economically, as well as environmentally, because high yielding crops tend to require more fertilizers and chemical inputs in a capital-intensive system of agriculture. Improved crop quality is more likely than bigger yields to provide higher realized net incomes for farmers. Higher quality food staples can be achieved efficiently and accessibly through conventional plant breeding, and this is where support for research needs to be concentrated. The push for high-input, high-cost GM farming as a solution to global hunger issues is patently absurd, since it takes no account of the massive income inequalities that exist across the world. Are Syngenta and Monsanto going to give their patented GM varieties away to the poor and the hungry? You must be joking........ 5. GM propaganda and scientific fraud Notwithstanding the propaganda of the biotech industry, genetic modification is a highly imprecise technology in which every breeding "success" is matched by many thousands of failures. GM crops are inadequately regulated by governments that rely on corporate data rather than public, peer reviewed science. Scientific fraud is rife. Complex questions relating to the effects of GM crops on soil health, non-target insects, and human health remain understudied and effectively "blocked" by the GM patent holders. In February 2009, 26 top US corn scientists sent a statement to the US Environmental Protection Agency asserting that independent research is being thwarted by industry technology/stewardship agreements. Researchers simply cannot obtain the GM seed and reference materials that they need for their experiments. So corporate control over seeds is matched by continued scientific uncertainty. Additionally, research has indicated very strong public rejection of GM food. Commercial GM crops have so far been limited to crops used primarily for animal feed, oil and fibre and have thus not been subjected to national labelling requirements in many countries. After almost twenty years of GM hype, there is not a single GM food crop that is cheaper, safer, tastier, more nutritious, or more popular with the public than the good old-fashioned varieties created through conventional breeding. ----------------------- So WHY does Mr Benn, and the UK government, persist with this irrational and even bizarre belief that GM has something valuable to offer? I think we probably all know the answer to that question.......... Brian John Note: (1) Food Sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food -- rather than the demands of markets and corporations -- at the heart of food systems and policies. It defends the interests and rights of generations to come. _______________________ Group faults UK's £100m support for GM crops in Africa Roseline Okere. Guardian News [Nigeria], 12 August 2009: http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/business/article02//indexn2_html?pdate=120809&ptitle=Group%20faults%20UK%27s%20%C2%A3100m%20support%20for%20GM%20crops%20in%20Africa The Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) has criticised plans by the government of the United Kingdom to spend about £100 million to support the growing of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in Africa. According to ERA, a new white paper shows that the UK government will dramatically increase spending on high-tech agriculture in the next five years, much of which will be on GM crop research. The breakdown of the funding, ERA/FoEN explained, shows that bio-fortified crops, containing so-called added vitamins, will receive £80 million of development money, while £60 million will go into researching drought-resistant maize for Africa, while pest resistance will be funded to the tune of £24 million. Reacting to the development in a statement issued in Lagos Monday, ERA/FoEN depicted the gesture as an "attempt to control, colonise and contaminate food supply under the guise of helping the Africa continent. The group added that the white paper avoids the terms "genetically modified" even when scientists and development experts were clear that much of the money would be spent on GM crops. ERA/FoEN Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey said: "It is extremely ridiculous that the British government overlooked contentious issues such as under-investment in African solutions to hunger, lack of infrastructure and extension services in rural communities and only narrowed our hunger challenge to yields and so-called vitamins. It is shocking that the British government would believe the claims of biotech industry to GMOs yield better than organic or conventional varieties at a time when empirical evidence has shown that such claims are not true." Bassey reiterated ERA's position that Africans must be allowed to determine what they want to eat as well as how and where they want it grown, explaining that, a recent report from South Africa revealed that even indigenous chickens have refused to eat GM maize. "If chickens will not eat it why should we? Do chickens have more brains than people? This unholy gesture should be an eye-opener to African governments that hobnob with the biotech industry and their allied research institutes that are only interested in providing un-African solutions to our challenges. "Time and again we have said that the true test of the sincerity of the global North in addressing the food crisis in Africa is not the thrusting of GMO foods down African throats but to sincerely and without hidden motives listen to Africans and support ecological solutions being developed on the continent. Any attempt to arm-twist African countries into accepting GMO in the guise of aid will not be accepted," Bassey warned. --- Comment from Glenn Ashton of SAFeAGE (South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering): This is neo-colonialism writ large. While UK citizens reject GM crops its government is determined to push these crops into Africa under the patriarchal guise of targeted aid. It is also notable how the neo-liberal Labour party... overtly supports the Washington consensus approach of creating vassal states amongst emerging developing nations in such a way that true independence from patented intellectual property can never be achieved. Africa must send the strongest possible message to the United Kingdom, its leaders and its people about the continued exploitation of African people. _______________________ Government 'hus-hushing' genetically modified crops review WA Today [Australia], 12 August 2009: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/government-hushushing-genetically-modified-crops-review-20090812-ei1y.html As West Australia prepares to give the tick to genetically modified crops, the government has been accused of "hush-hushing" a review of its GM policy. Greenpeace said on Wednesday the WA public had been kept in the dark about a review into the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act and called for an extension of the deadline for public submissions. Members of the public have until Friday to comment on the legislation review, after the period for submissions began on July 17. Greenpeace campaigner Louise Sales said it was obvious the government was trying to keep its policy hush-hush. "The introduction of GM crops would dramatically change the face of agriculture in Western Australia," Ms Sales said. "Yet the government has barely publicised its current review of its Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act and has given the public just four weeks to lodge submissions." Ms Sales said the introduction of GM crops in WA could cause a dramatic drop in exports, similar to what had happened in Canada. She said a Newspoll conducted last year showed a majority of Australians were less likely to eat GM food. Greenpeace said similar attitudes exist in Europe and Japan, which are major export markets for WA farmers. Details of how to make submissions are available on the website www.agric.wa.gov.au _______________________ EFSA wants to talk to GMO-critics European Biotechnology Science & Industry News, 12 August 2009: http://www.eurobiotechnews.eu/service/start-page/top-news/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=11263&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12&cHash=f347f172b9 Parma - The European Food Safety Authority EFSA invites GMO-critics, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, to a scientific discussion early in September as a reaction to a report issued by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth on the renewal of the existing authorisation for genetically modified (GM) maize MON810 in the European Union. "EFSA recognises that there are different points of view on the GM technology", it states in a press release in which it comments on the claims made in the report. EFSA says it is aware that the conclusions of the GMO Panel in its scientific opinion concerning the renewal of MON810 may not support the views of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Furthermore, the scientists note that there are "areas of scientific uncertainty" in their evaluations. But, considering all of the opinions to GMO in their totality would be the task of risk managers and not scientists. In the statement EFSA reinforces its judgement "that the likelihood of adverse effects of the cultivation of MON810 on non-target organisms, such as butterflies and other insects, is very low". Besides, all proteins either present in MON810 or found to be theoretically possible have been investigated, according to EFSA and it therefore sees no reason to raise a safety concern. EFSA's GMO Panel is made up of scientists, experts in GM risk assessment, from across Europe, who are supported by additional external experts to cover the breadth of expertise required. In addition to standard consultation with all Member States and other competent authorities, EFSA held a special meeting with Member State experts on May 26 in order to exchange views on the environmental risk assessment of GM maize MON810 in the context of the renewal application for cultivation. The cultivation was approved, but several EU Members States have since banned the cultivation of MON810 at a national level. --- Comment by GM-free Ireland: See the following:
•	Europe's food agency accused of junk science Friends of the Earth press release, 29 July 2009: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2009/Jul29_Europe%27s_food_agency_accused_junk_science.html
•	EFSA back in bed with GMO industry Friends of the Earth press release, 30 June 2009: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2009/Jun30_EFSA_back_in_bed_with_GMO.html
•	Cotter, J. & Mueller, W. 2009., A critique of the European Food Safety Authority's opinion on genetically modified maize MON810. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 05/2009. Jointly commissioned by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/documents/review-EFSA-MON810-opinion-29-07-09.pdf
•	Flaws in the EU authorisation process for GMOs Greenpeace briefing, April 2008: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/flaws-in-the-EU-authorisation.pdf
•	Environmental and health impacts of GMOs: the evidence Greenpeace briefing, May 2008: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/environmental-and-health-impac.pdf
_______________________ US crop blocked by Germany By David Leyonhjelm Business Spectator [Australia], 12 August 2009: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/article/germany-blocks-us-crop-pd20090812-utsph?opendocument&src=blb&is=agribusiness&blog=agribuzz While the rest of the world comes to terms with genetically modified crops, the countries of the EU still cling to their fears. That could soon cost them in the form of higher prices for food. Some GM crops are grown in Europe (maize, sugar beet and canola) but are strictly limited. Trial plots for new crops are regularly vandalised and several countries have blanket bans. Importing food from GM crops is easier, but there is zero tolerance of the tiniest traces of anything not approved. Recently, boatloads of soya meal from the US were rejected by German authorities due to traces of a GM maize protein. Spanish authorities have also blocked shipments. The problem is not the GM soya but the maize which is still awaiting EU approval. The contamination is understood to have come from dust within the portside stores and handling systems, making it virtually impossible to prevent. The US Grain and Feed Trade Association estimates that around 200,000 tonnes of US soya had been denied entry to the EU by mid July. Given the uncertainty, international traders have ceased all further shipments. The EU is less than 25 per cent self sufficient in protein sources for livestock feeds. The rest is imported, mainly from the US, Brazil and Argentina. However, stocks in South America are low due to a dry growing season and the extra demand is increasing prices. US soymeal exports to the EU are normally close to 500,000 tonnes. Now the European meat industry has written to the European Commission pointing out the looming cost. Their estimate - €3.5-5.0 billion. The letter calls on the Commission to adopt a pragmatic approach, advising that it is practically impossible to guarantee imported consignments are totally free from adventitious traces of other materials. It says there is no scientific basis for the zero-tolerance policy and it is not necessary in order to ensure high standards of consumer health protection. It also points to a failure in the regulatory system, which can take up to 10 years to approve a new GM import. The situation is "precipitating the European Community towards serious food and feed supply problems", it says. The issue is of particular concern to pig and poultry producers, as there are no affordable alternatives to soy meal as a source of protein. An increase in production costs of 35-45 per cent is predicted if alternatives must be used, which will certainly drive up chicken and pork prices substantially. The meat industry also predicts relocation of production to non-EU countries. _______________________ 11 August 2009 Germany: New standard GMO-free logo introduced GMO Compass, 11 August 2009: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/460.docu.html The German Minister for Agriculture, Ilse Aigner (CDU), has presented a standardised logo for food products 'without gene technology'. Improvement of the poor acceptance of the 'without gene technology' label is expected thereby. To date, only a few manufacturers have made use of this tag. Since May 2008, it has been possible in Germany to apply the label 'without gene technology' to food products. Its primary application is in the identification of foods, such as milk or meat, derived from animals for which no genetically modified plants such as maize or soy were used in feed. However, in contrast to other foodstuffs, a declaration of being 'without gene technology' also is permitted for animal-based products even in the case that vitamins, enzymes or other additives manufactured with gene technology were present in feed. The criteria are stricter for other foodstuffs: neither the application of additives obtained through genetic modification nor the accidental admixture of genetically modified plants is allowed. To date, however, products 'without gene technology' have not been broadly available. With the exception of a dairy commodity from the Campina company, the products to which this declaration has been applied generally are made by small, regional manufacturers. With the presentation of a standardised logo, Minister Aigner stated the goal of "making it easier for consumers to choose food products without gene technology in an informed manner." The minister also indicated its provision of "more freedom of choice" and its "enhancement of transparency when shopping for groceries." The new logo is expected to be made available to interested manufacturers free of charge. It remains questionable whether this step actually will lead to more goods with such a label. For many manufacturers and even for those producing organic commodities, it may be difficult to fulfil the relevant criteria for the long term. In the production of additives, enzymes and flavourings, the direct or indirect application of genetically modified organisms is widespread. In the use of plant-based raw materials, traces of genetically modified plants and particularly of soy and maize cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty, even in the case that 'gene-technology-free' raw materials were purchased. In contradiction, certain applications of gene technology are permitted in animal-based food products such as milk, eggs or meat, which is cited by representatives of the food industry as the source of a "credibility problem." Manufacturers do not use the 'without gene technology' tag for fear of losing customer trust if it were broadly known that products 'without gene technology' actually do not guarantee a general exclusion of gene technology. Notwithstanding this issue, environmental organisations and consumer groups greeted the 'without gene technology' logo. _______________________ Herbicide resistant pigweed dominates farmers' concerns at University of Arkansas research field day University of Arkansas [USA], 11 August 2009 [shortened]: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2009/august/27121.htm KEISER, Arkansas, USA - Farmers, agricultural consultants and county agents who turned out for a field day at the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture's Northeast Research and Extension Center all had at least one question in common: what to do about herbicide resistant pigweed? Ken Smith, extension weed scientist at the Division of Agriculture's Southeast Research and Extension Center in Monticello, said that eight years ago, morning glory was the problem weed on every grower's mind. Today, "herbicide-resistant pigweed has choked out the morning glory," he said. Smith discusses the problem and management of herbicide resistant pigweed in a Division of Agriculture Web video: http://aaes.uark.edu/nerec_video.html The growing problem is glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth, known best to farmers as Roundup resistant pigweed. First confirmed in Mississippi County in 2005, Smith said, the problematic weed has spread to most of the counties in eastern Arkansas. Research technician Ryan Doherty said glyphosate resistant pigweed has been confirmed in 21 counties throughout the state. A research location has been established to study control programs in a field situation. Research on those plots is revealing the nature of the resistance and helping to develop management strategies. Doherty said the most resistant pigweed population identified by division scientists was found in Lincoln County. "The farmer had already put two 22-ounce applications of Roundup on that field before he called us," Doherty said. "We put on another 44-ounce application of Roundup and it didn't hurt it at all." Even another application of 128 ounces of Roundup did not kill the pigweed biotype found in that field. Doherty said all those plants probably came from a single female plant. Smith said division scientists confirmed this month that there are two distinct patterns of distribution in Arkansas from pigweed plants with two different mechanisms of tolerance. In one pattern, called segregated, the herbicide resistant plants are scattered throughout the field randomly among plants that are not resistant. Spraying these fields with glyphosate kills about 80 percent of the pigweed. The remaining plants are scattered randomly throughout the field. Smith cautioned that resistance is creeping up in these pigweed populations; 80 percent may be killed this year, but next year it may be only 70 percent. Smith calls the second pattern non-segregated. In these fields, the resistant plants are clustered tightly together and glyphosate herbicide does not kill any of them. "All the offspring of these plants have high levels of resistance," he said. "When you see these," Smith advised, "Do whatever you have to do to take them out." Smith said Division of Agriculture scientists had devised a number of strategies to control glyphosate resistant pigweed, most involving a combination of different herbicides beginning with a preplant application. Roundup is still a valuable weed control product, he said, because it controls more than 100 other weeds. But it will have to be part of a new program for weed control. "There is no prescription that works in every cotton or soybean field," Smith said. "But in any program, soil residual herbicides are going to be essential for controlling these pests." Smith said farmers should overlap soil residual applications to keep them on the field all the time. He recommended scouting for pigweed at the same time growers would be scouting for insects. Catching and killing pigweed before it matures and goes to seed is important in controlling the spread of the weed. Agricultural economist Bob Stark said glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth is the main economic concern among all herbicide resistant weeds. _______________________ German government presents new logo for GM-free produce Deutsche Welle, 11 August 2009: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4556560,00.html The German government has presented a new logo which will adorn the packages of food stuffs that are not genetically modified, but questions remain about whether it will really help consumers. The German government has promoted the new "no GM" logo as a way for German consumers to know whether they are buying genetically modified produce or not. Germany's minister for agriculture, food, and consumer protection, Ilse Aigner of the Christian Social Union, presented the new logo, saying that any food or drinks without a trace of genetically modified ingredients would be allowed to carry it. The agriculture ministry says the logo is likely to come into use later this year. However, before the new symbol can be used, an organization needs to be formed within the industry that ascertains which products qualify to carry the logo. Aigner also said that any company that used the logo without permission or in a misleading way would face fines and possibly product withdrawals from supermarkets until the packaging was corrected. Carrying the logo would not mean that the foodstuffs were free of pesticides or other chemicals. German producers have been allowed to label their food as free of genetically modified ingredients for some time, however, there was no standardized logo. _______________________ Same old false solutions and short-sighted North American vision from Guadalajara summit, say Canadian civil society organizations The Council of Canadians, 11 August 2009: http://www.canadians.org/media/DI/2009/11-Aug-09.html Guadalajara , Mexico - North American governments cannot adequately address climate change, the economic crisis or food safety without reconsidering the fundamentals of the NAFTA trading model, say Canadian civil society organizations in Mexico for a counter-summit on the failures of NAFTA and its extension through the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership. "Leaders cannot meaningfully talk about Mexican migration or refugee applications, let alone the current economic crisis or greenhouse gas reductions, without bumping straight into the reality that NAFTA has failed to produce real security or prosperity for the people of this continent," says Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians. "North Americans deserve more than platitudes about fighting protectionism from their leaders. We badly need an open, societal dialogue on whether the 'free trade' model is in fact a barrier to job creation, environmental protection and public safety." Before he was elected U.S. President, Barack Obama promised he would renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico to strengthen labour and environmental rules currently enforced (or not) by toothless side commissions. He also promised to bring hold more transparent North American leaders' summits. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summits under former president Bush were notoriously secretive and inclusive only of corporate input, which begged the question "Security and Prosperity for Whom?" "The fact that our leaders have dropped the name 'Security and Prosperity Partnership' is a limited victory for civil society opposition in al three countries to the NAFTA-plus economic and security integration agenda," says Trew. "But North American leaders are clearly perpetuating the same SPP priorities of beefed up security, reliance on dirty fossil fuels and integrated energy markets, and promises to harmonize regulations across borders." As an example of the SPP regulatory agenda in action, we recently learned that Health Canada had approved a new Monsanto/Dow Agrosciences genetically modified eight-trait corn - SmartStax - without performing any tests for human safety. Canada places regulatory harmonization with U.S. policies ahead of health and environmental concerns. Both Trew and John Dillon of Common Frontiers participated in a counter-summit and rally in Guadalajara that attracted 1,000 people. They note that Prime Minister Harper is highly unpopular in Mexico for the decision to require visas on all Mexican travelers to Canada, which completely ignores the legitimate human rights crisis that has been created by the militarization of drug enforcement and its accompanying 11,000 murders over the past two years. "Throwing money at the Mexican army for its fight with the cartels is counter-productive and has actually led to more violence, which in turn leads to more people fleeing the country," says Dillon. "Harper should immediately withdraw the visa requirement and, while he's at it, take a harder look at how each year 'free trade' in agricultural products from the U.S. forces tens of thousands of farmers off their land, and looking for better lives north of the border." Trew further notes that Prime Minister Harper's proposal for President Obama that provinces, states and municipalities should be bound by NAFTA's restrictions on procurement conditions, such as "Buy American" requirements, cannot possibly improve economic conditions in either country. "The right and duty of state, provincial and municipal governments to occasionally chose a local or national company when spending public tax money on infrastructure and other major projects is a crucial tool for local economic and social development," he says. "The fact that eliminating that right is the only concrete proposal Harper brought to Mexico is proof of how bankrupt of real solutions these North American summits truly are." For More Information: Stuart Trew, Trade Campaigner, Council of Canadians (in Guadalajara): 647-222-9782 _______________________ Ask Umbra on corn plastic Grist [USA], 11 August 2009: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-12-ask-umbra-truth-corn-plastic/ Q. Dear Umbra, I've been noticing lately a lot of "green" businesses and restaurants in my area using compostable plastics, usually made of corn, if I recall correctly. I can't compost (I know, I know, but I live in a tiny apartment on the third floor with no porch or yard), and I was wondering if you could tell us any more about this plastic. Should I recycle it, or throw it away? What to do? Becky B. Jamaica Plain, Mass. A. Dearest Becky, Does anyone find pictures of food appetizing? Right now I'm looking at a picture of some artistically arranged marinated olives in a bio-plastic deli container. I love olives. These are just repulsive. Perhaps the key to weight loss is photos of food. I have a bit of scandale for you with these compostable plastic containers. The clear plastic #7 (which really just means "other") cups and deli containers are made with PLA, which is usually a corn derivative but could also come from cane sugar. I was all ready to dork out on the science of PLA, polylactic acid, but then I read this: "Instead, lactic acid is oligomerized and then catalytically dimerized to make the cyclic lactide monomer." The weather is too nice to spend time unraveling those polymers. Suffice to say they bacterially ferment the corn, then do all sorts of other stuff to stabilize it and turn it into a plastic. They can then make cups, fabrics, upholstery [http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2328]... but who are "they"? PLA is manufactured by agribiz giant Cargill at a plant in Blair, Nebraska. Cargill is a major player in the genetically modified corn market, is apparently the world's largest grain handler, and operates its PLA product division under the name NatureWorks [http://www.natureworksllc.com/About-NatureWorks-LLC.aspx]. The long and short of it is that this "green" plastic is made from GMO corn by one of the largest private companies in the United States, one with a terrible track record on environmental issues. Here is a useful overview of the Cargill-corn plastic connection that our own Tom Philpott penned a few years back [http://www.grist.org/article/industrial-corn-the-way-forward]. There are actual mini-scandals regarding Cargill and PLA, such as them trying to make a partnership with Patagonia for a PLA fleece [http://www.patagonia.com/web/eu/patagonia.go?slc=en_GB&sct=GB&&assetid=9090]. Somehow they neglected to mention the GMO corn behind the whole product. So when we use these cups, we are supporting GMO crops and industrial ag. And we are not necessarily creating less waste; yes, the cups are biodegradable, but only in commercial composting facilities or other composts that reach 150 degrees with 90 percent humidity. So even if you composted in your apartment-which you could! [http://www.grist.org/article/bin-there-dung-that/] - you likely would not have the right conditions. And there are problems with recycling corn plastic too [http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/10/pla_corn_plastic_problems.html] - check with your friendly JP recyclers to see what they prefer. In the end, these cups can be equal to some products made from oil-based plastic: you just throw them out. The only lifecycle assessment I could find was obviously pro-Cargill, so I can't say how much petroleum it takes to make them. But I can say that products from conventional corn, a petroleum-intensive crop, are not the magic bullet. The magic bullet is to bring your own cup [http://www.grist.org/article/mugs/] (on your bike [http://www.grist.org/article/espresso-express/], of course). Polylactically, Umbra _______________________ Jon Carapiet: AgResearch proposals tantamount to economic suicide The New Zealand Herald, 11 August 2009: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10589929 The recent opinion piece by Federated Farmers' John Hartnell painted an inaccurate picture of concerns about genetic modification. It also failed to appreciate why it is vital for New Zealand to protect its genetic modification-free production system. The Northland and Auckland local body councils' collaborative community consultation on GM is not "outside the role of local government" but a response to community concerns that central governments are failing to address the risks of genetically modified organism land use and provide a strict liability regime. If the millions spent on the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification are not to have been wasted, Federated Farmers must stop interpreting the commission's recommendation "to preserve opportunities" as a green light for the release of such modified organisms for primary production. On the contrary, New Zealand can benefit much more from using non-genetically modified DNA technology and confining the risky and inaccurate science of genetic modification to the laboratory. Marker Assisted Breeding (MAS) is one advanced non-GM technique used to identify naturally occurring genes and accelerate traditional breeding, without the risks of genetic modification. Zespri has successfully demonstrated this by developing new kiwifruit varieties that are all GM-free and meet the expectations of customers worldwide. It is their vision that properly reflects global food trends towards safe, clean, sustainable production, and that will benefit New Zealand for decades to come. Important recommendations of the royal commission have been sidelined with the Government's refusal to establish a Biotechnology Commissioner and the quiet axing of the Bioethics Council. Most alarmingly, the royal commission recommended against using food animals as bioreactors for pharmaceuticals - precisely what AgResearch proposes as it applies for importation of genetically modified embryos, creation of arthritic horses as models of human disease and commercialisation of a range of species anywhere, indefinitely. Recent surveys show 70 per cent of New Zealanders are strongly opposed to genetically modified animals. Quite apart from the deformities and animal suffering from cloning, there are risks from AgResearch partnering with overseas biotechnology companies whose financial viability is in doubt. Weighed against the billion-dollar asset our clean, green brand represents, AgResearch's proposals are tantamount to economic suicide. AgResearch has failed to learn the lessons of the past, denying any knowledge of the financial collapse of Scottish company PPL whose 3000 genetically modified sheep were destroyed after its failed clinical trials, with no money for scientific tests or clean-up of the land. New Zealand stands to lose its billion-dollar reputation as clean, green and GM-free from such ventures. Even Federated Farmers realises the marketing benefits of a GM-free New Zealand. In its battle with British butter producers Federated Farmers invited Johnny Rotten - frontman for the competitor's campaign - to visit New Zealand because "grazing outdoors on GM-free grass and natural winter feed makes for happy cows and fantastic quality milk". For the good of its membership Federated Farmers should be supporting local government, not criticising it. We must protect our brand so that just having New Zealand as its country of origin adds value to any product. There should be no such thing as a commodity from clean, green, GM-free New Zealand. If there is a strategic asset worthy of legal protection, it is this. The Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) are failing to perform, having allowed conditions of GM field trials to be breached. More significant problems from commercialising genetic modification are an inevitability that New Zealand cannot afford. New Zealand's Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) requires no bond or proof of financial fitness from companies seeking to exploit our animals and land. Nor is insurance required as a way to moderate extreme risk-taking. The Australian Insurance Council has refused insurance on genetic modification because, like the harm caused by asbestos, it could take decades to emerge. This dismal prospect for GM foods is supported by warnings from European scientists and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine that GM foods should be avoided. We should also listen to Canadian farmers, whose experience with GM crops has prompted them to roundly reject the latest push to unleash GM wheat on to the world. But New Zealand's role at international forums, including supporting GM wheat and Terminator seeds, shows our Government's drive for free trade in itself puts our brand at risk. Such policy steers us on a collision course with the right to know where food comes from, labelling of GM ingredients, establishing New Zealand agriculture as a GM-free zone and protecting the integrity of our environment and food system. We must never forget that the consumer is king and overseas markets are seeking precisely what Brand New Zealand can offer. We must take the opportunity to find a middle path for genetic modification within an ethical biotechnology strategy that respects our brand and community values. Jon Carapiet is spokesman for GE-Free NZ (in food and environment). _______________________ Questions of real national security Pushpa M. Bhagava. The Hindu [India], 11 August 2009: http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/11/stories/2009081155790800.htm Policies with regard to agriculture, education and health need to change in order to ensure a meaningful and wide-ranging security for this country. The arms business is probably the second largest business in the world after the food business. It is, therefore, not surprising that we consider national security to be just what the defence and allied services provide the country. But there could not be a greater illusion than that. With all the weapons in the world, we must not consider ourselves secure unless we have agriculture security (which is synonymous with food security, farmers' security and rural sector security), education security, and health security. If India were secure on these fronts, there would have been no so-called left-wing extremism affecting a quarter of the districts: in many areas the government's writ does not seem to run now. We waived farmers' loans, but did we take steps to empower them so that they do not need to take any more loans? What we did was for political gain. For what we did not do, the explanation is that we pay only lip service to farmers' security. Agriculture security concerns seeds, agro-chemicals, water, power and soil. It involves the marriage of traditional and modern agricultural practices; the de facto empowerment of panchayats and women; the marketing of agro-products at fair prices. Such security requires the provision of sources of augmentation of income to agriculturists and village-dwellers through the development of traditional arts and crafts, medicinal plants, and the unparalleled repertoire of fruits and vegetables. Also involved here are organic farming; the use of post-harvest technologies; orchid tissue culture (for example, Arunachal Pradesh has 650 varieties of orchids which, if exploited, can bring the State an income of Rs.10,000 crore a year), mushroom culture, and the appropriate use of fisheries and marine wealth. Other elements include intelligent energy use; the empowerment of the rural sector with knowledge; microcredit; the integration of rural and urban sectors; appropriate research such as on organic farming, bio-pesticides, and the development of varieties with all the advantages of hybrids, that would benefit India: research that is being encouraged under the Indo-U.S. Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture would be of greater use to the U.S. The integration of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme with carefully thought-out developmental plans; prevention and management of disasters such as floods and famine and the cleaning up of land records are also not to be forgotten. Then come a system to prevent, detect and take care of bio-terrorism against agriculture. Emerging new and exotic diseases of plants and animals need to be tackled by setting up centres of plant and animal disease control. Climate change has to be addressed, bearing in mind the fact that a one-degree rise of temperature can bring down the production of wheat by 5 million tonnes. None of the above constituents of agriculture security has been adequately taken care of. If a power from outside India wishes to control this country's destiny today, it is not going to drop a nuclear bomb: it only has to control Indian agriculture. And to do that, it needs to control just seed and agro-chemicals production. The Indian government is not cognizant of this: otherwise, more than 30 per cent of the country's seed business today would not have been under the control of multinational seed companies. Indeed, a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops would have been declared until preparations were made to test them adequately. [Article continues at: http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/11/stories/2009081155790800.htm] _______________________ Speak up on science issues before it's too late • More public engagement on bioethics will help build better safeguards By Chang Ai-Lien, Science Correspondent. The Straits Times [Singapore], 11 August 2009: http://meltwaternews.com/prerobot/sph.asp?pub=ST&sphurl=www.straitstimes.com//Prime%2BNews/Story/STIStory_415122.html MAN is on the verge of playing God. Last year, scientist Craig Venter's team cooked up and stitched together over half a million chemical letters spelling out the genetic code of the Mycoplasma genitalium bacterium. Primitive goop didn't quite crawl out of the petri dish, but Dr Venter was just a breath away from saying: 'Let there be life'. What was left was to insert this synthetic DNA into a cell and boot it up, and the first artificial life-form would have come into being. We are living in a time where much of science is no longer distinguishable from what once would have been thought of as fiction: plants that can be injected with animal genes, bunnies that can glow green with the fluorescence of jellyfish, animals that can be cloned from a skin cell, and so on. Now, more than ever, we must be responsible for what we create. We need to know what scientists do, so that we can have a say in decision-making in the life sciences from the beginning. Leave these decisions to us, say some scientists. Many of them believe your regular Joe knows little, and cares less, about science. Therefore, what research to do and how it should be conducted should be left to the experts. That would be a mistake. When scientists are given free reign, they are as likely as anyone else to cross lines. Take the case of South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, who faked the cloning research that made him world famous and put his country at the forefront of the field. Tax-payers were cheated of millions of dollars to pay for his work. But it is not just money that is at stake. People need to know about science because it has permeated almost every aspect of their lives, from the microchip to the hardy rice crop to the H1N1 vaccine. They should know what goes into the products they use; and their concerns over risky or potentially unethical research should be answered from the outset. The public has already shown how it can be a powerful force. A not-so-silent majority has pulled the plug on some very promising research, forcing the scientific community to learn the hard way that public engagement is non-negotiable. Genetically modified crops, for example, have been widely rejected by British and European consumers because of the bad press they have received and because companies developing such technology didn't see the need to explain their work. The public rejected genetically modified crops despite there being no evidence of a health hazard, and though the potential of these super-crops to alleviate the world's food woes is considerable. Lay people can make or break research in other ways too. For instance, they are needed as volunteers in trials, to donate tissue and to give information. Without trust or belief in the benefits of research, people would shrink from giving blood samples, revealing private medical details or testing new drugs. Biomedical enquiry would grind to a halt if the public didn't cooperate. But where the public elsewhere in the developed world has found its voice, Singaporeans have by and large chosen to remain silent on research in the life sciences. That, however, does not mean that they cooperate willingly with scientists. Scientists have found it difficult to get research volunteers here - even to fill out questionnaires. While it is routine for nine in 10 Scandinavians to volunteer themselves for research, the participation figure here has often floundered at a dismal 50 per cent. The lack of volunteers has held back critical research and, in some cases, put key projects at risk. People just don't seem to care enough. The authorities here have tried to bridge the gap between research that may be analytically sound but publicly unacceptable. They have facilitated extensive consultations before deciding where to draw the line. Stem cell research and cloning were some of the controversial areas on which feedback was received from religious groups, experts, and the general public before the Republic's Bioethics Advisory Committee weighed in. Surveys have shown, however, that over nine in 10 people here do not understand the science or the issues involved in these matters, and prefer to leave the decisions to the Government. They do sit up when things go wrong, though. In 2003, when then National Neuroscience Institute chief Simon Shorvon was sacked for putting Parkinson's disease patients through tests without their informed consent, many readers wrote to the press to criticise him. That same year, there was a similar outcry when a string of lapses at an Environmental Health Institute laboratory led to a researcher contracting Sars. But raising objections after an incident has occurred is a case of too little, too late. How much better it would be if our voices were heard in moulding the regulatory process, discussing safeguards that should be in place to prevent lapses, and so on. The authorities are attempting to go upstream by putting bioethics on Singapore's radar, through lectures, exhibitions, and quizzes and competitions at schools. But the public would do well to do its homework too. If not, people cannot really have a say if they are uncomfortable with their genomes being decoded, or unhappy if their genetic predispositions to particular diseases were made available to insurance companies. You have got to show up before the rules are set in stone; you've got to show up having done your homework; you've got to show up in time. Otherwise, you may discover that when larger issues force themselves into play, it may too late to alter the trajectories of technology. By then, the gears may have been set in motion, and there will be no time left for debate. ailien@sph.com.sg _______________________ Call for More Imports of GM Feed Ingredients into EU The Pig Site [UK], 11 August 2009: http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/21770/call-for-more-imports-of-gm-feed-ingredients-into-eu UK - Ministers and farmers say that imports of genetically modified (GM) imports should be increased. To overcome the dilemma of dwindling global supplies on non-GM feed ingredients and the EU ban on growing GM varieties, the permitted maximum GM ingredient level in the EU may be raised. More GM crops used to feed pigs, poultry and dairy cattle could be imported into Britain to meet the demand for animal feed, according to The Times. Ministers are pressing the European Commission to speed up approval of GM crop varieties or risk a collapse in the market for home-produced chicken, eggs, pork and milk. Farmers have warned that unless they can feed their pigs and poultry on GM soya and maize varieties being grown in North and South America - but which are currently unlicensed for use in Europe - they may be forced to leave the industry. However, a shake-up in the licensing process could take years to achieve, so one option under discussion at the Commission is to allow farmers to use non-authorised GM crop varieties with a maximum threshold of GM level of 0.5 per cent or 0.9 per cent, as an interim measure. The move could apply to 30 GM crop varieties that have passed the EU's scientific tests on health and safety but which still await political approval for use within the EU. The threat to British farming from the restrictions on GM crop varieties in the European Union was underlined in a consultation paper on the nation's future food security, published yesterday. The Times report continues that the document also put forward a possible return to wartime rations and even a vegetarian diet in the event of new food shortages or international events that forced Britain to provide enough food to feed the nation. Improvements to diet and efforts to reduce food waste that ends up in landfill sites and contributes to the country's carbon emissions are also discussed. A move to persuade supermarkets to offer half-price goods instead of 'Buy one Get one Free' promotions is proposed to cut waste and to help to tackle the country's obesity crisis. However, it is the potential collapse of Britain's £6.8 billion a year livestock sector, which relies on imports of GM soya to feed animals, that makes for chilling reading. Pigs and poultry, and to a lesser extent dairy cattle, need soya, GM and conventional crops to provide the necessary protein in their diet. The climate in Britain and most of the EU is not hot enough to grow soya. Growers across the Atlantic are increasingly using new GM varieties, which have yet to receive formal clearance in Brussels, to boost yields. Many have already dropped the EU as an export market and prefer instead to meet the demand for soya and maize in the burgeoning economies of China and India, where people are eating more meat and poultry. Shipping companies that transport grain to the EU are also now increasingly wary of accepting grain cargos, fearing hefty costs if any crop is contaminated with a non-approved GM variety. This has led farming organisations to raise fears that the trade may be halted altogether. In the EU, any product containing an unlicensed GM crop variety is illegal and must be removed from sale. Cargos are tested by EU officials at ports and any crop found with GM material must be destroyed or returned to the exporting country. Shippers have already raised transportation charges to cover the risks. Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, is urging Brussels to accept a speedier GM authorisation process but has not yet agreed a position on a GM threshold in unlicensed crop varieties. Mr Benn said: "If GM can make a contribution then we have a choice as a society and as a world about whether to make use of that technology, and an increasing number of countries are growing GM products." The issue is expected to be on the EU agenda in the autumn, concludes the article in The Times. _______________________ GM crops set for role in Britain's food revolution • Environment Secretary says new techniques will help increase production By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent The Independent [UK], 11 August 2009: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/gm-crops-set-for-role-in-britains-food-revolution-1770272.html Ministers left open the door for the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops yesterday as part of a new green revolution to transform food production. Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, declined to rule out commercial GM planting in Britain as he stressed that new scientific techniques were needed to raise crop yields and ensure future generations could eat. His department published a food security assessment yesterday, warning that climate change, water and energy scarcity and low fish stocks were likely to place strains on the global food system that Britain could not ignore. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the UK would "play a full part" in hitting a UN target of raising food production by 70 per cent by 2050 to feed a projected global population of nine billion. Friends of the Earth and other green groups suspect the Government may see food security as an opportunity to introduce GM crops, which have so far proved unpopular with the public. None are currently grown commercially here despite large-scale farm trials between 1999 and 2003. In 2004, ministers denied permission for GM beet and oilseed rape because they lessened food for farmland birds, while a herbicide-resistant maize they approved was later abandoned by its manufacturer. Proponents of GM crops say they have the potential to raise yields dramatically by making crops resistant to drought, herbicides and pesticides. However, they have been fiercely opposed by environmentalists who say higher yields have not been proven and fear they could cause uncontrollable damage to animals and other plants. Asked whether GM crops were part of the solution to what he called "a new green revolution," Mr Benn said that farmers would decide what to grow but stressed the importance of new techniques. "If GM can make a contribution, then we have a choice as a society and as a world about whether to make use of that technology - and an increasing number of countries are growing GM products," he told the BBC Today programme. "And the truth is we will need to think about the way in which we produce our food... because one thing is certain: with a growing population, the world is going to need a lot of farmers and a lot of agricultural production in the years ahead." As a result of public opposition, no major British supermarket stocks own-brand products with GM ingredients, although non-GM ingredients are becoming increasingly expensive because the US produces so many GM crops. The Government will publish its plans for inceasing production this Autumn. In a draft document, Food Matters: One Year On, Defra said the Food Standards Agency would "take forward a programme of consumer engagements on genetic modification over the next 12 months." The section was omitted from the published version. "Every time the UK gets the opportunity to vote on GM at European level, it votes in favour. We h